FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : EASTERN HEALTH BOARD - AND - PSYCHIATRIC NURSES' ASSOCIATION (PNA) SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION IRISH NURSES' ORGANISATION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Payment of car parking expenses
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim is on behalf of 8 Community Psychiatric Nurses (CPNs) employed in Area 2 in South Dublin. Area 2 covers Dublin 2, 4, 6, parts of 8, and parts of 14. CPNs provide services to clients in the community by visiting them in their homes or in clinics. The Unions claim that, heretofore,CPNs either had free parking or, if parking in a pay zone, could display a disc of 'Nurse on duty' and it sufficed. Now, with the problems of traffic in Dublin, this is no longer possible.
The PNA wrote to the Board in October ,1998, suggesting either a dispensation for CPNs, or the use of parking discs as a solution to the problem. The Board's response was that "parking expenses are a motoring expense which falls to be dealt with under the mileage rate". The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and conciliation conferences took place on the 9th of June, and the 16th of July, 1999. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 1st of September,1999, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th of March, 2000.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. With the introduction of new parking regulations in Dublin, there are no free parking areas as there were previously. This amounts to a major change in working conditions, as previously CPNs did not have to pay for parking during working hours.
2. For City based CPNs, the amount received in travelling expenses would hardly cover the cost of parking, which has increased 100% in the last couple of years.
3. The Board, in a letter of the 13th of April, 1999, accepted that it would be inappropriate for staff members to be out of pocket during the course of their duties.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim is cost-increasing, and, therefore, precluded under the terms of Partnership 2000. There could be major repercussive expenses associated with the claim.
2. The payment of travelling expenses covers all aspects of use of private cars in the carrying out of official duties. The application of travelling expenses is operated in accordance with strict Revenue Commissioner guidelines.
3. Travel and parking are part of the provisions of the service in the Community.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court recommends that the Board should agree to reimburse the employees concerned for reasonable costs of parking wholly, exclusively, and necessarily incurred in the performance of their duties, unless alternative arrangements can be put in place to avoid such costs.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
12th April, 2000______________________
CON/CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.