Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92288 Case Number: LCR13750 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION - and - IRISH MUNICIPAL PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNIONS/;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A claim by the Unions for an increase in the eating-on-site allowance.
Recommendation:
The Court has given very careful consideration to the detailed
arguments made by the parties on the issue of eating on site
allowance.
In the first place the Court is quite clear that the claim being
pursued by the Unions must be considered a new claim and not the
renewal of a claim rejected by the Labour Court in 1987 and
therefore, the issue falls to be dealt with under the terms of the
P.E.S.P. In the opinion of the Court it is not possible to
consider the Unions' claim in isolation from a number of other
issues raised by the Corporation in its submissions, including the
fact that the Unions are pursuing a claim for a special increase
for General Operative grades in Dublin Corporation.
Since under the terms of P.E.S.P. only one cost increasing claim
may be pursued, the Court has some difficulty in seeing the
present claim as valid within the terms of the Programme. It
would seem to the Court that the Unions need to clarify their
policy in this respect before a definitive recommendation on the
claim can reasonably be requested of the Court.
The Court in light of the fact that the allowance is a significant
element in the pay of local authorities generally also takes the
view that the claim cannot be considered in isolation from the
proposed discussions at national level and concurs with the
Corporation's view that any amendment of the current allowance
would be premature pending the conclusion of such discussions.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
28th August, 1992 John O'Connell
A.O.S./M.H. ------------------------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Ms. Aoibheann Ni Shuilleabhain, Court Secretary.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92288 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13750
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1969 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990
PARTIES: DUBLIN CORPORATION
AND
IRISH MUNICIPAL PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNIONS/
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A claim by the Unions for an increase in the eating-on-site
allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1978 the Labour Court in Labour Court Recommendation No.
4918 recommended that an eating-on-site allowance of 75p be paid
to staff in the waterworks section of the Corporation until such
time as more suitable facilities for the partaking of meals were
provided by the Corporation. In 1979 and on foot of a
clarification by the Labour Court this eating-on-site allowance
was extended to all employees who eat their meals in conditions
similar to those of the waterworks section. As a result of a
further Labour Court Recommendation No. 6607, the allowance was
increased from 1st April 1981 to #1.13 and has remained unchanged
since. In August 1987 the Labour Court heard a further claim by
the Unions for an increase in the allowance but rejected the claim
and stated in its recommendation.
"Having regard to the current financial situation of the
Corporation, the Court does not recommend concession of this
claim at this time".
In December 1989, the Unions submitted a new claim to the
Corporation for an increase in the eating on site allowance. This
claim, the Unions contended, was a minor claim and, therefore,
fell to be dealt with under Clause 3(6)(a) of the Elaboration of
Clause 3 of the Agreement on Pay in the Public Service (Appendix I
attached). The Company rejected the Unions' claim on the same
grounds on which the 1987 claim was rejected; that the
Corporation, due to its financial situation, could not afford to
concede an increase.
The Union referred the claim to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court in February, 1990 and conciliation conferences were
held on the 24th February and 27th March, 1992 at which agreement
was not reached. The issue was referred to the Labour Court on
19th May, 1992 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on 24th June, 1992.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The eating-on-site allowance has not been increased
since 1981 and as such an increase is long overdue. The
rejection by the Labour Court of the claim in 1987 was not on
grounds of lack of merit but on the grounds that the
Corporation could not afford such an increase at that time.
Since then the staff has been greatly reduced. Therefore the
amount the Corporation is currently paying out on the
eating-on-site allowance is significantly less than was paid
out in 1981 or since. The Union cannot accept the
Corporation's financial argument as valid. Had the
Corporation increased the eating-on-site allowance
periodically any extra expense would have been gradual.
2. When the claim was first served in 1978 it was based on
a similar allowance which is payable in the E.S.B. Since
1981 that allowance has increased by 113% and is reviewed
each year in line with the Consumer Price Index. Public
Sector subsistence rates have also been increased while the
Corporation's eating-on-site allowance has remained static.
3. The Corporation contends that the claims should be dealt
with under Clause 3.5 of the Elaboration of the Agreement on
Pay in the Public Service while the Unions' contention is
that it falls to be dealt with under Claus 3.4. The Unions
reject the contention that their claim is a new claim. The
Court did not reject the merit of the claim in 1987. It did
not recommend concession of it at that time. Therefore, by
writing to the Corporation in December 1989 the Unions were
not lodging a new claim but were endeavouring to pursue a
claim which had been "put on ice" two years previously.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The eating-on-site allowance, as it now stands, applies
to general operatives and tradespersons employed in all local
authorities and health boards. A claim for an increase
should be negotiated and dealt with on a national basis and
involve all parties concerned.
2. The general operatives received a pay increase under
Clause 3.3 of the Elaboration of the Agreement on Pay in the
Public Service and as their claim for an increase in the
eating-on-site allowance was lodged after 25th January, 1989
(Clause 3.5) it falls to be dealt with under Clause 3 of the
Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.). The
Unions are currently pursuing a claim for a special pay
increase for general operatives which is a cost increasing
claim and are therefore attempting to process more than one
cost increasing claim, a factor which is prohibited under
P.E.S.P.
3. The eating-on-site allowance originated as an allowance
to compensate for the unsatisfactory conditions in which
workers had to partake of their meals. Since its
introduction canteen facilities within the Corporation have
vastly improved. There are no grounds for claiming parity
with those who receive a similar allowance in the E.S.B.
This fact was confirmed by the Labour Court in its
recommendation LCR6607 of 1981.
4. The current cost of paying the eating-on-site allowance
is #1.08 million per year. The granting of any increase in
this allowance would cause serious financial problems for the
Corporation whose financial position has significantly
deteriorated since 1983. The concession of the claim would
also have grave implications both financially and from an
employment point of view in the Corporation and the public
service generally.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given very careful consideration to the detailed
arguments made by the parties on the issue of eating on site
allowance.
In the first place the Court is quite clear that the claim being
pursued by the Unions must be considered a new claim and not the
renewal of a claim rejected by the Labour Court in 1987 and
therefore, the issue falls to be dealt with under the terms of the
P.E.S.P. In the opinion of the Court it is not possible to
consider the Unions' claim in isolation from a number of other
issues raised by the Corporation in its submissions, including the
fact that the Unions are pursuing a claim for a special increase
for General Operative grades in Dublin Corporation.
Since under the terms of P.E.S.P. only one cost increasing claim
may be pursued, the Court has some difficulty in seeing the
present claim as valid within the terms of the Programme. It
would seem to the Court that the Unions need to clarify their
policy in this respect before a definitive recommendation on the
claim can reasonably be requested of the Court.
The Court in light of the fact that the allowance is a significant
element in the pay of local authorities generally also takes the
view that the claim cannot be considered in isolation from the
proposed discussions at national level and concurs with the
Corporation's view that any amendment of the current allowance
would be premature pending the conclusion of such discussions.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
28th August, 1992 John O'Connell
A.O.S./M.H. ------------------------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Ms. Aoibheann Ni Shuilleabhain, Court Secretary.