FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MAYO CO. COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LGMSB) - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Payment of Travel Expenses
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between Mayo County Council (represented by LGMSB) and IMPACT concerning the non payment of travel allowances paid to a worker who retired from the Council in July, 2007. Management raised a jurisdictional point that the Court could not hear the case as the worker was a retiree and therefore not covered by the Industrial Relations Acts. On the substantive issue Management contend that the worker was paid his due entitlements when he retired. The Union's position is that the worker had accrued the additional annual leave prior to retirement but his cesser payment did not include the agreed 22.5% travel allowance.
The dispute was not 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 26th May 2009 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 28th October, 2009 the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The worker facilitated the County Council by remaining in employment for the additonal period from February 2007 to July 2007. If he had retired in February his cesser payment would have included the 22.5% travel allowance. In such circumstances where the worker retired in July 2007 his cesser payment should still have included the agreed allowance.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The 22.5% travel allowance is normally payable in holiday pay and reflects travel expenses that have actually been incurred. In this case the worker is seeking payment for expenses which were not incurred. As a result Management contend that the worker's claim is without merit.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim before the Court concerns the Union’s claim on behalf of one worker for the inclusion of 22.5% travel allowance payment in his holiday pay on retirement.
The Union maintained that he should have received the travel allowance in his cesser payment, as it was always included in holiday pay while he was employed.
The Council submitted that the claimant was retired and therefore was no longer a worker for the purposes of the Industrial Relations Acts 1946 – 2004 and therefore the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case.
The worker retired on 9th July 2007. Due to administrative difficulties he did not receive his cesser payment until 10th October 2007. In such circumstances as the claimant could not have been aware of a dispute before he retired the Court is of the view that it has jurisdiction to hear the case under the Industrial Relations Acts.
It was accepted by both parties that the 22.5% travel payment was normally included in holiday payment, accordingly the Court sees no reason not to include it in cesser payment for outstanding holidays not taken at the termination of employment.
Therefore, the Court recommends that the Council should pay the claimant a payment of €3221.06 in full and final settlement of his claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
18th November 2010______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.