FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MAYO COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES' BOARD) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Application of subsistence and meal allowances.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim is on behalf of general operatives and waterworks and sewage caretakers who are claiming benefit of the Council's subsistence and meal allowances. At present, general operatives receive the eating-on-site allowance of €1.43 and the caretakers receive the eating-on-site allowance and a motor mileage allowance of €0.54 per mile. The subsistence allowance being sought is paid for miles travelled from headquarters e.g. 0 - 5 miles pays €9.33 per day (maximum of 4 days per week) up to €33.89 per day - 7 days per week for more than 35 miles. The meal allowance is €7.21 per day, 5 days per week and incorporates the eating-on-site allowance. The Union claims that all other grades in the Council receive either or both allowances. The Council believes that the claim should be considered within the parallel benchmarking process for Local Authorities.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 7th of February, 2002, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th of June, 2002, in Castlebar, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The subsistence allowance should be paid to the general operatives simply on the basis that they are employees of the Council. It is unfair that the lowest paid grade of outdoor employees does not receive the same consideration as their colleagues.
2. The allowances have been in operation for the past 30 years and are a local arrangement. There will be no knock-on effect. The workers concerned have co-operated with on-going change with the Council.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union has accepted at national level that the eating-on-site allowance is the appropriate allowance for general operatives.The Council believes that it is applying both allowances as per the agreement reached at national level in 1986.
2. The claim is precluded by the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF) as it is cost-increasing. The Council is not in a financial position to concede it.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the eating-on-site allowance has not been increased since 1987 and, in consequence, its value has become seriously eroded. The Court is also satisfied that the criterion applied by Mayo County Council in determining the circumstances in which meal allowance and subsistence allowance are payable is anomalous in relation to the claimants in this case.
The LGMSB, on behalf of the Council, has told the Court that the issues giving rise to this dispute are being addressed through the parallel benchmarking process for Local Authorities which is expected to be completed in October, 2002.
The Court recommends that the parties await the outcome of the parallel benchmarking process. If the anomalies referred to above are not then resolved, the matter may be referred back to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
14th June, 2002______________________
CON/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.