FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Payment of Subsistence Allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Organisation is one of the largest service providers in the Intellectual Disabilities Sector which provides a number of day and residential community based and sheltered workshops in Dublin and Lisnagry, Co. Limerick.
On the 1st of June, 2000, following a claim by the Union, the Organisation introduced the payment of a subsistence allowance for staff who travel on business and are away from base for five hours or more.
The dispute before the Court is on behalf of two drivers who escort clients during the summer months to the Organisation's holiday home in Kilkee, Co. Clare, for payment of arrears of subsistence allowance backdated to 1994.
The Union argues that the Organisation's Employee Information Handbook which issued in 1994 states that travelling and subsistence expenses may be granted to employees travelling on official business. Therefore, the workers concerned should have received a subsistence allowance since 1994.The Organisation states that the agreement reached between the parties was to implement the subsistence allowance from the 1st of June, 2000 with no mention of retrospection.
Local discussions could not resolve the issue. The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 12th of August, 2002, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th of February, 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Talks did take place regarding the introduction of a subsistence allowance. There is no record of an actual agreement.
2. The Organisation's position is contradicted by its own Employee Information Handbook issued in 1994, which states that travelling and subsistence expenses may be granted to employees travelling on official business.
3. Food is not provided for the workers concerned at the Kilkee centre.
4. The workers concerned incurred expenses over the years in the course of their duties and should receive the arrears due to them.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Organisation is an independent voluntary agency which operates its own terms and conditions of employment which differ from the Health Board's terms and conditions of employment.
2. The agreement reached in 2000, was that the subsistence allowance would be implemented from a current date and this was accepted by the Union.
3. Drivers are provided with sandwiches and light refreshments by staff at the centre in Kilkee.
4. The claim cannot be conceded as there would be knock-on claims by other staff within the organisation. It is also a cost increasing claim and barred under the terms for the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court is satisfied that an agreement was reached in June 2000, when the organisation decided to introduce subsistence allowance in line with those paid in the Health Boards. The Court is satisfied that the new policy introduced in June 2000 eliminated the haphazard practice which existed prior to that date.
The claim before the Court is for the retrospective application of the new policy. The Court is of the view that there is no justification in this claim and accordingly rejects the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
13th February, 2003______________________
GB/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.