FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH DISTILLERS GROUP (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Inclusion of trip allowance in pensionable pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of seven Articulated Truck Drivers employed by the Company at its three locations in Dublin, Cork city and Midleton for the inclusion of the trip allowance in their pensionable pay.
The workers concerned are paid a trip allowance in respect of long distance journeys which they may be required to undertake each week. This allowance is paid whether the journey goes ahead or not.
In August, 1998, pensionable pay was re-defined to include plus pay and service pay and shift premium. This was agreed by all parties. Prior to the August, 1998, agreement only basic pay was pensionable.
The Union states that at the negotiations and the subsequent signing of the agreement, there was a clear understanding that the issue of the inclusion of the trip allowance for pensionable pay would be addressed at a later stage.
The Company states that a conversation may have taken place regarding the issue of the trip allowance, but it was not agreed and, at this stage, it should not be included for pension purposes.
The dispute was the subject of two conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission held on the 23rd of September, 1999 and on the 7th of December, 1999. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd of February, 2000, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Even though the re-defined pensionable pay was agreed by all parties in August, 1998, there was a clear understanding that the issue of the trip allowance would be addressed at a later stage
2. This is not a consequential claim.
3. The trip allowance represents approximately 50% of the annual gross salary of the workers concerned. It should be included for pension purposes.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In August, 1998, pensionable pay was re-defined as Basic Pay, Plus Pay, Service Pay and Shift Premium. It was agreed by all parties. There was no agreement regarding the trip allowance.
2. It was also agreed that there would be no consequential claims. If this claim is conceded, the Company says that it could lead to further knock-on claims.
3. This is a cost increasing claim and cannot be conceded.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties, notes that significant improvements were made in the pension arrangements, post Labour Court Recommendation LCR15784.
The Court is satisfied that the agreement arrived at in August, 1998, was intended to, and does, apply to the claimants.
The Court, therefore, does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
3rd March, 2000______________________
G.B./C.C.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.