Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91508 Case Number: LCR13610 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: THE WESTERN HEALTH BOARD - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning subsistence rates for 25 ambulance personnel.
Recommendation:
5. 1. The Court has fully considered all of the views
expressed by the parties in their oral and written
submissions.
2. The subsistence arrangements have been negotiated
nationally and by agreement have been adjusted from
time to time.
The Health Board has argued and the Court accept that
it is not the intention that the subsistence paid be a
source of emolument or profit.
3. The Court takes the view however that the subsistence
rates which have been agreed are rates which have been
struck to adequately reflect the cost to employees away
from home and ensure they are not out of pocket.
4. The Court fully accept that the subsistence payments
should not be enhanced by meals being provided either
free or at a subsidised rate.
5. The regulations governing the payment of subsistence
calls on the employing organisation to ensure that
absence of employees are planned in such a way as to
reduce the cost to a minimum consistent with
efficiency.
6. It is the view of the Court that the subsistence rates
agreed nationally and universally applied should be
paid to the workers here concerned and that the Health
Board consistent with its obligation, "to ensure the
cost is reduced to a minimum", take the necessary steps
to ensure that the subsistence payments made are not
enhanced by free or subsidised meals.
7. The Court accordingly recommends the subsistence
payments be reinstated retrospectively and that in
calculating any payments due the Board take account of
the view expressed in paragraph 6 above.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91508 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13610
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: THE WESTERN HEALTH BOARD
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning subsistence rates for 25 ambulance
personnel.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. By letter dated 8th October, 1990, which was posted on
notice boards on 30th October, 1990, the Board informed
ambulance personnel of changes in the rules for the payment of
subsistence allowances:-
"Travelling expenses and subsistence allowances payable
to an officer shall:-
(a) Include all reasonable expenses of conveyance
properly and necessarily incurred.
(b) Satisfy the conditions for payment of subsistence
allowance as set out in Circular 10/71 as amended
by Circular 8/76. Subsistence payments shall
only apply where the journey is a substantial
distance from the officer's headquarters and
where it is not practical for the officer to
return home for meals. Where meals are available
at a Western Health Board facility, then
subsistence will not be paid.
(c) Be at the appropriate rates as specified in the
scales of rates approved by the Minister for
Health."
2. The Union objected to the Board's new regulations on the
payment of subsistence. The dispute could not be resolved
locally and was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
A conciliation conference was held on 28th August, 1991. At
resolution was not possible at conciliation and the dispute
was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation on 17th September, 1991. A Labour Court
investigation took place in Castlebar on 12th February, 1992
(the earliest date suitable to both parties).
UNION ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The payment of subsistence allowances is governed by
regulations drawn up by the Department of Finance. The rates
are nationally agreed and are subject to change from time to
time by agreement. The rates are applied in all local
authorities, the public sector and health boards with the
exception of the Western Health Board.
2. The Board did not advise or consult with either the
workers or the Union prior to its unilateral action in
changing subsistence regulations. The Board is attempting to
downgrade the workers in the ambulance service and set them
apart from their colleagues in other health board areas.
3. This attempt by the Board to dismantle a national
agreement has major implications for ambulance workers in
other areas and has been condemned by the Union National
Ambulance Co-Ordinating Committee who saw such unilateral
action as leading to a collapse of existing agreements between
the parties. The Eastern Health Board made a similar attempt
to offset their budgetary problems (details supplied). The
Labour Court in LCR12772 found that "unilateral interpretation
of the regulations should not be made for the purpose of
achieving savings."
BOARD ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The changes in the subsistence regulations were prompted
by the Board's financial position, the Government's directives
on subsistence and travelling allowances and the Board's
desire to remove an anomaly which has existed in the area of
subsistence allowances. The payment of subsistence allowances
to the Board's staff is now regulated by the same rules.
Subsistence payments only apply where a journey is of a
substantial distance from headquarters/base. The subsistence
allowance payments were never intended to be a source of
emolument or profit (details supplied). Where difficulties
arise in providing a meal for workers, the Chief Ambulance
Officer approves the appropriate subsistence payment.
4. 2. The purpose of the subsistence scheme is to ensure that
no additional expenditure is incurred by workers when they are
on a substantial journey from base. This objective is
achieved by providing meals within the Board's area and
payments for journeys outside the Board's area. The new
arrangements serves to bring the ambulance service in line
with arrangements which had already been operating for other
workers.
3. The Board has had a budgetary shortfall of £1.91m in
1990 and of £3,270m in 1991. The ambulance service had a
shortfall of £27,000 in 1990 and in general has been spared
the more severe cutbacks which applied to other areas of the
service. The Board's priority in the application of its
limited resources must be to protect employment levels, rather
than to reinstate an anomolous arrangement on subsistence
which clearly over compensated ambulance personnel in certain
instances.
RECOMMENDATION
5. 1. The Court has fully considered all of the views
expressed by the parties in their oral and written
submissions.
2. The subsistence arrangements have been negotiated
nationally and by agreement have been adjusted from
time to time.
The Health Board has argued and the Court accept that
it is not the intention that the subsistence paid be a
source of emolument or profit.
3. The Court takes the view however that the subsistence
rates which have been agreed are rates which have been
struck to adequately reflect the cost to employees away
from home and ensure they are not out of pocket.
4. The Court fully accept that the subsistence payments
should not be enhanced by meals being provided either
free or at a subsidised rate.
5. The regulations governing the payment of subsistence
calls on the employing organisation to ensure that
absence of employees are planned in such a way as to
reduce the cost to a minimum consistent with
efficiency.
6. It is the view of the Court that the subsistence rates
agreed nationally and universally applied should be
paid to the workers here concerned and that the Health
Board consistent with its obligation, "to ensure the
cost is reduced to a minimum", take the necessary steps
to ensure that the subsistence payments made are not
enhanced by free or subsidised meals.
7. The Court accordingly recommends the subsistence
payments be reinstated retrospectively and that in
calculating any payments due the Board take account of
the view expressed in paragraph 6 above.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
30th March, 1992 Tom McGrath
J.F/U.S. -------------
Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.