Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88900 Case Number: LCR12246 Section / Act: S67 Parties: NORWICH UNION LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND FINANCE |
Claim for the introduction of luncheon vouchers for staff working in the Company's branch offices.
Recommendation:
5. The provision of full canteen facilities is not a condition of
employment for Branch staff and is only a viable proposition where
there are significant numbers of staff. Where such facilities are
available, their subsidisation by employers in the provision of
staff and equipment, is a common feature. This does not confer on
staff outside the location an entitlement to compensation equal to
the per capita cost of the subsidisation. The Court therefore
does not recommend concession of the Union's claim but recommends
that the Union take up the Company offer of an upgrading of
facilities in provincial offices.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88900 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12246
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: NORWICH UNION LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for the introduction of luncheon vouchers for staff
working in the Company's branch offices.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company provides a subsidised canteen for its head office
staff (meals cost between #1.20 and #1.40). Staff working in the
Branch offices (Phibsboro, Dun Laoghaire, Cork, Limerick,
Kilkenny, Waterford, Galway, Sligo and Tralee) do not enjoy such a
facility and the Union is seeking the provision of luncheon
vouchers or an allowance of #1.20 per day for them. The claim has
been rejected by Management. Following the failure of local level
discussions, the matter was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court on the 22nd September, 1988. No agreement was
reached at a conciliation conference on the 2nd November and the
matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 16th January,
1989 (earliest suitable date).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The main reasons put forward by the Company for not conceding
the claim were that Branch staff returned home for their
lunch and that it was cheaper to have lunch outside of Dublin
city centre. This is not accepted by the Union. A recent
survey of Branch staff showed that only 10% return home for
lunch. Furthermore, there is no significant difference in
the cost of a meal in Dublin city centre and in the locations
already mentioned.
3.2 Head office staff enjoy full canteen facilities which are of
substantial benefit, both in convenience and cost, to them.
The Union appreciates that this facility would not be viable
for the small numbers of staff in each Branch but luncheon
vouchers/allowances would help in equalising the situation.
The claimants believe they are entitled to the same benefits
as other staff.
3.3 A number of large insurance companies already pay luncheon
vouchers/allowances to their branch staff (details supplied
to the Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The number of staff employed in head office justifies the
provision of a more organised canteen facility. Not all the
staff at head office actually use the canteen facilities.
4.2 Adequate facilities are already available in the Branch
offices and the Company has already offered to examine an
up-grading of these where appropriate.
4.3 The cost of living in Dublin is higher than in provincial
areas.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The provision of full canteen facilities is not a condition of
employment for Branch staff and is only a viable proposition where
there are significant numbers of staff. Where such facilities are
available, their subsidisation by employers in the provision of
staff and equipment, is a common feature. This does not confer on
staff outside the location an entitlement to compensation equal to
the per capita cost of the subsidisation. The Court therefore
does not recommend concession of the Union's claim but recommends
that the Union take up the Company offer of an upgrading of
facilities in provincial offices.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
31st January, 1989 Nicholas Fitzgerald
DH/PG Deputy Chairman