FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : KERRY COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Dispute concerning the payment of a meal allowance to maintenance assistants.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Council employs five housing maintenance crews consisting of five maintenance overseers and eight maintenance assistants. Since 1981, the overseers are allocated a van to transport assistants together with materials/tools to and from the workplace. The overseers receive a daily meal allowance of £7.79 in accordance with their agreement with the Council. In 1993, the Union, on behalf of the maintenance assistants, served a claim on the Council for payment of the meal allowance. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the 15th May, 1996. Agreement was not possible and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 9th August, 1996. A Court hearing was held in Tralee on the 10th October, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned are expected to have an aptitude for all the component elements of house repair and maintenance. They are in receipt of the semi-skilled rate of pay. They are an invaluable asset to the Council as they provide a first class maintenance service with excellent flexibility.
2. Previously the Labour Court in LCR 7163 recommended that "the issue of meal allowance be negotiated at national level". A claim for the meal allowance is not being entertained nationally. It is entirely up to the Council to address the circumstances of its own workers.
3. The workers have a genuine sense of grievance because their colleagues with whom they work receive the meal allowance of £7.79 while the claimants receive £1.13.
4. The workers concerned are unfairly discriminated against. Comparable workers in the waterworks and sanitary services are paid the meal allowance. Drivers and operatives on the refuse services have a meal allowance. It is only fair that the workers concerned should also be paid the allowance.
COUNTY COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Prior to 1981 the overseers used their own cars to travel to and from work transporting the assistants with equipment/materials to the work site. At that time they qualified for a meal allowance and the Council decided to continue to pay the allowance to overseers in recognition of the responsibility vis a vis the vans having regard to the dual nature of the then existing allowance. Therefore, the circumstances of the assistants are not comparable to those of the overseers. The union claims payment of a meal allowance to the general operative grade which is historically eligible for payment of the eating-on-site allowance, not the meal allowance.
2. The Court has on numerous occasions rejected similar claims (LCR 9922, 9983, 9154 refer).
3. The claim is contrary to the provisions of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (P.C.W.).
4. Concession of the claim would have a significant effect on the Council's finances and establish a precedent throughout the public service.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the difference which exists between those who currently obtain the "meal allowance" and those who obtain the "eating on site allowance" was appropriate and related to the circumstances in which each allowance was granted.
The Court is not satisfied that the passage of time is a sufficient reason for disturbing this difference, which would occur if the claim were to be conceded.
Therefore the Court does not recommend concession of the claim and recommends that if it is to be pursued further in the future, that this should be at national level.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
1st November, 1996______________________
T.O'D./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.