FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WATERWAYS IRELAND - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Access to country money allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 15 September 2017 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 21 March 2018.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The current system of allocating allowances is flawed.
2. It needs to be replaced with a fairer system which takes account of both the value of each allowance, and also takes into account differences in the treatment of allowances for tax purposes.
3. This claim is about putting in place a system to ensure that all employees receive equal treatment when it comes to allocating resources.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Waterways Ireland is not prepared to alter/change a work base of an employee so as to contrive a situation that makes employees eligible for receipt of subsistence allowance/country money.
2. All Waterways Ireland staff have an identified base or place of work
3. This is in compliance with legislative requirements under the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts 1994-2014.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue in dispute between the Union and the Employer is the methodology used to assign members of the designated Driver grade to work that attracts an allowance known as the “country money” allowance.
The Union is pursing the claim on behalf of three of its members who believe that the work is allocated in a manner that disadvantages them. The Union acknowledged that it has other members who receive the allowances and are not party to the claim. While concession of the Unions claim could impact negatively on these other members the Union did not believe that this would generate any knock- on claims. The Union stated that they were not looking to change the criteria attaching to the various allowances or for the budget for allowances to be increased. It was the Unions position that some General Operatives and non-designated Drivers had an unlimited access to the allowance while others had no access to it.
The Employers position is that the allowance is allocated on a work basis and not on an individual staff member basis. Work is allocated by the foremen taking into account the different skill sets that workers have, where workers are based and the location of the work required to be done. There are various allowances that are paid and they impact on more than just the three Complainants. All allowances are paid subject to the criteria attached to the allowance and the guidelines laid down. The employer does not accept that the allowances are not allocated in a fair manner. All workers in the Company have an identified base, or place of work. It is not feasible for the employer to change an employee’s base solely to establish an eligibility for an allowance.
The Court having carefully read the submissions of both parties and listened to the oral submissions made on the day does not recommend concession of the Unions claim. The claim fails.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
9 April 2018______________________
MNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.