FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND - GALWAY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Increase in driving allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim is for an increase in the driving allowance of 28 General Operative Staff (GOs) in the University. There are 3 broad categories of workers involved, depending on the amount of driving required. The Union made its claim in July, 2000, and the University offered the following increase in May, 2001:-
Category 1 - from €10.36 per week to €38.10 per week
" 2 - from €5.17 per week to €31.75 per week
" 3 - from €2.64 per week to €12.70 per week
The Union was willing to accept the offer but it was subject to approval from the Higher Education Authority (H.E.A.) and, in turn, the Departments of Education and Finance, but this has not been forthcoming.
The issue was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the issue was referred to the Labour Court on the 22nd of April, 2002, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st of August, 2002, in Galway.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claim was made to reflect the additional responsibilities and skills of the GOs required to undertake driving duties. A substantial time has passed since the claim was made and this has added to the GOs' sense of anger.
UNIVERSITY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The University must get approval for the increase from the H.E.A. and the Departments of Education and Finance, as is required under the Universities' Act.
2. The increases proposed are considerable and must be considered in the context of the provisions of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF).
RECOMMENDATION:
There is no disagreement between the parties as to the merits of the Union's claim which is identical to the offer made by the University in its letter to the Union dated the 21st of May, 2001. It is noted, however, that the offer was conditional on approval from the funding agency, which approval was not provided.
The Court can only endorse the views of both the employer and the Union that the claim is justified, and recommends that it should be implemented.
The Court notes that the numbers in receipt of the driving allowance in NUIG is significantly higher than in other Colleges with which comparison has been drawn in relation to the amount of the allowance. This has obvious implications for the level of funding required to finance increases into the future.
The Court suggests that the parties should examine the College's longer-term requirements for driving services and consider how greater efficiencies could be introduced leading to a reduction in the numbers required.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
4th September, 2002______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.