Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91394 Case Number: LCR13420 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: M.J. FLOOD LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union, on behalf of one worker, for the retention of a car allowance.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is of the opinion that the Union's claim for a
retention of the car allowance cannot be sustained in
circumstances in which the purpose for which the allowance is
being paid is not being carried out. The Court therefore
recommends that the Company amend its offer of compensation to a
sum of £1,000 and that this amount be accepted by the employee
concerned in full and final settlement of his claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91394 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13420
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: M.J. FLOOD LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union, on behalf of one worker, for the retention
of a car allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the supply and servicing of office
equipment. It has direct employees and it also operates on a
franchise basis. The worker concerned joined the Company as a
trainee technician in November, 1985. In 1988 he was offered a
position as a field technician. The post carries a car allowance
of £115 p.w. In 1990 the worker was recalled to work in the
workshop. The Company claims that the action was necessary
because of a decline in business. The Company are now
endeavouring to withdraw the workers car allowance. The Union
claims that the worker should be allowed to return to field
service and retain his allowance. Management reject the claim.
The issue was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour
Relations Commission on the 18th February, 1991. Conciliation
conferences were held on the 25th March, and 22nd May, 1991 but no
agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation by the Labour Relations
Commission on the 30th July, 1991. The Court investigated the
dispute on the 12th September, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned is entitled to retain his car
allowance. The changes in the service department, due to the
development of the franchise operation, arose directly from
the Company's decision to develop this type of sub-contract
arrangement. The areas covered by the franchise
sub-contractors include segments of routes originally serviced
by the worker and despite previous Company assurances that the
franchise operation would not affect jobs or security of jobs
it has obviously done so in this case.
2. There are six workers engaged in the franchise operation
in two separate sub-contract companies. All are former
employees of the Company, some of whom have less service with
the Company than the worker concerned. Management, despite
their assurances on job security appear to have adopted a
policy of displacing all direct employees in the field service
section by the use of franchise operators.
3. In a letter to the worker dated 21st January, 1991 the
Company stated "if a suitable vacancy becomes available for
field work within the Company, you will be given first
opportunity to fill that position." However, when the
opportunity arose the Company reneged on its promise. A
full-time direct field worker left the Company in November,
1990. The Company transferred another worker from a different
route to fill that section and covered the vacant area by a
franchise operator.
4. The Company is discriminating against the worker by
refusing to deploy him as a field engineer. It continues to
utilise a workshop technician with less service than the
worker to cover service calls (details of calls supplied to
the Court). A field service engineer was dismissed in July,
1991, but the Company refused to assign the worker to the
vacant position. Instead the service calls are being covered
by utilising a workshop technician with less service than the
worker concerned.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the worker was re-assigned to the workshop the
Company, as a gesture of goodwill, continued to pay him the
car allowance. Management was hopeful that the reduction in
field work would be temporary and that the worker would be
employed back on the road again with his car and motoring
expenses. The field work did not materialise. In November,
1990, a technician left the Company leaving a field engineer
vacancy in one of the Company's franchise operations. The
position was offered to the worker concerned but he declined
the offer.
2. The weekly car allowance is an expense paid to the worker
for the use of his own car while on Company business. Once
the requirement for the use of a Company car ceases, the car
allowance, in accordance with the Company/Union agreement
ceases. The car allowance is not part of the worker's income
as it is not subject to tax or P.R.S.I. payments. The
allowance is accepted as a legitimate expense by the Revenue
Commissioners. If it continues to be paid in the present
circumstances it will give rise to tax problems with the
Revenue Commissioners.
3. The Company has fully honoured all its commitments, duties
and obligations under the Company/Union agreement including
the payment of a car allowance in full. The Company continues
to pay the allowance despite its cost, while the issue in
dispute is under investigation. The Union has adopted an
inflexible attitude to the issue and has refused to enter into
meaningful negotiations which would lead to a fair and
reasonable settlement. During negotiations at conciliation
the Company was prepared to consider a once off payment of
£500 in full and final settlement of the claim. However,
given the Union's intransigence the Company is now asking the
Court to recommend that the car allowance be withdrawn from
the worker concerned, without compensation.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is of the opinion that the Union's claim for a
retention of the car allowance cannot be sustained in
circumstances in which the purpose for which the allowance is
being paid is not being carried out. The Court therefore
recommends that the Company amend its offer of compensation to a
sum of £1,000 and that this amount be accepted by the employee
concerned in full and final settlement of his claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
30th September, 1991. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.