The Court of Auditors, the United Chambers, after conflicting opinions on the subject ( Court decision No 949/2010 Conti Lombardia, Toscana Conti Court decision No 170/2010 ), by Resolution No. 8 of 07.02.2011 expressed the following opinion: "The employee who intends to rely on their own transport in order to facilitate its move, you can still obtain permission from the administration, with limited effect to obtain insurance coverage due under existing provisions. The provisions interior of the Administration will provide, if authorization to use your own vehicle, a compensation corresponding to the amount the employee would have spent if it were to use public transport where this would result in a more effective performance of the business, ensuring, for example , a more rapid return to service, savings in the night, the completion of a number maggiore di servizi."
è autorizzabile l’utilizzo del mezzo proprio da parte dei dipendenti per esigenze di servizio e, nel caso, il rimborso non potrà essere superiore al costo del mezzo pubblico che lo stesso dipendente avrebbe preso in alternativa.
Richiamando le due soluzioni esposte nella nostra circolare del 4 novembre 2010, si evidenzia che la Corte Conti Sezioni Riunite si colloca in una via di mezzo rispetto ad entrambe:
1. da un lato, concorda in parte con la Ragioneria Generale dello Stato (vedi Circolare n. 36 del 22/10/2010, peraltro condivisa dalla Corte dei Conti della Toscana con delibera n. 170/2010), per quanto riguarda il primo periodo del parere sopra richiamato: “Il employee who intends to rely on their own transport in order to facilitate its move, you can still obtain permission from the administration, with limited effect to obtain insurance coverage due under the current provisions .... "(see Solution No. 1 of our circular);
2. recognizes the other side, as explained by the Court of Auditors in Lombardia with Resolution No. 949/2010, the possibility that internal rules of the Administration provide, if authorization to use your own vehicle, a refund (see Recipe No. 2 of our circular), the difference lies in the fact that such reimbursement can not be equal to the actual costs incurred, but should be limited to the amount the employee would have spent if it were to use public transport.
The Court of Auditors, the United Chambers, believes that the choice "more affordable" should only be compared to the cost of public transport, without considering the indirect cost equal to the time taken by the employee for the shift, the same Court requires such compensation can be expected: ".... if this would result in a more effective performance, assuring, for example, a faster return to service, the savings in overnight, the completion of a greater number of services .... "
From a practical point of view of performing the service, it should be noted that there are places not served by public transport or where the use of public transport is not easy to carry out the service when you consider the time spent by the employee for the transfer. Paradoxically, in these cases for the city is "more affordable" the use of their own half by the employee, who, however, is of his own pocket to pay the difference between the actual costs incurred el'ipotetico cost of public transport ( Consider the example of-pocket expenses related to travel, eg, highway tolls, parking, etc.)..
Partendo dal presupposto che non si può obbligare il dipendente all’utilizzo del proprio mezzo, limitare il rimborso al solo costo del mezzo pubblico potrebbe portare due conseguenze:
- un blocco dell’attività nei Comuni non serviti da mezzi pubblici nonché in quelli in cui i tempi di trasferta utilizzando i mezzi pubblici divengono improponibili;
- un incremento delle ore retribuite ma non lavorate dai dipendenti in quanto utilizzate per i soli spostamenti.
dove si riesce a dimostrare che l’utilizzo del mezzo pubblico è impossibile o comunque economicamente improponibile in relazione alla tempistica, deve ritenersi ancora possibile rimborsare al dipendente l’utilizzo del mezzo proprio, as this, though contrary to the interpretation of the rule, does not constitute an assumption of loss of revenue, as demonstrated in this case the state of necessity and / or 'usefulness for the institution;
Same thing if to show that 'use of public transport would result in higher costs than those incurred by using their own transport (eg social workers must make home visits in the territory of the municipality, but, as happens in most towns, there is no public transport to travel within if not the taxi at a cost much higher than using their own transport);
In other cases, it will not be possibile rimborsare al dipendente importi superiori a quelli che si sarebbero sostenuti utilizzando i mezzi pubblici.
E’ opportuno adottare disposizioni interne che prevedano limitazioni all’utilizzo del mezzo proprio da parte di dipendenti, come ad esempio:
- per gli spostamenti all’interno del territorio comunale, deve essere utilizzato in via prioritaria il mezzo di proprietà del Comune in dotazione al servizio e, solamente nel caso in cui non ci fosse alcun mezzo disponibile, può essere autorizzato dal Responsabile l’utilizzo del mezzo pubblico oppure l’utilizzo del mezzo proprio da parte del dipendente qualora il mezzo pubblico non sia presente;
- qualora per esigenze di servizio the employee must travel outside the territory of the municipality, must be used primarily by the property of the municipality supplied the service and, just in case there was no means available, may be authorized by the responsible use of the medium public or the employee's own vehicle if there are public transport or where travel times are inconsistent with the use of public transport.
As for the expenses of the Secretary of the Municipal Court of Auditors, the United Chambers, with Resolution No. 9 of 7 February 2011 considered that Article. 45 of CCNL of 16/05/2001 for the municipal and provincial secretaries have not been made ineffective entry force in art. 6, Section 12 of Law No 122/2010, given the diversity of the case.
The reimbursement provisions of art. 45, paragraph 2 of the National Collective Labour intends to raise the municipal or provincial secretary of the costs incurred for travel between the different institutional settings where the same is called for the task; art. 45, paragraph 3, a breakdown of expenditure for the transfers between "the various bodies concerned in the manner prescribed in the agreement" demonstrates how to take that burden and not a negotiating is attributable in the treatment of the mission altogether.
must therefore be concluded that the limitations on the processing of mission introduced by art. 6 of Law No. 122/2010 does not apply to the reimbursement of expenses incurred by the Secretary holds office secretarial Convention for travel between the various places of work.
www.entionline.it/
0 comments:
Post a Comment