Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8988 Case Number: AD8929 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: HEITON MCFERRAN LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW413/88 concerning the payment of a lunch allowance to a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions made by the
parties, finds no grounds for altering the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation, which it upholds.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8988 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2989
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: HEITON MCFERRAN LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. CW413/88 concerning the payment of a lunch
allowance to a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned worked as a general operative in the
Company's Newbridge depot. In April, 1988, he was informed that
the position was redundant and his employment was to be
terminated. At that time another general operative in the
Company's Ringsend depot volunteered to leave the Company and as a
result a vacancy existed there. The worker concerned transferred
to the vacant Ringsend position on the agreed terms and conditions
of employment for general operatives. After he had been there a
few days he discovered the worker he had replaced had been in
receipt of lunch money irrespective of whether he was in the depot
or out on a truck. The worker concerned only received it when he
was driving. When he asked for this payment to be extended to
him, the Company refused on the grounds that the previous job
holder received the allowance on a personal basis. This was
because he had been a driver and had received the lunch money on a
continuous basis. It was at the Company's request that he stepped
down to general operative duties. The matter was referred to a
Rights Commissioner for investigation and on 19th December, 1988,
he issued the following recommendation:
"I recommend that the Union accepts that the worker is not
entitled to the lunch allowance except when driving."
(The worker was mentioned by name in the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation).
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was rejected by the
Union, who appealed it on 6th February, 1989, to the Labour Court.
The Court heard the appeal on 7th March, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Before the worker went to the Ringsend depot, he enquired
about the rates of pay and conditions of employment. He was
informed that the move would be to his advantage.
2. As he is carrying out the same range of duties as the
worker he replaced, the Union can see no good reason why the
same rates of pay and conditions of employment should not
apply to him.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned does not have any right to a lunch
subsidy as he is based in one location. It is not Company
practice to pay lunch money to home-based operatives. Any
concession would be against the norm and lead to knock-on
claims.
2. The worker cannot inherit an allowance that was paid to
another employee on a personal basis. The previous job holder
had been 'red-circled' due to a special agreement he had with
the Company. No such special circumstances exist in this
particular case.
DECISION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions made by the
parties, finds no grounds for altering the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation, which it upholds.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
__________________________
31st March, 1989. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N/J.C.