FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BORD GAIS ENERGY - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Claim in respect of withdrawn expenses and site allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute arose from the Company's decision to withdraw expenses and site allowance from the Worker. This 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 dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 14th February, 2012, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18th May, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 Payments to the Worker worth some fifty euro per week were discontinued on the pretext that they had been withdrawn from other recipients.
2 The site allowance and unvouched expenses were, in fact, still being paid to a number of other foremen who were based on another site.
3 The Union disputed that the site allowance arrangement should apply only to foremen who had moved to a Finglas site.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The particular circumstances relating to relocations to different sites (in different years) were very different.
2 Payments now being claimed were, in fact, a special arrangement put in place to encourage employees to move to a Finglas location where there was no canteen and restricted parking.
3. No special circumstances applied to Sandyford where the Worker was based.
RECOMMENDATION:
There are significant differences of recollection between the parties on what was agreed in 1999/2000 to facilitate the transfer of staff out of Sir John Rogerson's Quay. It is the company's recollection that there were two separate arrangements agreed and those which the Claimant is now seeking applied only to those transferring to Finglas. At the relevant time the Claimant transferred to Sandyford. It is the Union's position that a single agreement was concluded by which all Foremen were encompassed.
It is clear that the payments which the Claimant contends related to the agreement in question ceased in 2001 or 2002. In light of the intervening lapse of time, and the uncertainty around the terms of the agreement relied upon by the Claimant in advancing his claim, it seems unreasonable to pursue the matter at this time.
In all the circumstances of the case the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
28th May 2012______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.