Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95201 Case Number: AD9554 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH FERRIES LIMITED (B & I LINE) - and - SEAMEN'S UNION OF IRELAND |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. BC401/94 concerning a claim for compensation for travelling expenses.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the written and oral submissions of both
parties the Court finds that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation is reasonable in this case and should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Pierce Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95201 DECISION NO. AD5495
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1969
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: IRISH FERRIES LIMITED
(B & I LINE)
and
SEAMEN'S UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No.
BC401/94 concerning a claim for compensation for travelling
expenses.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company operates passenger car ferry services to
Britain and France. The worker concerned commenced
employment with the B & I line as a bosun's mate in
February, 1983. The worker resided in Galway and
initially was paid expenses which he incurred while
travelling to join his ship. The Company ceased paying
the expenses in September, 1983.
2. In the period 1983 to 1989 the worker sought to have
the expenses reinstated. In late 1989, discussions
took place between the parties at which agreement was
reached to pay the worker #15.00 per week. In May,
1993, the payment of #15.00 was discontinued. The
Company claims that the worker was claiming the #15.00
per week and at the same time using overnight
accommodation for which the Company was billed.
3. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. The Rights
Commissioner's findings and recommendation are as
follows:-
"Findings
Having investigated the matter and having given full
and careful consideration to the points made by both
partes I have come to the following conclusions:
On taking a global view of the situation from the B & I
vantage point I must say that the Company was within its
rights in terminating the payment of #15 per week. I
therefore uphold the Employer's position in the matter.
Recommendation
However in view of the unique circumstances surrounding
this issue it does seem to me to be equitable that I
recommend that B & I pay an ex gratia goodwill payment
of #500 to the worker and that this be accepted by him
in full and final settlement of his claim on the
Employer".
The worker was named in the recommendation.
The worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation to
the Labour Court on 14th March, 1995 under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place
on 30th May, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker incurred considerable expense in the period
1985/1986 in attempting to re-locate his family near
Dublin. He was forced to cancel the purchase of a
house in Drogheda due to his concern regarding his
future employment with the Company.
2. The Company has treated the worker unfairly by the
withdrawing the payment of travel expenses. An
agreement was reached in 1989 to pay the worker #15.00
per week. The Captain signed the expense sheet and the
worker was paid by the ship's purser. Many workers
employed by the Company in similar circumstances
receive expenses.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company does not pay travel expenses to individual
ratings for travelling to work except expenses that are
paid to Cork based staff who previously sailed out of
Cork.
2. In 1989 it was agreed to pay the worker concerned
#15.00 per week in lieu of overnight expenses. It was
the Company's understanding that he stayed overnight
with his sister in Dublin. This was in line with staff
who opted to make their own arrangements regarding
overnight accommodation.
3. Staff employed by the Company reside in various
locations in Ireland and England and do not receive
travel expenses. Concession of the Union's claim would
have serious repercussions throughout the organisation.
4. The Company already has an agreement with the Union in
relation to attending at vessels as follows:-
(1) Weekly Coach Cork/Rosslare Return
(2) Weekly Coach Dublin/Rosslare Return, plus
#10 meal allowance
(3) Facility with C.I.E. whereby return rail fares can
be purchased for .25 of the fare.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the written and oral submissions of both
parties the Court finds that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation is reasonable in this case and should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
26th June, 1995 _______________
F.B./U.S. Deputy Chairman