FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : PEAMOUNT HOSPITAL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Non-compliance with Craftworkers' Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a claim that four craftworkers are not in receipt of the terms and conditions of the nationally-agreed Craftworkers' Agreement. This 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 8th June, 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st September, 2011.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Agreement applies to craftworkers in the Voluntary Hospital sector and is recognised in every Voluntary Hospital.
2 There is no justification for the Hospital's failure to apply this Agreement.
3 The Workers are entitled to the protection of the Croke Park Agreement, which 'is intended to support the status quo ante in respect to pay and conditions at the time the Agreement was concluded'.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Hospital's budget has now been cut back to 2006 levels.
2This cost-increasing claim is precluded under the Croke Park Agreement.
3. Concession of this claim would have serious budgetary implications both locally and nationally.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns the Union’s claim for application of the “Craftworkers' Parallel Benchmarking Agreement/Analogue 2003” (the Analogue Agreement), negotiated between the HSE and Craft Unions, to four craftsmen employed in the Hospital.
While the employer accepted that, as a Voluntary Hospital, pay and conditions of employment for the Claimants should be determined by reference to the Analogue Agreement, however, Management stated that it was not aware of the Analogue Agreement in 2008 when it moved from contracting out craftwork to directly employing craftsmen. Consequently, the Claimants’ existing terms of employment were in accordance with HSE Circulars and not the Analogue Agreement. Furthermore, Management strenuously argued that concession of the claim would be cost-increasing and was therefore precluded by the terms of Clause 1.27 of the Public Service Agreement 2010 – 2014 (the PSA Agreement). Management submitted that concession of the claim would have major knock-on effects for the wider public health sector and“would bring the house of cards down”.
The Union, on the other hand, equally strenuously argued that the claim was simply for application of an existing Agreement and consequently could not be regarded as cost-increasing.
Clause 1.27 of the PSA Agreement provides that no cost-increasing claims by trade unions or employees for improvements in pay or conditions of employment will be made or processed during the currency of the PSA Agreement.
Clause 2.8 provides that all previous agreements, collective or otherwise in the Health Sector, remain intact.
Having considered the submissions of both sides the Court is of the view that, whether or not concession of the claim is cost-increasing or involves maintaining the status quo in respect of existing pay and conditions of employment, it does raise a fundamental issue about the intention of the parties when they agreed to the wording of the PSA Agreement.
The Implementation Body of the Public Sector Agreement has advised the Court that where a fundamental issue is raised by a party to a dispute as to the intention of the parties to the PSA Agreement the matter should be referred to the Implementation Body. They went on to advise that in such a case the views of the Implementation Body as to the intention of the parties should be confirmed to both sides and included in the material submitted to the Court.
The Court is satisfied that the core question in this case raises a fundamental issue which could have wider implications across the Health Sector. In these circumstances the Court is of the view that, in accordance with the PSA Agreement, the question at issue should be referred to the Implementation Body before it is considered by the Court.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the question at issue in this case be referred to the Implementation Body for its opinion.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
11th October, 2011______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.