FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NATIONAL AMBULANCE SERVICE (REPRESENTED BY HSE) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Status of the 2001 Local Agreement in Wicklow Station arising from the implementation of the 2008 National Framework Agreement on Structured Leave.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the National Ambulance Service (represented by the HSE) and SIPTU in relation the the status of a local agreement relating to Wicklow Fire Station and whether the National Framework Agreement on Strucutred Leave of 2008 supersedes the local agreement of 2001. In addition, and as part of the 2001 agreement, Arklow Ambulance Station when on a call out, is covered by Wicklow Station which the Union claim would no longer be possible if the 2008 Agreement supersedes the one concluded in 2001 as the on call cover is provided for in the 2001 agreement.
The Union's view is that the local Agreement of 2001 is not superseded by the NFA of 2008 whereas management are of the view that the NFA supersedes the 2001 local Agreement and that the provision of cover to Arklow is a requirment of the job.
The dispute was not resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 6th November, 2009 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th April, 2010 the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Union's case is clear. The local agreement of 2001 has precedence over the NFA of 2008. It is clear that in many areas local agreements were concluded which were not subsumed or altered as a result of National Agreements.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 Local agreements which emanated from the Labour Relations Commission or the Labour Court were not subsumed by the National Framework Agreement. The 2001 agreement concluded in respect of Wicklow Station did not emanate from either body and is therefore subsumed by the NFA of 2008.
RECOMMENDATION:
This dispute relates to whether the National Framework Agreement on Structured Leave subsumes a prior local agreement concluded in respect of Wicklow Station.
The National Agreement itself does not address the point satisfactorily. If the parties intended to provided that all local agreements were to be subsumed or extinguished by the National Agreement they could have said so in simple terms. Equally if they intended to preserve local agreements they could equally have said so expressly. In that regard it is noted that the fourth paragraph of the Agreement provides that existing agreements, which emanated from either the LRC or the Court, would continue to apply. The local agreement in issue did not emanate from either body. In these circumstances the stance taken by the management is understandable and cogent.
However, it is clear that an agreement existed between the parties in respect to the Wicklow Station. It is also clear that this agreement was extinguished or subsumed by express terms in the National Agreement and there is ambiguity as to the intention of the parties in that regard.
It is noted that the National Agreement provides for periodic review. The Court recommends that the parties now undertake a review of the Agreement and that they specifically address the issues which have arisen in the case in the course of that review. In the interim, having regard to the absence of clarity concerning the intention of the parties to the National Agreement, the 2001 local agreement should apply. It should understood that this latter aspect of the recommendation applies to the Wicklow local agreement only and has no further application.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
28th April 2010______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.