FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WATERFORD CITY COUNCIL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Claim for meal and flexibility allowances.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a meal allowance for 2 tradesmen and a flexibility allowance for 1 tradesman employed as electricians by Waterford City Council. The Union argues that these 3 Claimants are the only workers employed by the Council who are not in receipt of the allowances. One of the Claimants had been paid the meal allowance for a period of two and a half years. When it came to the Council's attention it was withdrawn.
The Council stated, under the terms of an agreement concluded with the electricians' union ETU, in 1988 the allowance was red-circled for those employees who already held it. Electricians recruited after that date would be paid the 'eating on site' allowance and that 13 electricians are still in receipt of the meal/flexibility allowance but it has not been applied to any new electricians recruited.
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 29th July, 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th April, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1Meal Allowance:
Management has been unfair and discriminating against the 2 Claimants on the meal allowance, they were not members of the ETU and never signed the agreement.
2.Flexibility Allowance:
The Claimant seeking the flexibility allowance was refused the allowance by management. He is the only tradesman who returns to the yard for breaks. At Conciliation management claimed it would have a knock-on effect to pay this worker the allowance. The issue of this worker being the only one having to return to the yard for breaks was never addressed by management.
3. The flexibility allowance was introduced for the tradesmen in order to obviate the need for them to return to the yard for breaks but to allow them to stay on or near the locations in which they were working.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 Following the national agreement in relation to parallel benchmarking for craftworkers, general operatives and related grades, agreement was reached under the local modernisation change agenda that no new allowances would be paid and that existing allowances would be held on a red-circled basis.
2. Agreements which provide for the red circling of allowances are common practice within both the public and private sector. The Council entered into these agreements in good faith and for there to be confidence in future agreements claims such as these cannot be conceded.
3. Management rejects the claim by the Union as it is precluded by the terms of Sustaining Progress.
4. Management is satisfied that it has dealt with these matters in a fair and reasonable manner. The Council believes that the Union have in effect entered into agreements at local level and then sought to reinterpret them for their own benefit.
RECOMMENDATION:
Meal Allowance
The dispute before the Court concerns two craftworkers seeking payment of a meal allowance on the grounds that they were the only craftworkers not in receipt of the allowance and one of whom had been paid the allowance for a period of two and a half years, when it was withdrawn.
The Council stated that the allowance was replaced by an eating on site allowance following an agreement in 1988, when it was agreed to red-circle the allowance to those craftworkers in receipt of it at the time.
Mr. Fitzpatrick commenced employment with the City Council on 21st November 1998 and was not paid the allowance, in line with the agreement of 1988. However, at a later stage he discovered that others who had commenced both before and after him were in receipt of the allowance and he subsequently submitted the claim.
Mr. Smith commenced employment with the City Council in November 1999 and was paid the allowance until March 2002, when it was withdrawn in response to Mr. Fitzpatrick drawing this matter to the City Council’s attention.
Having considered the submissions of the parties, in all the circumstances of this case, the Court recommends that the meal allowance should be restored to both Mr. Fitzpatrick and Mr. Smith on the same red-circled basis as applied to those craftworkers covered by the 1988 agreement.
Furthermore, in recognition of his individual status, the Court recommends that Mr. Fitzpatrick should be paid a lump sum of €1,500 by way of retrospection.
Flexibility Allowance
One craftworker sought the application of a flexibility allowance paid to craftworkers in 2001 as part of an agreement in return for a number of changes in existing work practices. The Council stated that as the worker concerned was employed after that date and consequently was not affected by the changes he was not paid the allowance.
Amongst the changes required by the flexibility agreement was the requirement to remain at the work location for breaks.
The craftworker involved was employed subsequent to the agreement. He maintained that as he is the only craftworker who returns to the yard for his breaks, he should be paid the allowance.
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court does not find in favour of the Claimant and dismisses this claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
27th April, 2006
______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.