FULL RECOMMENDATION
PARTIES : BUS EIREANN DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.1. Qualification Criteria for Meal Allowance. 2.Payment of 2nd Meal Allowance. 3. Subsistance 2. The Union respectfully requests that the Court would reinstate this allowance applicable form the 3rd of December 2017 and retrospective payment to all affected drivers as there was no basis under LCR 21438 of its withdrawal. EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS: 4. 1. The Company rejected the claim of a payment of a second meal allowance (for spare driver on relief) as concession of same would be a clear breach of Revenue Commissioner rules for payment of same as it is not permissible to pay a meal allowance at a home depot/base. 2.The Company respectfully requests that the Court would reject the unions claim for a second Meal allowance at a ‘Home Depot’. Any change to this criteria, in line with what has been proposed by the Trade Unions, would be a clear breach of revenue rules and should, therefore, not be considered. 3.The Company respectfully requests that the Court would reject the union claim. The company is committed to ensuring consistency by withdrawing this payment from all depots immediately in line with the terms of LCR 21438.
There are three issues encompassed in the within dispute: 1.Qualification criteria for meal allowance; 2.Payment of second meal allowance; 3.Subsistence – spare drivers in out-based locations Qualifications criteria for meal allowance The Company submits that the annual cost of meal allowances in 2019 was €919,000.00. It has applied Revenue rules in relation to the payment of meal allowances to drivers while away from their Home Depot i.e. such an allowance is payable only when the driver is away for a minimum of five hours and thirty minutes and has a break of at least 30 minutes in that away location. The Unions submit that no agreement was reached in the process that led to LCR21438 (in April 2017) in relation to the application of the aforementioned Rules. The Unions accept that Revenue rules must be applied. They are, however, seeking to have the Company’s proposal to pay the allowance after five hours (the minimum period permitted by Revenue rules) made retrospective to the date of implementation of LCR21438. Recommendation: the Court does not recommend concession of the retrospective element of this claim. Payment of second meal allowance This aspect of the dispute relates to the circumstances in which a double meal allowance becomes payable. The Court heard detailed oral submissions in relation to this matter at the hearing. It also requested and received, on two occasions, additional written submissions from the Parties. However, the Court is not satisfied that the Parties are in agreement in relation to the fundamental parameters of this aspect of the dispute. Recommendation: the Court recommends the Parties return to Conciliation in relation to this matter. The Court remains available to assist with the resolution of outstanding matters thereafter, if necessary. Subsistence – spare drivers in out-based locations This aspect of the dispute relates to the payment of a settling-in allowance of €161.00 to an out-based driver who obtains a permanent position in a Home Depot. The Company has ceased paying this allowance in certain locations but continues to pay it in others. The Unions are seeking general reinstatement of the allowance and retrospective payment in respect of those locations where payment was discontinued. Recommendation: the Court recommends reinstatement of this allowance in all locations where it has been discontinued. The Court does not recommend concession of the claim for retrospective payment. The Court so recommends.
NOTE |
