LCR13613

Subject:
A dispute concerning a claim for payment of a mobility allowance to forest workers.

Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is
of the view that the Company's offer contained in letter dated
25th January, 1991 should be amended at paragraph (1) to read 8
miles etc. instead of nine miles etc. and accepted by the Union
in settlement of the claim.

Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine

Text of Document__________________________________________________________________

CD92117 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13613

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990

PARTIES: COILLTE LTD.

and

SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION

SUBJECT:
1. A dispute concerning a claim for payment of a mobility
allowance to forest workers.

BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was established in 1989 to take over the
running of state forestry, on a commercial basis and currently
employs 1,100 forest workers. The workers are employed on
numerous forest properties throughout the country and currently
receive a mobility allowance of #6.50 inclusive of #1.13
eating-on-site allowance per day. This allowance compensates
workers who must, for the purpose of their job, travel in excess
of 10 miles from their homes or outside their home forests. In
addition a system exists whereby workers travelling to an
"isolated property" within their home forest, are paid overtime
rates.

Since the establishment of the Company there has been
rationalisation resulting in the amalgamation of forests. This
in effect increased the area of home forests to be covered by
any worker. In order to deal with the changes the Union
suggested that a review of the mobility allowances be carried
out.

Agreement was reached by the parties on a predetermined central
point in forests which replaced the home as the base from which
mileage would be calculated. In January 1991 the Company
proposed the payment of a #6.50 travel allowance which would be
paid to forest workers whose place of work is in excess of 9
miles by road from the central point of the forest (Appendix 1
attached). The allowance would apply to travel up to 20 miles
and any distance in excess of 20 miles would be catered for by
separate agreement. In June 1991 the Union rejected the
Company's proposal.

The dispute was referred to the Conciliation service of the
Labour Relations Commission on the 17th September, 1991.
Conciliation conferences were held on 9th October, 20th November
and 5th December, 1991 at which agreement was not reached. The
issue was referred to the Labour Court on 18th February, 1992
under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The
Court investigated the dispute on 13th March, 1992.

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union claims that a mobility allowance should be
paid to all forest workers who travel in excess of five
miles from the forest centre point. The allowance should
be based on mileage or on a banded system. The banded
system would encompass 3 specific bands: 5-10 miles, 10-15
miles, 15-20 miles. The allowance payable should not
include an eating-on-site allowance as this is an automatic
entitlement regardless of miles travelled.

2. Due to the merging of forests, the area to be covered
by forest workers in their home forests is greatly
increased. Under the arrangements proposed by the Company
the worker, in order to receive payment of a mobility
allowance, would have to travel a minimum of eighteen miles
(nine miles each direction from the central point). This
same payment would apply to a worker who would travel
thirty miles and does not take into consideration the miles
travelled by the worker from his/her own home nor the cost
of the upkeep of the vehicle.

3. In the context of travel payments made to workers in
local authorities, the allowance paid to forest workers is
very low taking into consideration the service they provide
for the Company. It is the Union contention that the
mobility allowance should be adjusted to be brought in line
with mileage payments in the public service.

COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The mobility system within the Company cannot be
compared with that of other employers as the nature of the
employment is unique. The Company, because of its
financial situation, cannot afford to increase the mobility
allowance over that offered, which for 1992 is a projected
cost of #450,000. The Company has, to date, honoured all
wage agreements including the 3% increase due on 1st
January, 1992 under PESP. It is also the Company's
intention to pay the 3.75% increase due on 1st January,
1992

2. The Company agreed to a predetermined central point
within each forest thus removing anomolies of side by side
workers where a mobility allowance when paid from the
actual home, was only applicable to one worker. Under the
present proposal a worker could benefit if working on a
site adjacent to his/her home.

3. The position of forest worker within the Company is
nomadic and as such he/she must travel in order to maintain
employment. The Company accepts that due to
rationalisation there was a increase in travel requirement
but that the offer which it made in January, 1991 is a fair
and reasonable one.

RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is
of the view that the Company's offer contained in letter dated
25th January, 1991 should be amended at paragraph (1) to read 8
miles etc. instead of nine miles etc. and accepted by the Union
in settlement of the claim.
~


Signed on behalf of the Labour Court


Evelyn Owens
____________________
3rd April, 1992
A.Ni.S./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman

NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Ms. Aoibheann Ni Shuilleabhain, Court Secretary.

APPENDIX 1

COMPANY'S PROPOSALS OF 25TH JANUARY, 1991

(i) mobility allowance to be paid at a daily rate of #6.50
(including existing eating-on-site allowance) to
employees whose work site is more than 9 miles (single
journey) by road from a predetermined central point(s)
in each forest;

(ii) a ceiling of 20 miles (single journey) by road will
apply to this arrangement. Where distances in excess
of this are involved, such cases will be settled by
agreement;

(iii) the determination of the central point for each forest
will be a matter for agreement at local level. In
general, it is envisaged that the location in each
case will reflect the recognised current area of
greatest work concentration in the forest. It is,
however, acknowledged that a second point may be
warranted due to specific local circumstances, in
limited number of cases;

(iv) where travel is less than 9 miles from the nominated
central point, the employee will be entitled to
eating-on-site allowance only (subject to existing
conditions);

(v) the new arrangement is based solely on the conditions
applicable in Coillte Teoranta and, accordingly, any
future adjustment will have regard solely to the
circumstances within the Company;

(vi) discussions are to commence as soon as possible in
regard to the fixing of the central points;
thereafter, S.I.P.T.U. will conduct a ballot of its
members and, if the ballot is positive, the new
arrangement will apply from 1 April, 1991;

(vii) the requirement for mobility within the limits defined
above will be at the discretion of management.
Pending implementation of the new agreement, existing
arrangements will remain in place; the continued
co-operation of your members will be given with regard
to ongoing mobility requirements during this period.