FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MAYO COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LGMSB) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Reform of subsistence and other allowances.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns a dispute between Mayo County Council (represented by the LGMA) and SIPTU in relation to the removal of long established allowances (out of County & Island Allowances) and the replacement of the meal allowance with one that applies nationally. Subsistence payments are also being amended to reflect the realities of the service.
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 the 20th September, 2012 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18th October 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Out of County, Island Allowance and Meal Allowance are long established payments and have formed part of core pay for many years, and as such are protected under the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014.
2. If the system of subsistence is being changed to adhere to Revenue guidelines, the payment should be based on the relevant rates that apply depending on the length of time away from the base.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management must become more cost effective in its operations. The allowances that are being terminated no longer have any relevance and cannot continue to be paid.
2. The allowances that are being retained must adhere to Revenue guidelines as is the norm throughout the public service.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that this dispute has come before it under the terms of the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014. The issue in dispute concerns the Union’s objection to the Council’s decision to reform subsistence and other allowances for outdoor grades. The Council submitted to the Court that the reforms were necessary in order to bring the allowances in line with national norms in the sector. It submitted that the current scheme dated back to the 1950’s and does not bear any relationship with the original rationale for the payments.
The Court notes that it was accepted that no in-depth exchanges have taken place on the substantive issues in dispute. The Court is of the view that as the allowances have been in existence for over 60 years that the parties should enter into meaningful discussions on the proposed reform of allowances. These discussions should be completed by not later than 31thJanuary 2013.
If agreement is not reached in the recommended discussions outstanding matters may be referred back to the Court, by either party, for final adjudication.
(The case was referred back to the Court, the following is the Court's final adjudication dated 6th August 2013:-
The matter before the Court arises from Labour Court Recommendation No: 20437. The Court has considered the position of both parties following the recommended discussions on the proposed reform of allowances. In all the circumstances of this case the Court recommends acceptance by both sides of the set of proposals entitled“Travel and Subsistence Proposal for Outdoor Workers, Mayo County Council”,as documented and attached to letter dated 12thApril 2012 from Mayo County Council to SIPTU.)
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
20th December, 2012.______________________
AH.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.