FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE (NORTH EASTERN AREA) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-042806-IR-06/JT.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute involves a claim by the Union on behalf of the Claimant, a Minibus Driver employed in the Ambulance Service of the Health Service Executive. The Union is seeking (a) relocation payment and (b) subsistence payments in respect of days which the claimant spent in Killeshandra and Kingscourt Day Care Centres. The HSE has rejected these claims. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and Recommendation. On the 10th October, 2006, the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:
- “As regards the claimants claim for relocation payment, it relates to staff who are given no choice but to relocate from St. Felim’s and a recommendation was made by a third party. I don’t accept that there is any comparison with the claimants situation as he sought a transfer, he didn’t have to forcibly relocate. Furthermore I note that benchmarking and sustaining progress agreement pertaining to the health service recognising and respecting the role/development and restructuring agreement for support staff in the health services 2003 which was signed by the HSE and the Health Service Unions. The claimant and his colleagues received substantial payments under this. This was compensation for co-operation with developments within the health services.
- As regard the claimant’s subsistence claim I do note that in relation to Killeshandra and Kingscourt, although meals were free, staff were asked to make a contribution, therefore to resolve and settle this matter the claimant should receive the difference in costs. I therefore recommend that the claimant be paid an expense of €3 per meal as subsistence relating to the sessions at Killeshandra and Kingscourt, which were 27 and 58 respectively. Therefore I recommend the payment of €255 to the claimant”.
- On the 20th November, 2006 the Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th April 2007.
- On the 20th November, 2006 the Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th April 2007.
- UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
- 3.1 Relocation Payment
The Union is seeking to have applied to the Claimant a relocation payment, firstly in recognition of his agreement to relocate/transfer to another location in the Health Service Sector and secondly in recognition of facilitating his employer's requirements regarding the resourcing of the Ambulance Services provision.
2. The Union contends that precedent for such relocation payment exists in relation to the transfer of residential care services for the Older Person resulting from the closure of St. Felim's Hospital in 2003 (details supplied to Court). The Claimant's claim is for application of the payment for transferring to Cavan Monaghan Hospital Services within the Cavan Town area.
3. Subsistence Payment
The Union contends that as the Claimant was away from his normal work location/base for an excess of five hours on each occasion he attended Killeshandra and Kingscourt location and that as no staff canteen facilities were available at either locations he met the criteria required for the payment of a subsistence allowance.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 Relocation Payment
Management contend that as they facilitated a request by the Claimant to transfer from Ambulance Services to Cavan Monaghan Disability Services, this does not constitute a relocation. There is no and never has been provision to compensate employees who request a transfer from one location to another.
2. To concede such a payment in this case not only breaches the Towards 2016 Agreement but also sets a precedent with a consequent unrealistic expectation being set for future employees involved in modernisation initiatives.
3. Subsistence Payment
Management's policy in respect of subsistence allowances has always been that where meals are provided free of charge an employee should not claim subsistence for that meal. Meals were provided at the locations in question. This policy has been reinforced on many occasions over the years most recently by the Employee Relations Department in April 2004 (details supplied to the Court).
4. Management accepts the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in this case.
DECISION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of the parties to this appeal.
On the information before it the Court is satisfied that the conclusions and Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner are reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. Accordingly the Recommendation is affirmed and the appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
19th_April, 2007______________________
JBChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.