FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : FAILTE IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Bullet Point 3 of the Flexibility/Productivity clause of the 2003 Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. Fáilte Ireland was established by statute on 28th May, 2003, replacing two former State Agencies, Bord Fáilte and CERT. The Authority currently has three premises in Dublin – Baggot Street Bridge, Amiens Street and Pembroke Row.
- During discussions on the merger of Bord Fáilte and CERT the assistance of the LCR was sought by the Authority and the unions (SIPTU/NUJ). An agreement was brokered on a wide range of issues. In return flexibility measures were agreed, in particular a Flexibility/Productivity clause which specifically provides for“full cooperation with the transfer of functions between the properties of the Authorities over time.”
In March 2004 the Authority (Board) of Fáilte Ireland took the decision to relocate all existing Dublin based Fáilte Ireland staff to the Amiens Street location. The Authority claim to have engaged in an extensive consultation process with staff in relation to the planned move. The Union, on the other hand, claims that at no stage were meaningful discussions entered into.
It is the view of Fáilte Ireland that the Flexibility/Productivity clause referred to above clearly provides for the full cooperation by employees with the current plans to relocate staff. In the view of the Union the clause clearly suggests that functions will transfer from one location to another and that it also suggests that for the immediate future there would be more than one property or location in relation to Fáilte Ireland in Dublin.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of several conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 4th October, 2005, in accordance with the terms of Sustaining Progress on behalf of the parties under Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, with both parties accepting the outcome. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th January, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.It is the Unions' contention that Management's proposal to relocate all Dublin based staff from three locations to one existing location is not provided for in the LRC brokered agreement of July 2003.
2. The LRC brokered agreement of July 2003 clearly states "full cooperation with the transfer of functions between thepropertiesof the authorities over time".
3.Management have consistently asserted that the LRC agreement of July 2003 gives them "carte blanche" to relocate all staff to Amiens Street.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Flexibility/Productivity clause of the 2003 Agreement very clearly provides for full cooperation with the transfer of functions between the properties of the Authority, including the planned move to Amiens Street.
2.The Flexibility/Productivity clause of the 2003 Agreement was incorporated into the Sustaining Progress Action Plan and has already been paid for.
3. Fáilte Ireland has, over the last two years, engaged with the unions and at all times acted in good faith to try and resolve this issue. They have participated in six conciliation conferences to this end.
RECOMMENDATION:
The case before the Court under Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 relates to an interpretation of the wording of a clause contained in the "Harmonisation of Terms and Conditions of Staff Employed by the Authority" July 2003 agreement. The clause comes under the heading Flexibility/Productivity and states as follows:-
".....the following would apply to staff with Failte Ireland:
[at bullet point three]
Full co-operation with the transfer of functions between the properties of the Authorities over time."
The Court is being asked to give a determination on an interpretation of this clause.
The Unions were of the view that the clause does not give the Employer "carte blanche" to relocate all staff from its properties at Pembroke Row and at Baggot Street to their Amiens Street location. They are of the view that the clause limits the Employer to transferring only the combined shared functions of the three properties to two properties.
Whereas, the Employer contended that the terms of the said clause and the terms of Sustaining Progress and Benchmarking increases providedinter aliafor full co-operation by employees with the move to a single location.
Having considered the matter, the Court is of the view that the 2003 agreement, which has given rise to the differences of interpretation, must be examined in the context of the situation prevailing at the time. Failte Ireland was established by statute on 28th May 2003. The July 2003 agreement brokered by the LRC was drawn up to deal with the harmonisation matters, which arose. In a management's discussion document dated May 2003 it stated its expressed intention to have a single location for its central operations, which it envisaged, was likely to take some time. In the interim it intended to consolidate its function, however, due to space limitations it intended to initially allocate the shared services departments between the existing properties.
The Court takes the view that a reasonable interpretation of the said overall flexibility/productivity clause, which included a provision for full co-operation with the establishment,and evolution of the Authority over timewas to ensure co-operation with the integration/harmonisation process over a period of time.
Taking all views into account the Court interprets the clause to provideinter aliafor full co-operation by employees with the transfer of functions between the Authorities existing locations, e.g. the transfer of the Marketing Department would come within the ambit of this clause with the consequential economic and organisational benefits which would accrue from such a transfer.
The Court notes the Trade Unions agreement to negotiate further on the issue of a single location for the consolidation of all functions of the Authority.
This decision of the Court is brought under Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and is binding on both parties.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
8th February, 2006______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.