FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : COILLTE - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Restoration of agreed subsistence arrangements
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Union that the Company unilaterally changed a collective agreement regarding the claiming of expenses. In January 2009 the employer informed the Union that the 10 hour subsistence rates will no longer apply. Expenses will default to the 5 hour rate and anything in excess of that will only be paid on the basis of vouched receipts. The Union responded in writing to the Company stating they could not implement this without agreement. The Company's position is that it has not withdrawn the facility whereby employees can be paid the higher subsistence rates up to the full value of 10 hour rate, it has merely sought that the claim for the higher rate is covered by receipts.
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 could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 19th November, 2009 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th April, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Company cannot unilaterally implement a change regarding subsistence rates. In Labour Court Recommendation No.18415 the Court stated "a collective agreement remains valid and binding on the parties until it expires or is renegotiated".
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The new arrangement for subsistence claims does not represent less beneficial conditions of service or remuneration. It is merely a change in the mechanism for claiming subsistence and does not reduce the entitlement of an individual from availing of the full value of the 10 hour subsistence rate. It accords fully with the guiding principles of the subsistence arrangements.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court concerns the Union’s claim on behalf of non-industrial employees for the restoration of agreed subsistence arrangements. The Civil Service Subsistence Allowance applies to the workers concerned.
In March 2009 the employer changed the arrangements for claiming subsistence allowance to require vouched receipts in certain circumstances.
Having considered the submissions of both sides the Court is satisfied that the terms and conditions of claiming subsistence are governed by collective agreement in line with Civil Service Circular 11/1982 and amendments to that agreement must involve a process of negotiations and agreement between the parties. As there was no such agreement with the Union in this case the Court recommends that the conditions should be restored retrospective to the date they were removed.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
17th May, 2010______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.