FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HERTEL IRELAND LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Hall |
1. Restoration Of 2.5 Hours Travel Time Which was Removed In March 2010
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 the 19 December 2017 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 12 April 2018.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
- Following the removal of 2.5 hours travel time in 2010, the Union informed the Court that its members remuneration levels had been adversely affected with a reduction in hourly rates of pay was introduced via the Registered Employment Agreement for the Construction Industry 2011.
- The matter has been an issue of dispute since 2012.
- The Union informed the Court that the Company had restored the payment in question pending the Court's decision on the matter. Further to this, the Union asked that the Court fully restore the payment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
- Travel time was reduced in 2010 to retain employment at the site.
- The 2.5 hours payment per week was reinstated following a ballot for industrial action in October 2107.
- Restoration of travel allowance to previous levels is not economically viable and could act as a barrier to further employment on site.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a claim by the Unions on behalf of 24 identified Scaffolders operating at the Depot in Foynes for the restoration of 2 ½ hours per week travel allowance payment, which was paid to them until March 2010. A payment of five hours travelling time per week had been paid until that date when the Company reduced the payment of 2 ½ hours per week.
The Company stated that it was obliged to reduce this payment owing to significant downward pressure from its client company to reduce costs and changes in the economic climate, to preserve employment and reduce the likelihood of reducing hourly rates of pay. It maintained that it would not be economically viable to restore the allowance as it would act as a barrier to further employment on site.
Having considered the submissions made by both parties the Court notes that this allowance is a legacy payment for which there is no longer any logical basis. Therefore, the Court does not recommend the restoration of the 2 ½ hour travel allowance as claimed by the Union and recommends that the 2 ½ hour allowance should cease to be paid with immediate effect. However, the Court recommends that a once off payment of €1,000 should be paid to each of the 24 Claimants in recognition of the loss of this payment and in full and final settlement of the issue before the Court.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
JD______________________
25 April 2018Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Deegan, Court Secretary.