Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9085 Case Number: LCR12875 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: WICKLOW COUNTY COUNCIL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for the payment of #1000, plus interest by way of compensation, to an Overseer, arising from the Council's decision not to reimburse him for mileage covered during the discharge of his duties.
Recommendation:
5. The Court accepts that the Council has an obligation to
contain and if possible reduce its costs and in this regard the
Court fully acknowledges the Council's general right to impose
cuts in travelling expenditure. However in the particular
circumstances which have given rise to the case before it the
employees professional supervisors have duly recommended payment
of mileage claims in excess of the limits imposed by the Council
and the Court therefore recommends that the amount in question be
paid. The Court further recommends that, in the future, where
expenditure beyond the appointed allowance seems likely that the
Council financial officers be consulted in good time.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9085 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12875
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: WICKLOW COUNTY COUNCIL
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for the payment of #1000, plus interest by
way of compensation, to an Overseer, arising from the Council's
decision not to reimburse him for mileage covered during the
discharge of his duties.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. In October, 1987, the Department of the Environment issued
a circular letter to each Local Authority emphasising the need to
maximise savings and to secure all possible economies in
expenditure. The circular letter also directed that expenditure
on travel and subsistence in Local Authorities during 1988 should
not exceed 80%, at maximum, of the estimated outturn for 1987. In
compliance with their instruction the council set mileage limits
in 1988 for various grades of workers, including Oversees. The
mileage allowance for the Overseer concerned with the dispute was
11,025 miles per annum or 919 miles per month. The worker
concerned was absent from duty on sick leave from 19th April, 1988
until 19th June, 1988.(inc). On his resumption, the worker
continued to use his car in the course of Council duties. Towards
the end of 1988, on submitting his returns, with details of
mileage payments claimed, the Council refused to reimburse him for
all mileage expenses incurred as he had exceeded his established
limit. The Council had revised the mileage limit down on a
pro-rata basis to take account of the two months sick leave. The
revised mileage allowance was determined at 9187 miles per annum
or 765 miles per month. The worker claimed that he was unaware of
any reduction in his 1988 mileage allowance and that any excess
miles incurred by him were necessary. The total mileage incurred
by the worker during 1988 was 10764 - 1577 miles in excess of his
revised limit. As the Council decision was unacceptable to the
worker, he referred the matter to his Union, who requested a
Rights Commissioner's investigation or a Labour Court conciliation
conference. The Council did not agree to attend at either of the
investigations and the Union requested a Labour Court hearing
under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969,
agreeing to accept the recommendation of the Court. The Court
investigated the dispute on 8th March, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Overseer who is a trusted employee has fourteen
years continuous service with the Council. As an overseer, he
must use his own vehicle for the Council's benefit.
2. In January/February, 1988, the worker became aware that
a mileage allowance of 11,025 miles was allocated to him for
1988. He did not receive any communication from the Council
advising him of his allocation, despite the fact that the
Council claim that a memo issued to this effect. Later in
1988, the Council revised the mileage allowance assigned to
the worker but they did not advise him of his reduced
allocation.
3. The total mileage used by the worker during 1988 was
recommended by his Senior Executive Engineer and by the Acting
County Engineer. It was paid for by the worker out of his own
pocket, (expenses claims are paid in arrears). The Council
took a unilateral decision not to reimburse him for mileage
done in excess of a limit established by them and not notified
to the individual concerned. The worker is entitled to be
reimbursed for all expenses incurred in the course of carrying
out his duty. Accordingly, he is now owed #1,000 in expenses,
plus interest.
4. There was no precedent of reducing mileage allowance in
situations where workers were absent due to illness. It never
occurred previously in respect of the worker. The Council
have now instituted a procedure of notifying workers of
shortages/overages in respect of mileage allowances. Had this
procedure been in place in 1988, the worker would have been
aware of the shortage and would have taken corrective action.
5. The worker did notify his supervisor on a number of
occasions that he was exceeding his mileage limit. A claim
for an increased allowance was submitted (the special
circumstances of his work schedule in 1988 made necessary
additional travel). It was as a result of the claim that the
County Finance Officer communicated with the Acting County
Engineer.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned with the dispute had a mileage
allowance of 11025 miles per annum or 919 miles per month
during 1988. Arising from his absence from work, due to sick
leave, for a period of two months, the allowance was reduced
by 1838 miles (919 i.e. monthly x 2) giving a revised mileage
allowance of 9187 per annum or 765 per month. The allowance
for the Overseer who substituted for the worker was increased
from his normal monthly allowance of 500 miles to 919 miles
for the period he acted in the worker's area.
2. In a memo dated 28th January, 1988, the Council advised
all staff (including the worker) who used their cars in the
discharge of their duties, of their mileage allowance for the
year. It was stressed that they should ensure that limits
were not exceeded in any circumstances, that travelling
arrangements should be scheduled to ensure that work
undertaken and services operated were carried out efficiently
within limits. Employees concerned were also advised that
there should be a balance between one month and the next
following month for the whole of the financial year. In the
worker's case this meant that he should try as far as possible
to keep the average figure of 919 miles per month. A similar
memo dated 29th April, 1987, also issued to the worker (copy
supplied to the Court).
3. The worker travelled a total of 3695 miles during the
period 1st January, 1988 to 19th April 1988, when he went on
sick leave. On resuming duty on 20th June, 1988, he travelled
the following miles:-
20th to 30th June - 580
July - 1307
August - 790 (two weeks holidays)
September - 1230
October - 994
November - 1354
December - 814
His average miles for the 6 1/3 months was 1116. Not alone
did he considerably exceed the revised monthly figure of 765
miles but he also exceeded the original monthly figure of 919
miles. The worker received payment from the Council for
mileage up to the approved limit of 9187 miles.
4. The worker claims to have advised his supervisor, on a
number of occasions in 1988, that he was exceeding his mileage
limit. However, a claim for an increase in mileage allowance
for 1988 was not received from the worker until after the end
of that financial year. The report in relation to excess
mileage was only received following a letter issued in
December, 1988, by the County Finance officer to the Acting
County Engineer, enquiring as to whether approval had been
obtained to extend the worker's mileage limit (copy supplied
to the Court).
5. It is the Council's view that a mileage allowance of
9187 for ten months in 1988, (11,025 for twelve months) was
quite adequate to allow the worker discharge his duties in a
proper manner. A similar mileage allowance was adequate for
1989 and the same allocation has been made to him for 1990.
The allocation of travelling expenses mileage is completely
related to refunding expenses necessarily carried out in the
course of duty. The Council is the sole judge of what
travelling is necessary to enable the worker to carry out his
duties satisfactorily.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court accepts that the Council has an obligation to
contain and if possible reduce its costs and in this regard the
Court fully acknowledges the Council's general right to impose
cuts in travelling expenditure. However in the particular
circumstances which have given rise to the case before it the
employees professional supervisors have duly recommended payment
of mileage claims in excess of the limits imposed by the Council
and the Court therefore recommends that the amount in question be
paid. The Court further recommends that, in the future, where
expenditure beyond the appointed allowance seems likely that the
Council financial officers be consulted in good time.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
24th May, 1990 ---------------
A McG/U.S. Deputy Chairman