Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88344 Case Number: LCR11923 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ACOT - and - FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim on behalf of 32 Agricultural Development Officers for payment of travelling expenses in 1986.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, has noted that the travelling expenses claimed were
vouched as being properly incurred in carrying out the duties
under the Programme. In such circumstances the Court recommends
that the outstanding amounts be paid.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88344 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11923
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ACOT
and
FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of 32 Agricultural Development Officers for
payment of travelling expenses in 1986.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1986, the Council, due to its financial position, reduced
its budget by 10%. A total of seventy six advisers exceeded their
travel allocation in 1986. Following discussions the Council
decided to make a payment up to a maximum amount of £200 (from the
1987 budget) to each of these advisers. Arising from this the
claims of forty four advisers who had exceeded their travel
budgets by £200 or less were settled and thirty two remained with
outstanding travel claims (total amount of £10,000). Further
local discussions were held at which agreement could not be
reached and on 17th February, 1988, the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 25th April, 1988, at which agreement could
not be reached and on 9th May, 1988, the matter was referred to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 9th June, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The programme of work formulated by the Council for 1986
did not make adequate provision for travel and subsistence.
A general circular was issued in March, 1986, regarding the
non-availability of extra travel and subsistence allowances.
Following this, however, the Council continued to press the
advisers to complete the agreed programme. This matter was
raised with the Council on a number of occasions and the
Council conceded that where advisers incurred legitimate
expenses in the course of their work it would be obliged to
pay the expenses even if they were in excess of the original
allocation. The workload of the advisers was increased as
the Summer of 1986 was one of the worst in history and this
necessitated extra unforeseen travel.
2. The custom and practice over the years has been that
those advisers who overspent in their allocation were
compensated at the end of each year if the expenses incurred
were legitimate. The advisers concerned in this case had
their weekly diaries signed and certified by management
that the work carried out was legitimate and part of the
agreed programme of work. In the circumstances, the advisers
would normally have expected the Council to honour its
commitment and pay the expenses incurred. Such a commitment
was honoured in 1986 in all areas except the Western Region
and South Tipperary.
3. The advisers in the areas concerned continued to travel
over budget due to verbal urging from management to complete
the year's programmes and some advisers were issued with
written urgent reminders to complete this work (details
supplied to the Court). Management would have been aware
that this would result in the advisers concerned exceeding
their travel allocation. In addition, the managers had
access to the advisers diaries on a weekly basis which showed
that they were continuing to travel in excess of the
allocation and allowed the advisers to do so.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In 1985 advisers who exceeded their travel budgets were
paid due to other savings within the relevant
regional/county travel budget. However, in January, 1986,
the advisers were warned that this might not be possible in
1986, and in March, 1986, they were further informed that in
view of the tight budgetary situation the travel allocation
should not be exceeded (details supplied to the Court). In
addition, in September, 1986, the advisers were sent
quarterly updates on their travel budget which allowed them
to take appropriate action to keep within their travel
allocation.
2. As written notifications were sent to the advisers
throughout the year to the effect that there would be no
possibility of any increase in travel allocations due to the
Council's serious financial difficulties, the advisers were
aware that prior authorisation was necessary for any travel
in excess of their travel allocation. Such authorisation was
not given.
3. The Council cannot accept that those advisers who
exceeded the travel allocation by more than £200, had
exercised the necessary responsibility in managing the travel
allocation or could reasonably have expected payment for such
travel. The majority of advisers managed their budget in a
prudent manner and completed their programmes of work within
the travel allocation.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, has noted that the travelling expenses claimed were
vouched as being properly incurred in carrying out the duties
under the Programme. In such circumstances the Court recommends
that the outstanding amounts be paid.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
29th June, 1988 Nicholas Fitzgerald
U.M./P.W. Deputy Chairman