FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MEATH COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LGMSB) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Failure Of Employer To Fully Pay Expenses
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute, which concerns payment for expenses, arises from work done in Meath for the local county council in 2008 and subsequently. The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 1st December, 2011, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 16th March, 2012.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Worker was informed that he would be reimbursed for car use expenses as in his previous job and, on that basis, he resigned from the said job.
2.The Worker received no expenses from August 2008 to December 2008 nor any explanation as to why the expenses approved by his line manager were not subsequently paid.
3.In April 2009 the daily subsistence rate was cut from €41.55 per day to €33.61 per dayandthe contract left little allowance for reimbursement of car costs relating to travel to supervise construction works in Meath villages.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The full annual allowance of €10,400.00 was paid to the worker.
2.Because a fixed annual allowance was received, it was a false assumption that there was an entitlement to daily subsistence of €41.55.
3.The claim before the Court was precluded under the terms of the current Public Service Agreement as a cost-increasing claim which would add significantly to the Employer’s already stretched budget.
RECOMMENDATION:
- Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court is satisfied that the Claimant was paid in respect of expenses incurred in the performance of his duties in accordance with a collective agreement applicable to this grade.
It may have been preferable if the full details of the arrangement in place under the collective had been set out in express terms in the contract document issued to the Claimant. Nevertheless, the relevant collective agreement was complied with and the Claimant was treated no less favourably than other in similar circumstances.
The Court can see no basis upon which it could recommends special or different treatment in respect to expenses payments in this case that those generally applicable. Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of the worker’s claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
2nd April, 2012______________________
COFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Colm O'Flaherty, Court Secretary.