Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89460 Case Number: LCR12524 Section / Act: S67 Parties: W & T AVERY LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Claim on behalf of 15 workers for an increase in subsistence allowance known as out allowance.
Recommendation:
9. The Court recommends that pending a re-negotiation of the
current formula the claimants should have the allowances adjusted
by the formula in respect of 1988 and 1989.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89460 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12524
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: W & T AVERY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of 15 workers for an increase in subsistence
allowance known as out allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the sales/distribution/service
repair of weighing equipment. It employs a total of 55 people.
3. In 1973 the Labour court in L.C.R. No. 2924 set daily
allowances for lunch, tea and overnight stay. In 1974, the Union
made a claim for a revision based on the cost of living. The
Company rejected the claim and it was agreed that the increases
should be based on the hotel cost of living index. This formula
was employed up to 1988.
4. In February, 1988, the Company negotiated an agreement with
branch supervisors on increases in out allowances. This agreement
(4% on each item) was entered into instead of the historical
formula. The service mechanics (the workers involved in this
claim) refused to enter into a similar agreement and instead
sought the application of the existing formula (which would
provide for an increase of 7.8%).
5. In February, 1989 the Company negotiated another agreement
with the branch supervisors which provided for an increase of
3.03% on each item. The service mechanics again refused the
Company's offer.
6. As no agreement could be reached at local level the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the
5th April, 1989. A conciliation conference was held on the 8th
May, 1989. As no agreement was possible both parties consented to
a referral to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 28th July, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Company, in attempting to move from the hotel price
index to the cost of living index are seeking the best of both
worlds. It initially opted for the hotel price index as this
was lower than the cost of living index and remained so for
several years.
2. The Court is asked to recommend that the existing practice
for increases in subsistence allowances be maintained.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Court in its Recommendation L.C.R. No. 2924 did not
recommend how future increases should be applied. Although
the workers concerned have relied on this recommendation to
substantiate their claim, they have in the past claimed more
than the hotel cost of living increase.
2. The Company believes that its offer of 4% on all
allowances for 1988 and 3.3% for 1989 is fair and reasonable
and asks the Court to recommend that they be accepted by the
workers concerned.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court recommends that pending a re-negotiation of the
current formula the claimants should have the allowances adjusted
by the formula in respect of 1988 and 1989.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
22nd August, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.