FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : KERRY COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Meal allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim concerns 8 workers who are employed at the County Council's landfill site. The Union's claim is for the payment of a meal allowance of €14.34 per day to those workers. The Council rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court in June, 2003 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held in Tralee on the 16th September, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Work at the landfill is very demanding and onerous. The claimants should be rewarded in some significant way and the fairest way is by paying them a meal allowance.
2. Throughout the refuse collection service other staff are paid an agreed meal allowance of €14.34 per day. In particular the claimants have a comparability with the transfer station operatives.
3. The claimants have to endure extremes of weather, work in adverse weather conditions to ensure the smooth running of the facility. They should be remunerated on a par with colleagues who receive the meal allowance.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Historically this grade has been eligible for the eating on site allowance and not the meal allowance arising from the National Agreement on the eating on site allowance introduced in 1987. It is not appropriate for the Union to seek to amend or avoid the terms of the National Agreement through a local claim.
2 The claim if conceded could have significant repercussive effects.
3. The claim is cost increasing and precluded under the Sustaining Progress Agreement.
4. The Labour Court, on numerous occasions, has rejected claims of this nature (LCR's 7186,9922,9983,9154,17177, and 17329 refer).
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court would refer the parties to Recommendations LCR 17177 and LCR 17329 which dealt with a similar issue. In both of those cases the Court recommended that the anomalies identified be dealt with through the parallel benchmarking process. The Court further recommended that if the anomaly is not resolved through that process, the dispute may be referred back to the Court.
The Court recommends that the same approach be adopted in the present case
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
25th September, 2003______________________
todDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.