FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BRINKS IRELAND LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Lunch money increase
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a cash-in-transit company which provides services to a number of commercial clients. The lunch allowance was first introduced by the Company in 1994 as an alternative to a pay increase. The value in today's money was €9 for a Dublin run (five hours away from base) and €18 for a country run (ten hours away from base). The Union's claim is that the allowance has not been updated since 1994, and it is seeking an increase of approximately 42% which would be in line with the consumer price index (CPI) increase since 1994. The Company maintains that it is already paying double for lunchtime following a second successful claim by the Union in 1997. The claim refers to 57 workers who are all pre-2004 employees. (The parties were involved in a survival plan agreement in 2004 which resulted in the introduction of a new annualised hours contract for new entrants). A second issue dealing with public holiday pay was conceded by the Company.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held. As the parties did not reach agreement the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 29th of November, 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th of March, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claim is not cost increasing as the Company maintains. As an increase in line with CPI it would simply be restoring the original value of the lunch allowance. The current value has been significantly eroded since 1994.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim is cost increasing and is precluded under Section 1.5 of Sustaining Progress (SP). The Company has honoured SP and all previous National Agreements.
2. The Company has gone through serious financial difficulties in the last three years. Conceding the Union's claim would add €60,000 per annum to costs, something the Company cannot afford.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute before the Court concerns the Union's claim for an increase in the rate of the Lunch Allowance to "pre 2004" cash-in-transit drivers. The Union sought an increase of 41.89% increase in the allowance paid, stating that it had not been increased since 1994.
The Company explained the background to the allowance - in 1994 as some drivers were required to work during their lunchtime, the Union submitted a claim for payment. The Company conceded the claim, however, for tax efficiency reasons it was decided to pay it as a "Lunch Allowance". Then in 1997 the Union made a subsequent claim for payment for the time worked at lunchtime, the Company conceded that claim, thereby creating a dual payment.
The Company disputed the Union's present claim on the basis that, firstly it was cost increasing and, therefore, debarred under the terms of Sustaining Progress and, secondly, none of its competitors pay the allowance.
It also made the point that since 2004 when an agreement was reached on the survival of the Company the allowance has been red-circled to those drivers who were employed prior to that date.
The Court has considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions. The Court is of the view that the appropriate time for the Union to raise this claim was during the negotiations on the survival plan in 2004 when pay related matters were considered, not six months later when an agreement has been reached. Additionally, the Court accepts that the 2004 agreement took account of the allowance as it established a red-circling arrangement for pre 2004 drivers.
The Court concurs with the Company's view that this claim is cost increasing and is, therefore, in breach of the terms of Sustaining Progress.
Taking all of these matters into account, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
21st April, 2006______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.