FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE DUBLIN NORTH EAST - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION UNITE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Short Notice sick leave.
BACKGROUND:
2. The matter before the Court concerns a claim by SIPTU and UNITE in relation to a dispute over the provision of cover for short periods of sick leave in the Ambulance Service in the North East region.
In 2005 an Agreement was reached between the Unions and Management that covered the issue of utilisation of non-rostered staff. The significance of that Agreement was that it allowed for the practice of covering uncertified sick leave with premium pay by rostered staff.
In 2007 a National Framework Agreement on Structured Leave was introduced which Management claim supersedes all local agreements including the 2005 Agreement. The Unions maintain that the 2005 Agreement is intended to continue.
The dispute could not be 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 dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 2nd February 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th May 2011.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions maintain that the 2007 National Agreement on Structured Leave, in relation to the retention of the arrangement in a small number of areas, does specify first call on short periods of leave on an overtime basis. In another sentence it says that these arrangement where in place will continue.
2. The Unions contend that despite the existence of the 2007 Agreement, the practice in the North East has continued and is the practice in place today. The Unions contend therefore that the elapse of time and the acceptance of Management of the practice since 2007, means that the practice is well established and should not now be removed.
3. The Unions believe that the members in the North East who have had the agreement to cover the first 2 days of sick leave on an overtime basis should continue to have the agreement honoured.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is Management's position that the 2007 Structured Leave Agreement supersedes the 2005 Local Agreement.
2. Management contends that the 2005 Agreement was a local agreement and was not brokered through the Labour Relations Commission or the Labour Court and therefore it has no standing. Not only that, but the 2005 Agreement was valid from the date of introduction but subject to any national agreement.
3. Management contends that the reintroduction of the 2005 Local Agreement as it refers to the cover for short notice sick leave is a cost increasing claim and is precluded under the terms of the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014.
RECOMMENDATION:
The fundamental issue in dispute between the parties relates to the interpretation of a provision of the 2007 National Framework Agreement on Structured Leave. The Court has previously expressed the view that thee are ambiguities in the relevant provision which the parties should resolve. In that regard it is noted that a review of the Agreement recommended by the Court in LCR 19795 has not yet taken place.
There are clearly two different and incompatible positions on what the 2007 Agreement was intended to achieve. The primary responsibility for resolving that difference rests with those who negotiated and drafted the Agreement. Recommendation LCR 19795 was intended to provide the parties with an opportunity to obtain clarity on what their intentions were.
The Court recommends that the parties to the 2007 Agreement should now meet at the appropriate level for the purpose of seeking to achieve an agreed understanding on the import and scope of the relevant provision in the Agreement. That process should be completed within a period not exceeding eight weeks after which they should report back to the Court. The Court will then provide a definitive recommendation on the issue now in dispute.
In the interim the current arrangements should continue.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
19th May 2011______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.