FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SHENICK CONTRACTING (REPRESENTED BY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION) - AND - BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Retrospective payment of travelling allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a member of the Construction Industry Federation and is covered by the terms and conditions of the Registered Employment Agreement for the Construction industry.
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of two bricklayers for the retrospective payment of travelling allowances, as set out in the Registered Agreement, for the period of their employment with the Company.
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 24th November, 2004, in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th March, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.TheUnion, on behalf of its members, is seeking the full amount of retrospective travelling allowance as set out in the Construction Industry Registered Employment Agreement and agreed between the Company and the two workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.At the commencement of employment an Agreement was entered into with the two workers on the basis that the rates paid for brick and block included travelling allowances and their weekly wage exceeded their entitlements under the REA.
2. The Agreement was renegotiated in September, 2003, and travelling allowances were paid separately.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union on behalf of two bricklayers sought retrospective payment of the CIF Travelling Allowance. The Company indicated to the Court that an agreement was entered into in 2002 with BATU which provided for payment of rates inclusive of Travelling Allowance.
In a separate agreement in September 2003, the Company agreed to pay CIF Travelling Allowance in addition to the piece rate agreed. It is acknowledged by both sides that retrospection has been paid, but it is unclear to what extent the retrospection has already been paid.
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court accepts that there was an arrangement in place, which was accepted by the Union, that rates of pay would be inclusive of Travelling Allowance, and the integrity of this agreement needs to be upheld. Therefore, the Court is of the view that the 2002 agreement stood until a new agreement was entered into by both parties. Consequently, the Court recommends that retrospection should be paid back to the date of the new agreement - the Court understands that this was in September 2003.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the parties should meet to calculate retrospective payment due (if any) and if there is a dispute about the matter, the Court will provide assistance.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
30th March, 2005______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.