FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LONGFORD COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Loss of earnings in road salting area/compensation for use of own car.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union have brought two issues before the Court.
(1) Loss of earnings in road salting areas.
During the winter months, Longford County Council grit the National primary roads in the county on a subcontract basis for the N.R.A. Up to 2004/2005 there were six trucks involved with two operators per truck. In 2004 the County Council purchased a new automatic system which could be fitted on the back of the trucks and only required a driver to operate. The Council reduced the number of trucks to 4 and introduced automated loading system, with the result, helpers were no longer required. The Union’s claim concerns 6 general operatives who worked as helpers on road salting trucks. The Union is seeking compensation for loss of earnings for the 6 workers.
(2) Compensation for use of own car.
The Union’s second claim is for compensation for the use of a worker’s car who was, for two years (ending early 2005) engaged in work erecting road signs which required him to travel to and from locations. He used his own car for this work and received no expenses. The Union estimate his miles travelled per week as approximately 50, and is seeking mileage payments for same. The Union also claims that the Council provided no transport for the worker. The Council maintain that there was transport available for the worker.
The issues could not be resolved at local level and were 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 19th April, 2005 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th July, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1Claim (1) Loss of earnings in road salting areas.
Workers for the last 6 years have been expected to be available for the gritting period on a daily basis and had enjoyed the regular earnings that were attached to this duty.
2. The Union's claim for twice the average annual loss is reasonable and would contend is the average award in such circumstances. This is also below what was paid by other County Councils.
3. In previous comparable cases the County Council has paid loss of earnings.
4.Claim (2) Compensation for use of own car.
It is the practice in the County Council that employees who use their car for work related purposes be paid mileage.
5. The County Council have recognised that the onus was on them to provide transport. In February they introduced a new travel arrangement and now provide transport for the worker to travel from location to location.
6. Other employees in the County Council in similar situations were provided with transport. As the worker was not paid, the Union contend that he should be compensated for the travel involved.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1Claim (1) Loss of earnings in road salting areas.
The gritting system operates on an ad hoc basis depending on weather conditions. The additional earnings gained by the individuals could not be considered as regular or permanent income.
2. The Council would be of the view that no loss of overtime compensation should be paid.
3. The Council however, would accept that a fairer distribution of overtime following the cessation of two man gritting could have addressed this issue.
4.Claim (2) Compensation for use of own car.
The Council made arrangements for the worker to be transported to his work locations. The worker chose not to avail of this, instead, for convenience sake he used his own car.
5. The Council should not be held liable for this
6. Other workers employed with the Council use their own transport for convenience.
7. Concession of this claim will lead to claims from these workers for payment of travel expenses.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court recommends as follows:
Claim A - Loss of Overtime
The Court is not satisfied that the overtime at issue was regular and rostered. In these circumstances, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim. The Court does however, recommend that such overtime as is available be shared equitably between all staff in the relevant categories.
Claim B - Use of Private Vehicle
The Court is satisfied that the claimant was not required to use his private car in the course of his employment. In these circumstances the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
11th July, 2005______________________
JBChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.