AD1492

On the 30th April, 2014 the Worker appealed the Rights Commissioners Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th October 2014.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1.The Claimant was entitled to be paid the allowance for the time he was employed as a Parade Warden as he fulfilled all the criteria required for payment.

2.He would have had the expectation when balloting on the proposal that the allowance would be paid in full with appropriate retrospection back to 28th September 2011.



EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

4.1. The Claimant did not meet all the terms of the scheme and did not make the claim until after he left the post to become Assistant Health & Safety Officer.

2. It was not possible to establish his actual working hours while previously employed as a Parade Warden as he did not clock in or out as required under the scheme.

3.It is normal industrial practice in the Council that claims when conceded are effective from the date of claim. There is no significant reason that this practice should be altered here.

DECISION:

The appeal before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of a worker for retrospective payment of an eating-on-site allowance backdated to 28^thSeptember 2011. The payment was conceded to him in February 2013 backdated to 31^stMay 2012 when it was accepted that he qualified for the allowance. The Rights Commissioner did not find in favour of the Claimant's claim as he found that the allowance was conceded on a staged basis to certain categories of employees who made claims for application of the allowance at different times.

The Claimant had been employed by the Council as a Parade Warden and he transferred to Health & Safety on 31^stMay 2012. The Union submitted that the allowance should have been backdated to 28^thSeptember 2011 when it was first introduced for outdoor staff who changed their hours of work. This change introduced a half-hour lunch break which attracted an eating-on-site allowance of €1.90 per day. It stated that the Claimant should have been paid the allowance as he worked as a member of the outdoor staff since the allowance was introduced.

Management stated that initially the change in hours with the application of an eating-on-site allowance was only introduced for a small number of Road Workers and was later extended to other categories who satisfied the conditions for payment and following an examination of claims from others, including the Claimant, the allowance was extended to them from their claim dates as is normal practice.

Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court is of the view that the Claimant met the criteria for the application of an eating-on-site allowance since it was introduced in September 2011 and accordingly he should be paid the claimed retrospection.

Therefore the Court recommends that the Claimant should be paid for the loss of the eating-on-site allowance sustained in the period from 28^thSeptember 2011 until 30^thMay 2012 as claimed by the Union. Accordingly, the Court overturns the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation and finds in favour of the Union’s appeal.

The Court so Decides.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Caroline Jenkinson
5th December, 2014______________________
JFDeputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.