FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE DUBLIN MID-LEINSTER - AND - UNION OF CONSTRUCTION, ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Claim for Travel Allowance
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute betwen the HSE Dublin Mid-Leinster and UCATT in relation to a claim for travel allowance (mileage) for a worker after a change of work location from Mullingar to Athlone.
The Union's position is that the worker facilitated the HSE by travelling directly to his new base in Athlone rather than first reporting to his original base. The Union contends that this had been beneficial to the employer and had resulted in greater efficiencies for the service.
Management's position is that the worker had a shorter distance to travel under the new arrangements and that the worker was paid subsistence payments on the basis that he was working away from his original base. Management further contend that the situation had been intended to be temporary in nature but had continued over many years.
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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 1st October, 2009 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 31st May, 2011, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The worker travelled directly to the new work location which provided greater efficiencies to the HSE. In the circumstances, the Union contends that as this facilitated management, and made greater usage of resources, the worker should be compensated by receiving payment of the appropriate travel allowance/mileage payments.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The worker did travel directly to the new work location but the distance travelled was shorter than if he had travelled to his original base and then on to his work location in Athlone. This situation suited both management and the worker and in recognition that he was working away from his base, he was paid the appropriate subsistence payments.
2 The relevant public sector circular covering travel and subsistence payments (Cicular 11/82) provides that workers are not paid mileage/travel allowances in respect of journeys to and from work. This circular has been consistently applied by management and, therefore, the Union's claim is without merit.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of a worker employed as a painter. In 1997 he was asked to transfer from his base at St. Loman’s Hospital Mullingar to Athlone District Hospital. He was transferred back in May 2004. The Union sought payment of travel allowance for the Claimant for the distance involved between St. Loman’s Hospital and Athlone District Hospital for the period in question.
Management disputed the claim stating that the distance travelled from the Claimant’s home to Athlone was shorter than the distance from his base at St. Loman’s Hospital to Athlone and that he did not travel from St. Loman’s Hospital to Athlone District Hospital. Management stated that it was agreed with the Claimant at the time in 1997 that he would be provided with the daily subsistence rate for the period of his transfer, however, but this agreement did not entitle him to a travel allowance.
Having considered the submissions of both parties, the Court is satisfied that a special set of arrangements was entered into with the Claimant in 1997 to incentivise him to temporarily transfer from St. Loman’s Hospital to Athlone District Hospital, however, this arrangement did not include a travel allowance. The Court is satisfied that there is no merit in the Union’s claim and it is therefore rejected.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
20th June 2011______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.