FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DONEGAL COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - SIPTU (LAPO BRANCH) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Payment of Gaeltacht Allowance
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim is that the Council has failed to implement a clause within the Better Local Government (BLG) Agreement between the parties relating to the payment of a Gaeltacht Allowance to three eligible staff members. The Allowance of 7.5% of salary was being paid to two of the workers but, following a report by the Local Government Auditor, was discontinued in September, 2004. The Union is seeking for it to be reinstated to the two workers and is seeking payment to the third worker from 26th October, 2004. The Council's case is that the BLG Allowance is in contradiction to S.I. No. 221 of 1966 which states that the Allowance is foremployees whose duties are performed mainly or entirely in any part of the Gaeltacht area.The BLG Allowance is paid to"all competent staff in the Glenties, Donegal, Stranorlar and Milford Electoral Areas"and, as that is not where the two workers are situated, the allowance can no longer apply.
The case was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a Conciliation Conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 26th August, 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th May, 2009, in Donegal, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The BLG Agreement in relation to the Gaeltacht Allowance was considered, negotiated and agreed with the Council without reference to S.I. No. 221 of 1966. The two workers entered into the agreement in good faith.
2. Neither of the workers performed duties "mainly or entirely in any part of the Gaeltacht" so this confirms that it was not an issue for the Council until the Local Government Auditor raised the matter.
3. By terminating the Allowance the Council has unilaterally reconfigured the BLG Agreement in its own interest at considerable cost to the members affected.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Council must be satisfied that the payment of any allowance is made in accordance with the approved regulations and Circular Letters governing same. The payment of any such allowances are also subject to review by the Local Government Auditor. Consequently S.I. No. 221 of 1966 must take precedence over the BLG Agreement, making the three workers ineligible for the Allowance.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns the discontinuation of the Gaeltacht Allowance to two employees and the subsequent non-payment to one other employee who had been approved for payment.
The Council submitted that the Allowance was discontinued as the Local Government Auditor deemed it to be inappropriate in the circumstances and challenged the basis for its payment.
The Council stated that the Allowance was initially paid in accordance with the provisions of the Better Local Government Agreement, which provided for payment of the Allowance to competent staff in specific areas where Irish is spoken. However, the Council accepted that the conditions applicable to payment of the Allowance were not in accordance with the legal provisions laid down in S.I. No. 221 of 1966, which required the performance of duties“mainly or entirely in any part of the Gaeltacht”. Therefore, as the employees in question did not meet the legal criteria necessary, it had to be withdrawn.
Having considered the oral and written submissions of both parties, and having examined the terms for payment of the Allowance, the Court is satisfied that the Claimants did not meet the criteria specified for payment of the Allowance under either the Better Local Government Agreement or S.I. No. 221 of 1966. Therefore, the Court is satisfied that it was incorrectly paid to two Claimants and incorrectly approved for payment in the case of the third.
In all the circumstances, the Court is of the view that there is no justification for the claim to have the Allowance reinstated and no merit in the claim for compensation. Therefore, the Court rejects the Union’s claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
4th June, 2009______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.