LCR22682

1.Travel Time Allowance To Be Treated As Pay For Pension Purposes


BACKGROUND:

2.This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 8 July 2022 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 27 September 2022.




RECOMMENDATION:

The claim before the Court follows on from the parties’ acceptance of a Chairman’s note in 2015 which provided terms of reference for a Review of General Operative (Dublin Authorities) – Pay and Conditions. The purpose of that review was to comprehensively analyse differences between pay and pay-related terms of general operatives in Dublin local authorities and those of general operatives nationwide. It is the Court’s understanding that the parties have not completed that agreed review.

Against that background, the claim before the Court is characterised by the trade unions as one which seeks to address a ‘major financial disadvantage’ being suffered by staff in the four Dublin local authorities versus staff in other local authorities.

In order to address this disadvantage, the trade unions seek to have a travel time payment paid to staff in the four Dublin authorities made pensionable. That payment was introduced by agreement for such staff in 1978 and has never been a pensionable payment. The Court understands that a travel time payment is not made to staff in any local authority outside of the Dublin authorities.

Against that background, the employer side asserts that the staff in the four Dublin local authorities are already in receipt of higher pensions than general operatives in other local authorities. The employer side contend that the cost of the claim before the Court is €17m per annum and that the claim is cost increasing as a result.

The trade unions do not accept the employer side estimate of the cost of the claim and in any event submitted to the Court that the claim is not cost increasing.

The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties. It is clear that there is no shared consensus based on fact as regards the relative financial and pension position of staff in the four Dublin authorities as against general operatives in other local authorities. It is equally clear that the parties’ agreement in 2015 to conduct a review was designed to establish the factual reality of a contention that there is a disparity between staff in the Dublin local authorities versus other local authorities.

In all of the circumstances of the matter, the Court cannot recommend concession of the trade union side claim at this time. In particular, the fundamental disagreement between the parties as to whether in fact the staff covered by the claim are at any pension or wage disadvantage versus staff in other local authorities makes it extremely difficult for the Court to form a view on its merits as to the basis for the claim.

For this reason, the Court recommends that the parties engage, with the assistance of the Workplace Relations Commission if necessary, to complete the review which was jointly agreed in 2015 and which was the subject of a Chairman’s note at that time. When that review is complete the parties should engage further to examine to degree to which there is a factual basis for a contention that the staff of the Dublin local authorities are at a ‘major financial disadvantage’ and, if so, how that matter should or could be addressed.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
OC	______________________
15 November 2022	Chairman