FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : COILLTE - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Mobility Payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was established in 1989 with a mandate to run the business of forestry on a commercial and profitable basis. It currently employs approximately 600 workers. In December, 1990 the Company introduced a major rationalisation programme which resulted in a considerable increase in forest sizes. As a consequence, interim mobility arrangements and payments were made to reflect the need for greater mobility among staff. The interim proposals put forward by the Company were rejected by the Union. The dispute was then referred to the Labour Court. (Labour Court Recommendation LCR13613 refers).
In 1995 the Union submitted a claim for an increase in the mobility allowances. The claim sought both an increase in existing allowances and a change in the existing mileage bands which had operated since Labour Court Recommendation LCR13613. Following protracted discussions between the Company and the Union no agreement was possible. The dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was convened on the 12th February, 1997 at which both sides put forward their final proposals. No agreement was possible between the parties. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 19th May, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking an improved mobility allowance for workers who have to travel to their place of work.
2. Substantial organisational changes have taken place in the Company over the past number of years. A number of forests were amalgamated and this has resulted in workers having to travel much longer distances to work.
3. The workers have given the Company much more flexibility as a result of the reorganisation. This flexibility must be paid for by an improved mobility allowance.
4. The Company is trading profitably for the past number of years and can afford to concede this claim.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is imperative that the Company controls its high labour unit costs in the interest of the Company and to maintaining the permanent employment of its employees.
2. The position of the forest worker within the Company is nomadic and as such he/she must travel in order to maintain employment.
3. There has been a significant improvement in the Company's labour unit costs. However, these costs are still out of line when compared with contractor rates.
4. There is no reason whatever to change the existing bands of 0-8 miles and 8-20 miles. These bands were established by Labour Court Recommendation LCR13711.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court recommends the following payments for mobility:-
0-8 £1.25 per day
8-20 £7.10 per day
20-30 £8.00 per day
30-40 £9.50 per day
40 miles plus - industrial mileage and overnight subsistence.
(all above rates to include eating on-site).
The above rates should be applied from 1/1/1997.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
29th May, 1997
______________________
L.W./U.S.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.