Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91190 Case Number: AD9167 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: TIPPERARY (NORTH RIDING) COUNTY COUNCIL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. S.T. 15/91 concerning the payment of travel allowances to temporary workers employed at Birdhill.
Recommendation:
7. The Court is satisfied that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation is fair and should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91190 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD6791
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: TIPPERARY (NORTH RIDING) COUNTY COUNCIL
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. S.T. 15/91 concerning the payment of travel
allowances to temporary workers employed at Birdhill.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Council recruited temporary workers for grant aided
national primary road works at Birdhill. The Union claimed
payment of a travel allowance of #3.70 a day on behalf of the
workers. The Union claimed that under the agreement on travel
allowances their base was their homes. The agreement provides for
the payment of a travel allowance to new employees who travel more
than seven (7) miles from their base to their work location. The
Council rejected the claim on the grounds that the workers were
recruited to work at a specific location and, therefore, that
location was their base for the purposes of the payment of the
travel allowance.
3. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner
investigated the dispute on 14th February, 1991 and on 20th
February, 1991 issued the following recommendation:
"I wish to confirm herein the Council's stated policy that all
existing personal arrangements would stand as heretofore.
In relation to the general situation, I recommend that the
Union accepts:
1. That an operative working in a designated area and
also living in that area, that his home will be his base
for establishing entitlement to travel money.
2. That where an operative is living outside his
designated work area that the Council will determine his
base within the work area in a reasonable manner and
subject to representations from the Union in cases of
dissatisfaction.
3. In the case of Grant Aided projects temporary workers
employed will be based at the actual location. Short
periods of emergency work in another designated area will
attract travel money based from the original Grant Aided
Project location.
4. Gangers and other permanent Operatives required to
work on Grant Aided Projects will operate from their
normal designated home base for such periods and
entitlement to travel money will be based accordingly.
Grant Aided Projects will operate from their normal
designated home base for such periods and entitlement to
travel money will be based accordingly."
4. The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court heard the appeal in Nenagh on 16th July, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Union has established an agreement with the Council
that all general workers, permanent and temporary, be paid
travel allowance. The Agreement was reached at the behest of
the Council when, due to financial contraints in the 1970s, it
required workers to work outside their normal designated work
sites.
2. Similar workers on sanitary services work, which is grant
aided, were paid travel allowances.
3. The workers in Birdhill were required to work at other
locations, therefore, their homes should be regarded as their
bases.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The workers were recruited for a specific job location
(Birdhill) and they were informed at interview stage that that
site would be regarded as their base. Workers recruited for
other similar locations were treated in the same way for
travel allowance payment.
2. When the workers were required to work at other locations
they were paid travel allowances provided these locations were
more than 7 miles from Birdhill.
3. The Council has adhered to the terms of the agreement and
the Rights Commissioner has found accordingly. The Court is
asked to reject the Union's appeal.
DECISION:
7. The Court is satisfied that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation is fair and should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
___________________________
6th August, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.