FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SECURICOR OMEGA EXPRESS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Meal allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the collection and delivery of parcels on a nationwide and international basis. It employs three hundred and eighty staff at nine locations throughout the country. A meal allowance of €7.62 per day is paid to couriers who operate on country routes. To qualify for the meal allowance couriers must operate outside a twenty mile radius from the depot and are unable to return to the depot or home for lunch.
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of six couriers employed at the Limerick branch who are rostered on city routes for payment of the
meal allowance. In 2002, the Union became aware of local arrangements in Cork and Galway for payment of a meal allowance for city routes. The Company rejects the claim stating that the city based Cork couriers received the allowance due to an error which has been addressed.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 29th of April, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10th of December, 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is unacceptable that couriers in other branches doing exactly the same work as the employees concerned are in receipt of a meal allowance.
2. The workers concerned cannot be treated less favourably than their colleagues in other depots. Pay and conditions of employment are agreed between the parties on a national basis.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers concerned were fully aware when they took up their positions that a meal allowance was not paid to couriers who operated within the defined parameters.
2. The claim cannot be conceded as it would have national implications. It is a cost increasing claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim before the Court is for the application of meal allowances to six drivers operating city based delivery/collection routes. The Union dispute the Company's application of the criteria for entitlement to this allowance, stating that it is at odds with Company correspondence of 29th December, 1999, which stipulates that meal allowances are applicable beyond city limits and also with the practice which applies in other regions, principally the Cork area.
The Company point to the national implications of this claim, indicating that if it is conceded in Limerick, that all other branches will follow.
Having regard to these national implications and the lack of clarity provided by the Company correspondence on the matter dated 29th December, 1999, the Court is of the view that this is an issue, which needs to be addressed at national level. Therefore, the Court recommends that discussions should take place at national level on the specific criteria for entitlement to a meal allowance to drivers.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
17th December, 2003______________________
GB/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.