Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88740 Case Number: LCR12230 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SOUTHERN HEALTH BOARD - and - CORK BUILDING GROUP OF UNIONS |
Claim by the Union Group on behalf of 130 craftsmen for the payment of an eating-on-site allowance.
Recommendation:
5. The Court in considering this claim examined all previous
recommendations and reports dealing with the application of
'Eating on Site Allowance' (EOSA). In particular the Court took
account of the manner in which it is applied in (a) Dublin
Corporation and (b) Eastern Health Board. The latter is of
obvious significance to the claimants. It is clear that for
payment of EOSA there are two essential criteria:-
(a) the worker must have a half hour lunch-break, and
(b) the facilities for eating must be inadequate.
It is the interpretation of (b) which gives rise to the dispute.
The criterion of adequacy which actually operates is whether or
not the worker has access to a hot professionally cooked meal.
The physical standard of the canteen facility is not the
criterion.
On the basis of the information which formed part of the
submission from the Southern Health Board the Court is satisfied
that the facilities available to the claimants are adequate and
accordingly the Court does not recommend payment of EOSA to the
claimants employed at the locations listed in Appendix 1 of the
submission to the Court from the Southern Health Board.
The Court, however, considers that where any of the claimants are
in receipt of "dirty money" it would be unreasonable to expect him
to avail of the canteen facilities and accordingly recommends that
in those circumstances EOSA be paid.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88740 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12230
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: SOUTHERN HEALTH BOARD
and
CORK BUILDING GROUP OF UNIONS
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union Group on behalf of 130 craftsmen for the
payment of an eating-on-site allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union Group is seeking an eating-on-site allowance of
#5.65 per week as is currently paid to craftsmen working for local
authorities and for the Eastern Health Board (E.H.B.). The Union
Group claims that following a strike in Cork Corporation in 1986,
by craftsmen and general operatives the settlement terms offered
an eating-on-site allowance of #1.13 per day, under certain
conditions. These proposals applied not only to the Corporation
but to all other local authorities and health boards outside the
Dublin area. The Board argues that the craftworkers are excluded
under the conditions for payment of the allowance as each location
within the area administered by the Board provides adequate
canteen facilities and a hot meal is available to all employees,
including craftsmen. No agreement could be reached at local level
and the matter was referred, on 1st July, 1988, to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference held on 31st August, 1988, failed to resolve the matter
and on 30th September, 1988, it was referred to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 22nd December, 1988, in Cork.
UNION GROUP'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Board argues that the craftsmen are excluded from the
allowance payment on the grounds that they have subsidised
canteens providing an adequate meal. The Union Group believes
that the facilities provided by the Board are inadequate and
unsatisfactory.
2. The facilities enjoyed by the craftsmen in all the Boards
locations are separate from the main canteens, usually
situated in the maintenance yard where the craftsmen can sit
down and have a cup of tea and a sandwich for the half hour
lunch break. The practice of having lunch in this manner has
been going on for years.
3. The Board is now saying that craftsmen such as plasterers,
painters, plumbers etc. if they wish can report to the main
canteens. This would necessitate them changing from soiled
overalls, joining a queue with the consequent delay and all
within half an hour. This practice would be totally
unsatisfactory.
4. The Union Group is well aware of the financial constraints
placed on the Board. However, the Union Group believes that
it would be cheaper to pay the allowance than subsidise
approximately 100 meals for craftsmen. The craftsmen only
earn approximately #145 per week. To avail of a meal in the
main canteen would cost #17 per week. The cost is
prohibitive.
5. Craftsmen in the E.H.B., the Dublin local authorities,
Cork Corporation, Cork County Council and the Department of
Defence all enjoy an eating on site allowance. In the Board,
general operatives working with the craftsmen receive an
eating on site allowance of #1.75 per day due to their
alignment with the Construction Industry pay rates. It is
unreasonable to isolate the craftsmen from the rest of their
colleagues.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The intention of the allowance is to compensate workers
for whom no suitable eating facilities are available at the
place of work, or where workers are required to work at
various locations with inadequate facilities. In the Board,
workers are generally employed at fixed and sheltered
locations where the facilities are both adequate and
satisfactory. If the Union Group identifies any isolated
cases where payment could be justified, the Board is prepared
to negotiate where such individuals meet the conditions
governing entitlement.
2. Meals available for the craftsmen are provided at a highly
subsidised rate. The inappropriateness of paying an eating on
site allowance to staff enjoying the advantages of subsidised
meals was recognised by the Court in Recommendation No. 6556.
3. Workers are only entitled to the allowance if adequate
eating facilities are not available. They cannot refuse to
make use of the facility merely to entitle themselves to the
payment. There is no obligation upon the workers to utilise
the dining facilities. However, it is equally true, that
where such a facility is provided, there is no obligation on
the Board to pay the allowance. The decision not to avail of
dining facilities as a way of entitling oneself to the
allowance is contrary to the intention upon which the
allowance was originally granted. This has been accepted by
all other Health Boards and Local Authorities.
4. The Union Group is seeking to have the allowance paid to
all craftsmen, without exception, regardless of whether or not
they meet the criteria. The Board is satisfied that on
examination of the facilities and conditions available to the
craftsmen and measuring them against the criteria laid down
for granting of the allowance there is no justification for
making payment in this case.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court in considering this claim examined all previous
recommendations and reports dealing with the application of
'Eating on Site Allowance' (EOSA). In particular the Court took
account of the manner in which it is applied in (a) Dublin
Corporation and (b) Eastern Health Board. The latter is of
obvious significance to the claimants. It is clear that for
payment of EOSA there are two essential criteria:-
(a) the worker must have a half hour lunch-break, and
(b) the facilities for eating must be inadequate.
It is the interpretation of (b) which gives rise to the dispute.
The criterion of adequacy which actually operates is whether or
not the worker has access to a hot professionally cooked meal.
The physical standard of the canteen facility is not the
criterion.
On the basis of the information which formed part of the
submission from the Southern Health Board the Court is satisfied
that the facilities available to the claimants are adequate and
accordingly the Court does not recommend payment of EOSA to the
claimants employed at the locations listed in Appendix 1 of the
submission to the Court from the Southern Health Board.
The Court, however, considers that where any of the claimants are
in receipt of "dirty money" it would be unreasonable to expect him
to avail of the canteen facilities and accordingly recommends that
in those circumstances EOSA be paid.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
______________________
23rd January, 1989. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N/J.C.