Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91392 Case Number: AD9192 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: PURESAFE LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. B.C. 116/91 concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is not satisfied that travel allowance in accordance with the
terms of the E.R.O. was paid to the appellant.
The Court accordingly upholds the appeal and decides that the
travel allowance be paid to the appellant for the period of her
employment.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91392 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD9291
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: PURESAFE LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. B.C. 116/91 concerning the alleged unfair
dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is in the contract cleaning business. Statutory
minimum remuneration, annual holidays, and conditions of
employment in the contract cleaning industry are the subject of an
Employment Regulation Order (E.R.O.). The E.R.O. provides for a
travel allowance of 65p per shift per person where transport is
not provided by the employer. The worker concerned was employed
by the Company as a cleaner from October, 1990 until March, 1991.
The Union claims that during the worker's employment she was only
paid the hourly rate for the actual hours worked and did not
receive a travel allowance or pay in lieu of a travel allowance.
The Union also claims that the worker was unfairly dismissed in
March, 1991 and that her request for payment of the travel
allowance from February, 1991 onwards was a factor which led to
her unfair dismissal. The Company rejects the claim. The dispute
was referred to a Rights Commissioner who investigated it on 7th
June, 1991 and issued the following recommendation on 20th June,
1991:-
"RECOMMENDATION
In the light of the above I recommend that Puresafe Limited
pay to the worker an ex-gratia sum of £150 and that this be
accepted by the worker in full and final settlement of all
claims on the Company"
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation).
The Union appealed against the recommendation under Section 13(9)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Labour Court heard the
appeal on 15th October, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is appealing the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation as it did not recommend payment of the travel
allowance as provided for in the E.R.O. for the contract
cleaning industry. The Company has not complied specifically
with the terms of the E.R.O. in respect of payment of a travel
allowance to the worker concerned.
2. During the worker's term of employment she worked 2.5
hours per day for 5 days per week. She was paid the
prescribed hourly rate for the hours she actually worked. At
no stage was she told that her entitlement to travel allowance
was being compensated for in any other way.
3. In February, 1991 the worker became aware of her
entitlement to a travel allowance and raised the matter with
the Company on a number of occasions, without success.
Requesting a travel allowance was a factor which led to the
worker's unfair dismissal in March, 1991.
4. The hours the worker actually worked were recorded in a
signing-in book. The book shows conclusively the hours at
which the worker attended for work but the Company has failed
to produce the book for inspection.
5. No evidence exists that the worker received the travel
allowance to which she is entitled under the E.R.O. The
worker never agreed to accept any form of pay in lieu of
travel allowance and no such payment was ever made. The
worker is entitled to arrears of travel allowance which should
be paid by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was employed subject to a 6 month probationary
period. The Company was dissatisfied with her work and gave
her one week's notice. When the worker was given notice she
abandoned her job.
2. The worker was spoken to on several occasions regarding
her work and conditions of employment. The worker was paid
for 2.5 hours per shift but only worked 2.25 hours. The
payment for the .25 hours which she did not work was in lieu
of travel allowance.
3. The Company operates an attendance book which is not used
for recording the hours worked by employees. The Union did
not request an inspection of the attendance book.
DECISION;
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is not satisfied that travel allowance in accordance with the
terms of the E.R.O. was paid to the appellant.
The Court accordingly upholds the appeal and decides that the
travel allowance be paid to the appellant for the period of her
employment.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
________________________
30th October, 1991. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.