FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - ICTU GROUP SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Improved meal and lodging allowances.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issues in dispute have been ongoing since Spring 1997, and there have been numerous meetings between the parties since then. At a meeting on the 13th of September, 2001, the Company raised the point that the allowance must be Revenue compliant. The Unions claim that this was the first time this issue had been raised. On the 4th of April, 2003, the Company put proposals to the Unions (details supplied to the Court). The meal allowance would be €5 per day. The allowances were to be phased in over 3 years - 1st January, 2003, 1st January 2004, and the 1st of January, 2005. The Unions rejected the offer. They wanted the meal allowance increased to €10 per day and it should apply to grades other than the Rail operative staff e.g. craft workers, supervisors, clerical etc. The Unions also wanted all 3 phases to be paid from 1st of January, 2003.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a number of conciliation conferences took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 22nd of July, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th of November, 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions have been extremely frustrated by the length of time it has taken to resolve this issue.
2. The Unions believe that the €10 per day eating-on-site allowance could be compliant with Revenue guidelines and would not be subject to tax.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has been informed that €5 per day is the maximum per day allowable tax free.
2. If the Company were to bring forward the phasing in of the allowances it would cost in excess of €650,000 per annum. The Company cannot afford the to pay this as it is in a grave financial position.
3. The Company's proposals satisfy the Unions' original demands.
RECOMMENDATION:
The parties in their submissions made various arguments in relation to the level of the claim and its likely treatment by the Revenue Commissioners.
They had widely differing views on the limits allowed by the Revenue Commissioners for such allowances, the Company stating €5 and the Union €10. The Court is conscious of the serious consequences for employees if the allowance becomes taxable.
The Court is aware of similar allowances being paid in other employments, and would entreat the parties to examine such allowances to ascertain their level and tax treatment.
Having done so, the parties, if they fail to reach agreement, can report back to the Court on their findings, and the Court will at that time make a definitive recommendation on the claims.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
15th December, 2003______________________
CON/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.