FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION UNION OF CONSTRUCTION ALLIED TRADES & TECHNICIANS DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Travel and Subsistence.
BACKGROUND:
2. A Collective Agreement was reached with the Unions in January, 2006 on the Company's proposals in relation to Meal and Lodging Allowances. Details of the allowances are as follows:
5 Hours+ Over 5 Miles+ Overnight Stay
5 Miles away from home Over 10 Hours away from home
Group A €10.00 €35.55 €49.85
Group B €8.15 €19.90 €42.75
Group C €7.45 €18.35 €35.65
Subsequently a problem arose in relation to implementation of the allowances specifically in relation to Building /Maintenance staff and Relief staff.All these staff are in Category C for meal and lodging purposes.The Unions claim that the Allowance which should be paid to these staff should be €35.65. The Company maintains that the correct allowance should be €18.35. Local discussions were not successful and the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A Conciliation Conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 13th October, 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 12th January, 2007.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. In the case of the two categories of staff some clear anomalies have arisen. In some areas the rate being paid to workers is €35.65, however this rate does not apply in all areas. The payment proposed by the Company of €18.35 is less than the payment which these workers have received for many years. The figure of €35.65 should apply to them in the circumstances as the rate of €18.35 represents a decrease in the allowance and this is totally unacceptable to the Unions.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The essence of this claim is that individual workers should be compensated for overnight stays where no such requirement exists; that individual workers should be compensated in circumstances where no expense has been incurred; that individual workers should be compensated despite the fact that the Company has directly provided sustenance.
2. The Company has properly applied subsistence allowances in accordance with the Collective Agreement and which is fully compliant and generous.
RECOMMENDATION:
The net issue in dispute in this case is whether the terms of the agreement on travel and subsistence payments should be universally applied to all workers to which it relates or whether previous established ad hoc arrangements should continue.
It is clear that an agreement was concluded between the parties in January, 2006 and that it was the culmination of six years of negotiations. It appears to the Court that the objective being pursued by the parties in their negotiations was not just to increase the rates of various allowances but to definitively set down the circumstances in which those allowances would be payable. In that regard the parties must have intended that the allowance would be paid so as to compensate for expenses wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in the performance of duties. It is clear that Revenue approval to pay the allowances without deduction of tax and PRSI could not have been obtained if they were payable on any other basis.
The Court accepts that ad hoc local arrangements were in place in some locations before the agreement came into effect. Nevertheless, the agreement was intended to apply to all staff encompassed by its terms and no provision was made in the agreement for exceptions where other local arrangements existed. Furthermore, it appears to the Court that if the allowances were to be paid outside the terms on which they were approved by the Revenue Commissioners their tax free status could be put in question.
For all of the above reasons the Court is firmly of the view that the agreement was intended to apply to all staff covered by its terms and accordingly it does not recommend concessions of the Unions' claims.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
18th January, 2007
tod______________________
Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.