FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MEATH COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LGMSB) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Allowances in Machinery Yard
BACKGROUND:
2. Meath County Council operates a machinery yard where all its vehicles, equipment and machinery are stored. In 2007 the rental lease on the yard expired and the Council proposed that both staff and equipment etc. be incorporated into local areas. The Council also suggested the elimination of a number of allowances which were paid to staff based at the machinery yard, but following a threatened strike by the Workers, the move was temporarily postponed in order to allow time for discussions.
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 27th November, 2008 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th February,2009
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The new Machinery Yard and Workshop is wholly owned by the Council and is open and fully operational, it does not make economic sense to now redeploy the Workers to different areas.
2. It is essential to retain a Machinery Yard if a Winter gritting programme is to be continued.
3. Following a buy-out of allowances there will be implications for retiring staff as allowances are reckonable for pension purposes.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The unsustainable level of allowance paid, leaves the Council no option but to close the yard and eliminate the associated expense and relocate the Workers.
2. There is now a reduced demand for surface dressing resulting in the Yard being no longer a viable option.
3. The consultative process is well and truly exhausted, the Council must now move to implement the proposed changes.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issues before the Court arose following Management’s requirement to close the County Council’s Machinery Yard in Navan. As a result the Council proposed to eliminate a number of allowances and redeploy workers to other bases. Management stated that the closure was necessary due to the reduced demand for core surface dressing, the unsustainable level of expenses and the significantly reduced revenue budget.
The Unions disputed the closure plans, sought compensation for the loss of earnings, and expressed significant concern over the proposed redeployment of staff. They indicated that the loss of the allowances may have implications for pension entitlements.
The Unions also raised concerns over the possibility that the Council may outsource some of the operations previously undertaken by the workers and sought discussions with the Council on the engagement of contractors. Management on their part gave a commitment that it was willing to discuss this matter further within Meath County Council. As this matter was not formally before the Court, it will not make a recommendation on the issue.
The Court notes management’s commitment to facilitate the proposed redeployed workers, in so far as it is reasonably practicable, to each worker’s area of choice and to provide them with new skills where required in order to carry out their role.
Having considered the submissions of both parties, while the Court is of the view that the issue of reckonability of allowances for pension purposes is a matter of interpretation of the pension scheme, the Court recommends that compensation should be paid for the elimination of the following allowances:
-Travelling Time
-Waiting & Filling Time
-Heating Tar Allowance
-Friday Overtime
-Gate Allowance
-Early Morning Allowance
In all the circumstances presented by both sides, the Court recommends that compensation of one and a half times the annual loss of such payments should be made in three equal instalments. The Court recommends that payment should be dependent on (i) acceptance of an offer of redeployment in the first instance and (ii) only to those still remaining in employment at the appropriate dates. Therefore, the Court recommends that the compensation should be paid as follows: -
-one third on date of commencement in newly deployed location,
-one third nine months later - for those still remaining in employment,
-one third nine months later - for those still remaining in employment.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
2nd March, 2009______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.