Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD939 Case Number: LCR13956 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: G & K COMMUNITY TRAINING WORKSHOP LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning mileage allowance rates.
Recommendation:
5. Despite the fact that the Company is fully-funded by FAS and
is acting on instructions from FAS in this matter, the Court does
not consider that a unilateral decision by the Company to reduce
mileage allowance is in keeping with good industrial relations.
The Court notes that having a car is not a condition of employment
but that its availability greatly enhances the effectiveness of
the staff concerned and is the usual form of transport.
The amount of money involved is not significant but the issue is a
matter of principle for the workers involved. Accordingly, the
Court recommends that in the absence of agreement to the reduced
rate the original rates should continue.
However, the Court also recommends that the parties should discuss
the position further as the continuation of the original rates
could involve budgetary constraints detrimental to both the
service and the workers.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD939 RECOMMENDATION NO LCR13956
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
SECTION 26(1)
PARTIES: G & K COMMUNITY TRAINING WORKSHOP LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning mileage allowance rates.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workshop is funded by FAS and provides training courses
for 15-18 year olds who have not completed their education. It
has a staff of 6 full-time and 3 part-time workers. They received
a mileage allowance (43p-57p per mile), incurred during visits to
trainees on in-company training, visiting premises for projects
etc. In October, 1991 FAS instructed all workshops to reduce the
mileage allowance to a single rate of 35p per mile. The Union
objected to this action and claimed the reinstatement of the
original allowances. Management rejected the claim. The issue
was referred to the Labour Relations Commission in May, 1992.
Conciliation conferences were held on the 5th may and 21st
October, 1992 but no agreement was reached. The issue was
referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on
the 7th January, 1993. A Court hearing was held in Cork on the
27th January, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The FAS directive of October, 1991 was issued without
any prior consultation or discussion with the Union. The
mileage rates previously applying were in force since 1985 and
were part and parcel of the workers' remuneration package. It
is in effect a condition of employment, making it part of
their contract of employment.
2. The newly reduced rates do not apply to FAS staff. The
directive is in breach of Labour Court Recommendation 12565
which recommended that salaries and conditions in Community
Training Workshops be brought into line with FAS staff.
3. The costs of running a car have increased significantly
since 1985 and Civil Service mileage rates have increased
recently. It is therefore most unjust that management has now
reduced rates enjoyed by workers for many years.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Following the FAS Directive, Management (while
sympathetic to the workers' claim) were left with no
alternative but to reduce mileage rates to 35p per mile with
effect from October, 1991. FAS is the sole means of funding
for the workshops. The Authority confirmed in August, 1992
that it was not in a position to increase funding to support
higher travelling allowances. The resources are not available
to pay the rates which obtained prior to October, 1991.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Despite the fact that the Company is fully-funded by FAS and
is acting on instructions from FAS in this matter, the Court does
not consider that a unilateral decision by the Company to reduce
mileage allowance is in keeping with good industrial relations.
The Court notes that having a car is not a condition of employment
but that its availability greatly enhances the effectiveness of
the staff concerned and is the usual form of transport.
The amount of money involved is not significant but the issue is a
matter of principle for the workers involved. Accordingly, the
Court recommends that in the absence of agreement to the reduced
rate the original rates should continue.
However, the Court also recommends that the parties should discuss
the position further as the continuation of the original rates
could involve budgetary constraints detrimental to both the
service and the workers.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
16th February, 1993 ---------------
T O'D/U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.