Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88145 Case Number: LCR11895 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: HOSPITAL JOINT SERVICES BOARD - and - LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICE UNION |
Claim, on behalf of one individual for the restoration of certain payments.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties and noting the present mutually acknowledged position held
by the claimant, recommends that the commitment entered into by
both parties in regard to car and telephone allowances should be
restored retrospectively and continued until an agreed solution be
found to the overall issue.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88145 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11895
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: HOSPITAL JOINT SERVICES BOARD
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim, on behalf of one individual for the restoration of
certain payments.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claimant has held the post of Chief Executive Officer
(C.E.O.) of the Hospital Joint Services Board since 1971. In
August, 1985 the Minister for Health appointed a Management
Consultant to oversee the Hospital Joint Services Board because of
difficulties being experienced at the time. As a consequence of
this the C.E.O. went on extended paid leave which has continued to
date. He was in receipt of payments in respect of travel and
telephone up until 1st April, 1986. This amounted to
approximately £320 per month in respect of travel plus payment of
his telephone bill (less an amount for private calls). The Union
sought the retention of these payments but the Board was not
agreeable. The matter was referred to the Labour Court on 9th
February, 1988, under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. A Court hearing took place on 16th May, 1988. Prior
to the hearing the Union agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. While the claimant continues to be C.E.O. of the Hospital
Joint Services Board and does not consent to a change, he has
a contractual entitlement to the payments in question. He is
still required to have a car and a telephone.
2. The Union considers that these payments constitute
allowances and that they should be restored with full
retrospection.
3. 3. In 1979 the Devlin Review Body, in considering the salary
of this and related posts, proposed, in addition to a salary
revision, the provision of a car. The claimant opted to
retain his arguably less favourable position of receiving an
allowance.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The payment in question were expenses rather than
allowances. Payment of expenses arises only when such
expenses have been incurred on behalf of the Board.
2. The claimant has not incurred any expenses in respect of
travel or telephone on behalf of the Board since August, 1985.
He is not therefore entitled to claim expenses from the Board.
3. Should authorised expenses be incurred in the future by
the claimant these would be refunded. In view of this, the
claim should be rejected as it defies logic to pay expenses
when they are not incurred.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties and noting the present mutually acknowledged position held
by the claimant, recommends that the commitment entered into by
both parties in regard to car and telephone allowances should be
restored retrospectively and continued until an agreed solution be
found to the overall issue.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Nicholas Fitzgerald
___14th___June,____1988. _______________________
A. K. / M. F. Deputy Chairman