Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90689 Case Number: LCR13171 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CABLELINK LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Various claims by the Unions as follows:- 1. Increase in daily subsistence rates. 2. Subsistence allowance claim for staff working after close of canteen. 3. Drive allowance for staff who drive Company cars. 4. Petrol allowance for Base Controller. 5. Increase in mileage allowance.
Recommendation:
13. Having considered the submissions of the parties as made at
the hearing and having examined the Company/Union Agreement of
November, 1985, the Court recommends as follows;
CLAIM 1
DAILY SUBSISTENCE This allowance is to compensate staff for
RATES: reasonable expenditure which they incur
on meals because of their particular
working arrangements. This expenditure
is not directly related to general cost
of living or to wage increases but
nevertheless changes from time to time.
The Court considers that the present
level should be increased by #0.50 but
recommends that the parties develop an
agreed formula, perhaps based on actual
costs in selected establishments or some
other appropriate criteria, to be used in
assessing the adequacy of the Allowance
on an annual basis.
CLAIM 2 The Court considers that there are
SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE adequate arrangements for staff working
FOR STAFF WORKING after the Canteen closes and does not
AFTER CLOSE OF CANTEEN: recommend that they be paid a subsistence
allowance.
CLAIM 3 The Court notes that there is no
"DRIVE ALLOWANCE": reference to a "Drive Allowance" in the
Company/Union agreement. Section "B" of
the agreement deals with transport but
makes no distinction between vans and
cars provided by the Company. It
concerns itself with the question of
company provided versus staff provided
transport.
The Court does not consider the "Drive
Allowance" as part of basic pay as it is
not paid during sick or annual leave.
There are definite benefits to staff in
having company cars rather than vans but
the benefits do not translate immediately
into cash benefits while the loss of the
"Drive Allowance" is an immediate cash
loss. The Court, therefore, recommends
that on transfer from a company van to a
company car, a staff member should be
paid the full "Drive Allowance" for six
weeks and half the allowance for a
further six weeks. At the end of this
period the allowance should cease.
CLAIM 4 The Court finds no merit in this case for
PETROL ALLOWANCE a petrol allowance for an employee who
FOR BASE CONTROLLER: does not have a car and who is paid taxi
fares for travelling in circumstances
similar to those for which his colleague
has a petrol allowance. The Court notes
that the Company is prepared to review
this situation should the employee in
question acquire a car.
CLAIM 5 Mileage allowance relates to fluctuating
MILEAGE ALLOWANCE costs and the Court considers that the
FOR STAFF WHO USE parties should negotiate an agreed
THEIR OWN TRANSPORT formula to set the appropriate rates on
ON COMPANY BUSINESS an annual basis. The Court does not
consider that the Union has established
that there was in the past a relationship
between Company rates and Civil Service
rates.
Having considered the arguments put
forward by the parties concerning the
present rates exclusive of petrol, the
Court recommends that they be increased
by 10% with effect from 1 January, 1991.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90689 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13171
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CABLELINK LIMITED
(Represented by the Federations of Irish Employers)
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Various claims by the Unions as follows:-
1. Increase in daily subsistence rates.
2. Subsistence allowance claim for staff working after
close of canteen.
3. Drive allowance for staff who drive Company cars.
4. Petrol allowance for Base Controller.
5. Increase in mileage allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the provision of a cable television
service in the Dublin area. It employs 146 staff and
approximately half of these are engaged mainly on outdoor duty.
This dispute concerns a number of claims served on the Company
during the course of the Programme for National Recovery, which
finished in the Company on 15th September, 1990. Local
discussions failed to resolve the dispute and the issues were
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. No
agreement could be achieved at a conciliation conference held in
February, 1990 and on 20th November, 1990, the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute on 19th December, 1990.
Claim 1 Daily Subsistence Rates
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. A daily subsistence rate of #5 per day is paid to staff
on outdoor duty. The #5 rate was set in 1985 and has not been
increased since, even though other allowances have increased
over this period. The Unions believe that the allowance
should be adjusted in line with the changes in the Consumer
Price Index over the 1985-1990 period. This represents an
increase of approximately 22%. The Unions also feel that in
order to avoid future devaluation of the allowance, it should
be index-linked to wage increases.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Unions have argued that the #5 amount has been
eroded by the passage of time and should therefore be
increased. The Company does not believe that the passing of
time in itself justifies an increase. The issue to be
addressed is whether or not the #5 amount is sufficient to
cover the cost of a lunch. The rate applied in the Company is
sufficient for this purpose and is in excess of the rate paid
by most companies.
2. The #5 rate has only recently been approved under strict
criteria by the Revenue Commissioners. Should the amount be
increased there is a serious risk that the entire allowance
could be treated as taxable income.
Claim 2 Subsistence Allowance for Staff Working After Close of
Canteen
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
5. The Company's canteen closes at 4.30 p.m. and staff who work
after hours do not, therefore, have access to these facilities
and must incur the costs of providing snacks for themselves.
In 1986, staff who had to work at weekends received a #3
dinner allowance and #2 tea allowance because they had no
canteen facilities available to them. The Unions claim that
this consideration should apply to staff who must work after
hours. A #2 tea allowance should be paid to such staff and
should be extended to staff who work overtime.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. The Company provides a subsidised canteen which operates until
4.30 p.m. If snacks are required for the evening they can be
ordered in advance from the canteen. In addition, the Company
provides separate kitchens which include tea making facilities
and a fridge. The Company believes that these facilities are
more than reasonable. An allowance of #5 is paid to the Base
Controller and telephone staff who are on duty at the weekend.
This is because of the duration of the shift, 10.00 a.m. to
9.30 p.m. and the fact that the canteen is closed.
Claim 3 Drive Allowance
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. A drive allowance of #1 per day is provided to all staff
who drive Company transport. The Company has changed the
transport being used by four workers from van to car and
without discussion has ceased to pay the #1 allowance to these
individuals. The Unions maintain that this allowance must be
restored and losses incurred since its removal should be made
good.
7. 2. The drive allowance is provided for anyone who drives
Company transport, irrespective of whether that transport is
in the form of a van or a car. The Company/Union Agreement
states that "the Company has the option to provide transport
for which an agreed drive allowance applies".
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Unions' claim relates to a Supervisor and three
other staff. These employees derive a substantial benefit
through the use of a Company car. The provision of an
allowance was not contemplated for staff in receipt of a
Company car. The Unions' claim is unreasonable.
2. The Supervisor was first provided with a car in 1982,
since which time he has not been paid nor has he ever sought a
driving allowance. The other three staff previously received
the allowance when they drove a Company van. At varying times
they were provided with cars and the allowance was withdrawn.
Claim 4 Petrol Allowance for Base Controller
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
9. The basis of the Unions' claim is the Company's failure to pay
a petrol allowance to Base Controllers presently employed even
though such an allowance was available to previous incumbents
over a number of years. This allowance was normally in the
form of a petrol card with a #600 limit. It was paid to the
two previous Controllers but when two new Controllers were
appointed in June, 1990, they discovered that this allowance
would not be paid. This was an arbitrary decision by the
Company which resulted in a direct loss to the two staff
concerned.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
10. When the Base Controllers were appointed they accepted clear
terms and conditions of employment. Any benefit over and
above was not the subject of negotiations with the Unions.
Currently, one Controller receives a petrol allowance to cover
costs incurred when using his car during unsocial hours when
public transport is not easily available. The other
Controller does not have a car but is reimbursed in respect of
his taxi fares in circumstances similar to the other
Controller. There is no basis in a claim for petrol for an
employee who does not have a car.
Claim 5 Mileage Allowance
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
11. As part of a long standing agreement, employees who use their
own transport on Company business are paid a mileage
allowance. The rate per mile when established, (exclusive of
petrol which is paid separately), were in line with Civil
Service rates for a 12 horse power car and were adjusted
annually in line with the Consumer Price Index (Transport).
The mileage rates have not been adjusted since April, 1986.
The Unions believe that the rates should be adjusted in line
with current Civil Service rates, that the adjustments should
be backdated to the expiry date of the last cost increase and
all arrears be paid to the employees concerned. The Unions
also request that the rates be adjusted in line with the
Consumer Price Index each year.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
12. 1. The Company's stated preference is that all technical
staff operate from Company vans; however, because of a long
standing agreement fifteen employees use their own transport
on Company business. These employees are compensated
adequately for using their own transport.
2. The Union have argued that the rates in operation have
been eroded by the passage of time. The Company's position is
that the passage of time in itself does not justify an
increase but what is at issue is whether or not the rates
provide adequate compensation. A comparison with motoring
costs published in May, 1990, by the Automobile Association
clearly demonstrates that the Company's rates are not out of
line (details provided to the Court). On this basis the
Unions claim has no merit.
RECOMMENDATION:
13. Having considered the submissions of the parties as made at
the hearing and having examined the Company/Union Agreement of
November, 1985, the Court recommends as follows;
CLAIM 1
DAILY SUBSISTENCE This allowance is to compensate staff for
RATES: reasonable expenditure which they incur
on meals because of their particular
working arrangements. This expenditure
is not directly related to general cost
of living or to wage increases but
nevertheless changes from time to time.
The Court considers that the present
level should be increased by #0.50 but
recommends that the parties develop an
agreed formula, perhaps based on actual
costs in selected establishments or some
other appropriate criteria, to be used in
assessing the adequacy of the Allowance
on an annual basis.
CLAIM 2 The Court considers that there are
SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE adequate arrangements for staff working
FOR STAFF WORKING after the Canteen closes and does not
AFTER CLOSE OF CANTEEN: recommend that they be paid a subsistence
allowance.
CLAIM 3 The Court notes that there is no
"DRIVE ALLOWANCE": reference to a "Drive Allowance" in the
Company/Union agreement. Section "B" of
the agreement deals with transport but
makes no distinction between vans and
cars provided by the Company. It
concerns itself with the question of
company provided versus staff provided
transport.
The Court does not consider the "Drive
Allowance" as part of basic pay as it is
not paid during sick or annual leave.
There are definite benefits to staff in
having company cars rather than vans but
the benefits do not translate immediately
into cash benefits while the loss of the
"Drive Allowance" is an immediate cash
loss. The Court, therefore, recommends
that on transfer from a company van to a
company car, a staff member should be
paid the full "Drive Allowance" for six
weeks and half the allowance for a
further six weeks. At the end of this
period the allowance should cease.
CLAIM 4 The Court finds no merit in this case for
PETROL ALLOWANCE a petrol allowance for an employee who
FOR BASE CONTROLLER: does not have a car and who is paid taxi
fares for travelling in circumstances
similar to those for which his colleague
has a petrol allowance. The Court notes
that the Company is prepared to review
this situation should the employee in
question acquire a car.
CLAIM 5 Mileage allowance relates to fluctuating
MILEAGE ALLOWANCE costs and the Court considers that the
FOR STAFF WHO USE parties should negotiate an agreed
THEIR OWN TRANSPORT formula to set the appropriate rates on
ON COMPANY BUSINESS an annual basis. The Court does not
consider that the Union has established
that there was in the past a relationship
between Company rates and Civil Service
rates.
Having considered the arguments put
forward by the parties concerning the
present rates exclusive of petrol, the
Court recommends that they be increased
by 10% with effect from 1 January, 1991.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
24th January, 1991 Kevin Heffernan
B O'N/U.S. _______________
Chairman