FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TRINITY COLLEGE - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Travel allowance to employees in the grounds and gardening section.
BACKGROUND:
2. There are 12 workers involved in the claim which is for one hour's pay per day in respect of travel time. The claim dates back a number of years and was first presented as part of an overall claim by College Staff on the general operative scale in 1982. The claim was the subject of a Labour Court hearing but was rejected. (LCR7250 refers). A similar claim specifically relating to the Building Department General Operatives was pursued in 1984 and was also the subject of a Labour Court recommendation. In LCR8829, the Court recommended concession of the claim. The grounds and gardens staff pursued a similar claim in 1993 and it was rejected by the College. The Union re-activated the claim in June 2000. The College does not accept that it has an obligation to pay this allowance to staff now nor does it consider such a payment to be reasonable or necessary. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 16th August, 2000 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 22nd August, 2000 under Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 5th October, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The initial claim in 1982 on behalf of all general operatives was based on the pay relationship with Dublin Corporation, who paid it to their general operatives. Therefore, it was not unreasonable to have sought this payment at the time.
2. The subsequent payment to the general operatives in the Buildings Office was due to the fact that they were working alongside craft workers who had also secured payment, and also on the basis of the criteria laid down i.e. that they are required to travel to off campus locations. This criteria also applies to the claimants in the Grounds & Gardens section. These employees have to work off campus on a regular basis in a number of locations(details with the Court). On occasions the workers are required to go directly from home.
These workers are required to work off campus at least as regularly as their colleagues in the Buildings Office who receive payment.
3. There are other general operatives grades in the Education Sector who receive the allowance on the basis that they satisfy the criteria, such as the VEC'S and DIT. On the basis of the normal criteria for payment the claimants satisfy these and therefore the allowance should be conceded.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The College's funding authorities have consistently made clear to the College their absolute opposition to the payment of a travel allowance to any staff not employed in the Buildings Office.
2. There is no provision for claims such as this under the terms of the current wage agreement. It is not open to the College to operate outside the terms of national wage agreements.
3. Labour Court Recommendation 8829 recommended concession of a travel allowance to Buildings Office workers only. In its Recommendation, the Court stated clearly that the rationale for its decision related to the fact that the claim being considered was on behalf of bona fide building operatives who worked with craftsmen (who had recently been awarded a travel allowance). The present claimants are Grounds staff, who do not work in the Buildings Office, and do not work with craftsmen.
4. Grounds Staff normally report for work on the College campus. On the infrequent occasions when they work on external College properties, they are normally driven there in transport provided by the College, during working hours. Grounds Staff who have to make their own way to external College sites, do so in College time, and are reimbursed for the travel costs incurred.
5. Grounds Staff in UCD who receive a Travel allowance are employed in the UCD Buildings Office, are considered buildings workers, and carry out buildings-related duties. They are therefore not comparable to Grounds staff in TCD.
6. Concession of this claim to Grounds Staff would inevitably lead to knock-on claims in related employment's in the public sector.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the oral and written submissions of both parties to this dispute, the Court does not see any basis on which it could recommend concession of the Union's claim.
The Court notes that the general operatives involved in this dispute may not have been reimbursed for travelling expenses incurred on college time, the Court recommends that this situation should be rectified immediately.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
17th October 2000______________________
TOD/SHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.