FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WESTERN HEALTH BOARD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. 1. Payment of subsistence.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case relates to a subsistence claim for nursing and non-nursing staff employed in Mayo Mental Health Services. The staff are employed in centres in Ballina, Ballinrobe, Castlebar and Claremorris. The Union had first made a similar claim on behalf of staff in Westport in 2002. The case was referred to a Rights Commissioner who found that the subsistence rate should be paid. Since then the Union has sought the application of the rate to the staff employed in the four centres as listed. The Board has rejected the claim.
The case 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 22nd November, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th of January, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The subsistence rate should be paid in the same way it is paid to staff in the Westport Centre and also in a number of centres in Galway (details supplied to the Court). There are less than twenty workers involved in the claim.
2. All the centres mentioned are in the service of the Western Health Board but the four centres involved in the claim are being denied payment of the subsistence rate.
3. The Board claims that there is potential for huge cost in the claim, yet it did not appeal the Rights Commissioner's recommendation although it made the same argument at that time.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Board is concerned that if the claim is conceded it could extend across many grades at an estimated cost of €1million.
2. There are agreed terms and regulations relating to the payment of subsistence i.e. employees are required to be away from their base for more than five hours. These conditions are not met by staff in the four centres concerned. In the case of Westport, although subsistence is being paid, it is in breach of the regulations.
3. The claim is cost increasing and is barred under the terms of Sustaining Progress.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court relates to the Union's claim for the payment of Day Allowance Subsistence to staff working in Mayo Mental Health Services Day Centre. This claim was made following the issue of a Rights Commissioner's recommendation which provided for payment of the subsistence allowance in a Day Care Centre in Mayo, where staff are not required to be away from base.
The Court understands that there are long-standing agreed terms and regulations relating to the payment of subsistence allowance where an employee is required to be away from base for a period of 5 or more hours. The Court is satisfied that the allowance is paid in these circumstances. The Court does not see merit in paying the allowance where these criteria are not met. Accordingly, the Court rejects the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
7th February, 2005______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.