Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89315 Case Number: LCR12522 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MEATH COUNTY COUNCIL - and - FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim by the Union on behalf of water and sewerage caretakers for travel allowances in line with existing public sector rates.
Recommendation:
1989
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89315 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12522
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MEATH COUNTY COUNCIL
AND
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of water and sewerage caretakers
for travel allowances in line with existing public sector rates.
BACKGROUND:
2. Caretakers employed by the Council are obliged to travel, on
an irregular basis, in connection with their work on water and
sewerage schemes. Travel allowances were first introduced in
1970 and in 1982, the Council introduced a system of travel
allowances whereby the caretakers each receive a fixed weekly
amount, subject to periodic review. The amounts vary from
individual to individual and currently range from #12 to #40 a
week. The Union is claiming a mileage allowance for each mile
travelled in accordance with the mileage rates paid to other
Council officials. The claim became the subject of a Labour Court
hearing on 22nd May, 1987. The Court recommended (LCR 11212
refers) as follows:-
" The Court is not satisfied that sufficient
negotiations have taken place between the parties as
to how the assessment of mileage was arrived at in
calculating the allowances. The Court recommends,
accordingly that the parties should immediately
discuss this claim further with a view to reaching
agreement in the matter. Should agreement not be
reached within a month of the date of this
recommendation the parties can return to the Court."
3. Detailed discussions took place between the parties during
August and September, 1987. Because any increase in allowances
required the sanction of the Department of the Environment the
Council were not in a position to make any offer until April 1988,
when the following offer was made:-
Increase of 7.75% to 12 caretakers, plus
Increase in excess of 7.75% to 5 caretakers in recognition
of the fact that their existing allowances were out of line
with other caretakers.
The offer was rejected by the Union and on 7th March, 1989, the
dispute was referred back to the Labour Court. The Court
investigated the dispute on 27th June, 1989, in Navan.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Council have said that the existing mileage allowance
is based on the conversion of annual mileage (a journal of
daily mileage is kept), to average weekly mileage. The
Council have also stated that in some cases they pay the 30p
per mile that applies in the public sector, yet the situation
still exists where caretakers are getting paid far less. For
example, one caretaker travels 200-250 miles per week. For
this he receives a flat allowance of #40. If he were to be
paid at 30p per mile he would receive up to #65. This leaves
the caretaker with a loss of up to #25 per week. This places
an impossible burden on a caretaker if he is to carry out his
work in a diligent and conscientious manner.
2. The caretakers rejected the Council's offer of April,
1988, on the basis that they wished to be paid for mileage
travelled, as this is regarded as the only equitable way of
paying a mileage allowance.
3. The Council have argued that its financial difficulties
should be taken into account. The Union believes the Council
is over its difficulties as all temporary workers have been
re-instated and quite a lot of work is commencing in the Meath
area. It should also be borne in mind that the Council have
received a fair allocation of funds from the Government and
have achieved their target of collecting all revenue due in
relation to water charges.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The broad principles of the travelling allowance appears
acceptable to the caretakers. It also appears to the Council
that a number of caretakers are satisfied with the level of
the allowance. Some dissatisfaction does arise as a result of
the fact that each caretaker receives a different allowance
because no two caretakers are alike in relation to travelling
obligations. The Council has attempted to ensure that all
caretakers are dealt with on a comparable basis.
2. Some caretakers have made detailed claims setting out a
log of every mile for which a car is used in the course of
employment. However, the principle of travelling allowances
is that the allowance is based on journeys for which a car is
essential. Travelling from home to work would not be
allowable. Detailed claims and the Council's assessment of
travelling allowances differ because of these factors.
3. The Union has also sought an increase in the percentage
offer of 7.75%. The Council has consistently reviewed
travelling allowances over a period of 10 years in line with
the percentage increases in public service mileage rates. The
allowances have been updated to the 1st January, 1985, which
is the last date on which public service mileage rates were
fixed. Any increase over the percentage of 7.75% offered
would disturb the long standing relationship which exists
between the public service rates and travelling allowances.
The Council feels that its offer in this case is fair and
reasonable.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
and taking into account the historical background to the claim,
recommends:-
(a) the Union accept the Council offer of 9th
February, 1989, for the period ending 31st
December, 1988, and
(b) the Council pay the claimants at the Grade A scale
for miles travelled in the course of their
official duties with effect from 1st January,
1989.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___21st___August,___1989. ___________________
B. O'N. / M. F. Deputy Chairman