FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Payment of allowances twice in 2-week cycle for the OHLE Gang.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns 15 workers who are employed in what is known as the OHLE Gang (the New Gang) which is responsible for the maintenance of the overhead line cables on the DART system between Greystones and Malahide. In October 2001, the New Gang was recruited with the view to them giving 24 hour cover on a 5 over 7 day week. In mid 2003, a roster was agreed based on 12 hour shifts with a cycle of 7 days on followed by 7 days off. In effect, the New Gang did two weeks work in one week and their wages are evened out over the two weeks. The Union's case relates to the allowances (meal/lodging allowance and a van-driving allowance) they receive and the fact that they only receive one week's allowance every two weeks. Other staff receive the allowance every week. The Company's case is that the workers agreed to the roster and the condition attached to it.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 3rd of February, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th of April, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. If the workers received double the allowance for the week they work they would be receiving the same expenses as all other staff and at no extra cost to the Company.
2. The current system is of benefit to the Company as well as the workers in question.
It is also a cost-saving measure to the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers are seeking payment for days they do not work. Prior to the current agreement, staff would have qualified for the allowance, where applicable, for working 10 days within a 2-week cycle.
2. In accordance with the Revenue Commissioners guidelines, the Company can only pay the meal/lodging allowance where the employee is in attendance. The
van driving allowance is only paid where an individual actually carries out driving duties.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court concerns the application of meal allowances and the van driving allowance to those on a twelve hour shift who operate on a seven days on, seven days off basis. These allowances are paid on a daily basis and, accordingly, are paid for 7 days in a two-week cycle. The Union is seeking double payment of these allowances.
Having considered the oral and written submissions of both parties, the Court recommends as follows:-
Van Driving Allowance
The Court notes the conditions attached to the payment of the van driving allowance, which is paid in recognition of the duties and responsibilities associated with driving the van. For these responsibilities the allowance is set at €6.50 per day.
The Court takes the view that this sum equates to a normal day (approximately 8 hours), whereas in the case of the claimants here concerned, the Court considers that it would be more equitable to pay the allowance on an hourly basis and recommends the application of a pro-rata hourly rate.
Meal Allowance
The Court notes that the issue of meal allowance is the subject of current negotiations between the parties. The Court notes that this process may result in new arrangements being put in place, which could have the effect of providing an enhanced level of benefit by the change in criteria envisaged for the payment of such allowances. The Court recommends that this claim should be 'parked' pending the outcome of this process.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
19th April, 2004______________________
CON/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.