Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9434 Case Number: LCR14604 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CARLOW COUNTY COUNCIL - and - A WORKER;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Provision of driving allowance to a fitter.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submission from the parties, the Court has
come to the conclusion that there is no basis on which it could
recommend concession of the claim, which it accordingly rejects.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9434 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14604
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
CARLOW COUNTY COUNCIL
(REPRESENTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFF NEGOTIATIONS BOARD)
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Provision of driving allowance to a fitter.
BACKGROUND:
2. Drivers of certain vehicles (tractor, JCB's, lorries) are
obliged to have their vehicles ready on-site by 8.00 a.m. to
enable work to commence at normal starting time. Drivers are
also required, each evening after normal working hours, to
have the vehicles prepared for the following morning.
Drivers are paid an allowance (an overtime rate of 30 minutes
in the morning, 30-60 minutes in the evening) for the work
involved.
The Union is claiming that the worker concerned should be in
receipt of the allowance as part of his work involves
driving. The Council rejects the claim.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and a conciliation conference was held on 16th June, 1993.
No agreement was reached and the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court on 17th January, 1994. A Labour Court hearing
took place on 8th November, 1994 in Carlow (the earliest date
suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. All drivers with the Council including dumper drivers,
are paid the allowance. Much of the worker's job
involves driving, from site to site and to and from
water and sewage plants.
2. The worker's vehicle requires fuelling and maintenance.
His work is no different to other drivers in the
Council.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is no basis for the Union's claim. Drivers are
paid an allowance for work done outside of normal
working hours. This does not apply to the worker
concerned. He starts at normal time and is allowed time
each evening to return his vehicle to base for normal
finishing time.
2. If the worker is required to work additional hours he is
paid at the appropriate overtime rate. The worker's
position is the same as other workers in the Council who
drive a vehicle within normal working hours.
3. The Council has a projected debit of #1.9 million for
the end of 1994. There is no financial provision for an
additional cost of #3,800 which the Union's claim would
cost.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submission from the parties, the Court has
come to the conclusion that there is no basis on which it could
recommend concession of the claim, which it accordingly rejects.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
22nd November, 1994 Evelyn Owens
C.O'N./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.