Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90125 Case Number: LCR12894 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CABLELINK WATERFORD LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Meal Allowance.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered all the circumstances of the case
and the views expressed by the parties in their oral and written
submissions considers concession of the claim would be contrary to
the terms of the Programme for National Recovery and accordingly
the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90125 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12894
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CABLELINK WATERFORD LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Meal Allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The four workers concerned are employed as outdoor staff at
the Company's Waterford Branch. The Union is claiming the payment
of a meal allowance of #5 per day on behalf of these workers in
line with their counterparts in Dublin. The Union maintains that
a previous Labour Court recommendation (L.C.R. 9500) established
parity in both pay and allowances between Dublin and Waterford.
The Company has rejected the claim on the grounds that there is
no justifiable basis for the payment of such an allowance in
Waterford. Local discussions failed to resolve the issue which
was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on
the 7th December, 1989. A conciliation conference was held on the
15th February, 1990 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on the 22nd February, 1990. A Court
hearing was held in Waterford on the 9th May, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In February, 1985 the Court (in L.C.R. 9500) recommended
parity of remuneration between workers in Dublin and
Waterford. Subsequent discussions between the parties
produced an agreement of 20th August, 1985. Clause 5 of this
Agreement recognised parity "with existing Dublin pay rates
and structures." All phases of the parity arrangement have
now been implemented. There have been subsequent negotiations
in other areas on non-direct pay issues (as a result of L.C.R.
9500) such as driving allowance for staff who drive Company
transport and one extra week's holidays for staff on stand-by
duty. The only outstanding issue to be resolved is payment of
the meal allowance and this should be paid to the workers
concerned in line with their Dublin colleagues.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The lunchtime arrangements for the two companies are
distinctly different. For example, because of the scale of
the Dublin network and the distances involved, outdoor
employees in Dublin do not have access to their base or to
their homes at lunchtimes. In contrast to this employees in
Waterford have easy access to their base and in some instances
to their home for lunch. It is important to note also that
the lunchbreak in Dublin is 30 minutes whereas in Waterford
the lunchbreak is one hour. The payment of meal allowances in
Dublin is subject to the following conditions; The allowance
is paid only where a member of staff is away from base for
more than five hours and is unable to avail of a scheduled
meal break. Clearly this does not apply in the case of
employees in Waterford.
2. The allowance paid in Dublin has been approved by the
Revenue Authorities but only on strict adherence to the
conditions outlined in (1) above. There is little doubt that,
given the circumstances which exist in Waterford, payment of
such allowances to employees in Waterford would be disallowed
by the Revenue Commissioners. The arrangement in relation to
the meal allowances in Dublin is part of a comprehensive
agreement with the Unions in Dublin on the integration of
Dublin Cablesystems and R.T.E. Relays in November, 1985.
Employees in Waterford are not a party to this agreement.
3. On the matter of parity, in putting forward their claim
the Union are relying on L.C.R. 9500 of February, 1985. While
the Labour Court awarded parity it related only to certain pay
rates which obtained in the former Dublin Cablesystems Company
and not with the post-merger Cablelink operation. This
position was acknowledged by the Labour Court in AD-56-86 when
it rejected a claim by the Union to extend a Dublin standby
allowance to an employee in Waterford. The parity therefore
was not all embracing but was narrowly defined within a
particular set of circumstances. To further illustrate that
parity does not exist in the terms claimed, the Company would
point to the hours of duty in the two companies. Employees in
Waterford work a 37.50 hour week whereas the hours of duty in
Dublin for similar employees is 40 hours per week. The
Company would also contend that this is a cost - increasing
claim which is clearly in breach of the Programme for National
Recovery.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered all the circumstances of the case
and the views expressed by the parties in their oral and written
submissions considers concession of the claim would be contrary to
the terms of the Programme for National Recovery and accordingly
the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_________________________
7th June, 1990. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D/J.C.