Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD/92/147 Case Number: AD92160 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: ICL LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC. 484/91 concerning the payment of a mileage allowance to a worker.
Recommendation:
7. Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court
is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is
appropriate in this case and that grounds have not been
established to justify altering it.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92147 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD16092
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: ICL LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. BC. 484/91 concerning the payment of a
mileage allowance to a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. Most workers who are required to visit customer sites are
provided with company cars. The rest of the workers use their
own cars and can opt for either of two methods of payment. Plan
A provides for payment at fixed mileage rates, (the C.C. of the
car determines the rate payable) whilst under Plan B a fixed
monthly allowance together with a mileage rate is payable
(details supplied to the Court). The fixed allowances are
reconciled quarterly by each manager to ensure the correct
monthly fixed rate is paid, based on actual mileage each month
and reconciled at year end. The year runs from 1st October to
30th September. The worker concerned opted for Plan B.
3. The worker was absent from work from 25th October, 1990 to
1st July, 1991. He claimed a fixed mileage allowance for the 12
month period 1st October, 1990 to 30th September, 1991 of #96
per month on the basis that he did 2,116 business miles whilst
attending work during this period. The Company rejected the
claim. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner
investigated the dispute on 12th February, 1992 and he issued
the following recommendation dated 26th February, 1992.
"In the light of the above and having given full and
careful consideration to the points made by both parties I
have come to the following conclusions.
1. There is a degree to imprecision concerning the
circumstances in which the payment of this monthly
allowance is warranted.
2. The letter dated 26 January, 1989 contains clauses
that are of a comfort to each side.
3. There is clearly a need on the part of the Trade Union
and Management to establish a firm clarification as to the
circumstances in which the car allowance is paid and the
circumstances in which the car allowance is not paid.
In the light of the above I believe a position of
compromise is appropriate. I therefore recommend that ICL,
as a gesture of further goodwill, should pay to the worker
the car allowance of #96 per month for a further three
months in the disputed period. I further recommend that
the parties should meet early to achieve the clarification
on this matter that is much needed."
The worker was referred to by name in the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation.
4. The Union appealed the above recommendation to the Labour
Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Court heard the appeal on 13th May, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Under the provisions of Plan B the total mileage will
be calculated at end of year and if the worker has received
total fixed allowances less than twelve times the monthly
rate for his category he will then receive an additional
balancing sum.
2. The fixed monthly allowance is made to cover the cost
of the car i.e. tax, insurance, loan repayments etc. These
costs are ongoing.
3. The mileage allowance paid by the Company to the
worker and the extra amount recommended by the Right
Commissioner falls short of the amount due under the
agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company does not pay any fixed mileage rates to
staff during absence. Company owned cars are required to
be returned during absences.
2. The worker was paid a mileage allowance during a
previous lengthy illness on compassionate grounds (details
supplied to the Court). The Company has always looked
compassionately at every individual case during illness.
3. The worker was paid a fixed allowance as a gesture of
goodwill for the period October, 1990 to December, 1990 as
he was expected to resume duty in January, 1991.
4. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation represents a
reasonable resolution of the dispute and the Company is
prepared to accept same.
DECISION:
7. Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court
is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is
appropriate in this case and that grounds have not been
established to justify altering it.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
26th May, 1992 ______________________
M.D./N.Ni.M. Chairman