FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LIMERICK COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Meal allowance
BACKGROUND:
2. The employer entered into discussions with the Union regarding a productivity/rationalisation package for the Senior General Services Supervisor grade in 1996. Following a conciliation conference a set of proposals were issued and these were accepted by both parties.
Contained in that agreement was an acceptance by the Union that they would withdraw a claim for a meal allowance for these staff and accept an eating on site allowance for these staff. It was also agreed that this issue would only re-emerge in the context of a future rationalisation/productivity package.
The Union raised this issue again in December, 2000, and a number of meetings were held, but as no agreement could be reached the matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 31st of October, 2001. As no agreement could be reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on the 6th of November, 2001, under section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th of February, 2002 in Limerick.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Members are now fulfilling the emergency and on-call arrangement on the basis of every 12 weeks as opposed to every 13 weeks.
2. Supervisors are now covering 8 -10 gangs in their area each day.
3. There is no provision of canteen facilities for members in the course of their work.
4. The Union is aware that the employer is paying subsistence over and above the eating-on-site allowance to craftsmen.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The employer is satisfied that the eating-on-site allowance is the appropriate allowance for senior supervisors.
- 2. The Union withdrew their claim for the meal allowance when they accepted the agreement in 1997.
- 3. The cost of conceding this claim would be €17,000 approx, for the 12 Senior Supervisors and would have a knock on effect throughout the Council and the rest of the public service.
- 4. This is a cost increasing claim and is therefore precluded under the industrial peace clause of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
- 4. This is a cost increasing claim and is therefore precluded under the industrial peace clause of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear from the terms of clause 6 of the 1997 agreement that a reduction in supervisor numbers cannot give rise to a reactivation of the claim for meal allowance.
Accordingly, the Court cannot recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
7th March, 2002______________________
HMCD/MBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.