FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LEITRIM COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Claim for payment of allowance for mobile phones.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union is in dispute with Leitrim County Council in relation to its claim that the Council is in breach of an Agreement reached in 1997 in relation to the payment of an allowance in respect of the installation of radio/mobile phone equipment in Engineers’ cars. The Agreement provides for:
- - Payment of €318 (£250) on acceptance of the agreement and prior to the installation of the equipment;
-Within one month of installation of the equipment a payment of €159 (£125) with the annual payment of the same amount;
- These amounts to be linked to the Consumer Price Index.
- The Union's claim is for the initial €318 together with the annual payment to be paid to each member who has had radio or mobile phone equipment installed in their private car since 1997 updated by CPI in accordance with clause 1(b) and (c) of the Agreement with the Council.
- The Council claims that the 1997 agreement was intended primarily to deal with a small number of engineering staff who were required to have mobile phone/radio equipment installed, the installation of which could damage the car’s facia. Management is prepared to buy out the allowance from those who are actually in receipt of this allowance on fair and reasonable terms.
- - Payment of €318 (£250) on acceptance of the agreement and prior to the installation of the equipment;
- 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 20th October, 2005 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th October, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 Management's claim that the agreement is confined to engineers and so specifically excludes cognate grades such as planners is unreasonable and at variance with the way engineers and cognate grades are treated within the council. It is well established that cognate grades are paid the same terms and receive the same conditions as their engineering colleagues and to treat them differently in this instance would breach existing and historical agreements and practice in this regard.
2. It has been argued that because hands free kits are a legal requirement installation and use of these kits does not require compensation. The supply and use of hands free kits is not a legal requirement.
3. Compensation in relation to the installation and use of radio/mobile phone equipment is covered by the terms of the 1997 Agreement between the parties. The Council remains in breach of both the spirit and the letter of the Agreement.
4. If Management wants to review and change any Agreement they can and should do so in the normal way through negotiation with the Union. It is not acceptable to take unilateral action using pretexts and unreasonable interpretations to deny our members their agreed entitlements.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 Management accepts that at the time of introduction of this allowance there was justification for its payment as it related to the installation of radios. Radio equipment was the principal option available as mobile phone technology was limited in the area at the time. Radio equipment is no longer utilised by the Council with the exception of the Fire Service.
2. Management argues that successive national agreements have included payments for the use of and co-operation with new technology, therefore the continuation or extension of such payment is no longer valid.
3. Management is prepared to buy out the allowance from those who are actually in receipt of this allowance on fair and reasonable terms.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute before the Court relates to the Union’s claim for payment of an allowance for mobile phones. The Union stated that the failure to pay the allowance to Engineers and Planners was in breach of an agreement reached between the parties in 1997.
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court is of the view that the 1997 Agreement is clear and specific on who should be paid the allowance. It states:
- “The use of radio/mobile telephone system to be confined to Engineering Staff for operational purposes …”
Due to the fact that the arrangements entered into in that agreement are now obsolete, Management have offered to buy out the allowance and entered discussions with the Union on this issue.
The Court recommends that those Engineers who incurred an expense in having a radio/ mobile phone installed in their cars should be entitled to benefit as per the 1997 agreement and should be included in the buy out arrangement agreed.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
17th October, 2006______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.