FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE-WESTERN AREA - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Payment of expenses.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the non payment of travel expenses to Dental Nurses who travel with Dentists to outlying clinics within the area covered by the HSE Western Area. It had previously been the case that Nurses travelling to the clinics would use their own transport and claim the appropriate expenses. The payment of these expenses ceased in 2004 when it was pointed out by management that shared transport should be used where staff were travelling to the same location. Travelling arrangements were managed locally by the dentists who drove their own vehicles to the clinics and claimed the appropriate expenses.
The Union are claiming that Dental Nurses be allowed to use their own transport to attend the clinics and be paid the appropriate mileage rates. They further requested that all expenses incurred by the Dental Nurses since May 2004 be re-paid in full.
The HSE Western Area reject the claims on the basis that it apply the appropriate provisions of Department of Finance Circular 11/82 relating to Travel & Subsistence.
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 14th December 2004 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th June, 2005, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is unacceptable that the HSE refuse to pay expenses to Nurses incurring additional expense in the course of their work.
2. Nursing grades working in other areas covered by the HSE are paid travel expenses which should also apply in this case.
HSE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The claim is cost increasing and precluded under Sustaining Progress.
2. The Union's claim is at variance with the Department of Finance Circular 11/82 which deals with Travel & Subsistence.
3. Concession of this claim would lead to repercussive claims from other staff who use shared transport in the course of their job.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is the Court's view that in the absence of feasible arrangements whereby Dental Surgeons and Nurses travelling to the same location share the use of private cars (in the sense of alternating as driver / passenger) the Unions claim is reasonable and should be conceded.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
30th June, 2005______________________
AH/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.