FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Unreasonable application of Appendix 9 of the Haddington Road Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union in relation to the interpretation and application of Appendix 9 of the Haddington Road Agreement. The dispute relates specifically to the implementation of increased working hours resulting in a weekly total of 37 hours. 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 11th December, 2015, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st January, 2016.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that the Employer has acted in breach of the terms of the current National Agreement by failing to engage and negotiate prior to implementing changes.
2. The Employer has unilaterally implemented increased working hours.
3. The Union is seeking reimbursement of additional hours worked as a result of the Employer's interpretation and implementation of the Agreement.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1. The Employer maintains that the Agreement clearly sets out the increased hours of work which have been implemented accordingly.
2. The Employer contends that grades not specifically covered by the Appendix 9 "personal to holder" arrangement or grades earning in excess of the Grade VII salary scale are not protected by its provisions.
3. The Employer asserts that it has applied the terms of the Agreement reasonably and appropriately.
RECOMMENDATION:
In this case the Court is asked, in effect, to provide an interpretation of an aspect of Appendix 9 of the Haddington Road Agreement relating to the Implementation of additional working hours for certain grades in the Health Service.
The Union contends that the HSE contravened existing agreements in the manner in which the disputed increase in working time was implemented. While it may have been desirable that some prior discussion would have occurred before the HSE applied its understanding of the agreement concerned, the Court does not believe that its failure to do so constituted a breach of that or any other agreement.
The relevant provision in the Haddington Road Agreement, Appendix 9, provides that the full application of the additional hours agreed would not apply to “IMPACT grades up to and including Grade VII and equivalents”
In the context of the present dispute an issue has arisen as to the meaning that should be ascribed to the term ‘equivalent’. This is a term that is commonly used in collective agreements, and for other industrial relations purposes, particularly in the Public Service.
That term is usually intended to encapsulate categories of workers, not forming part of a general grade, whose main terms and conditions of employment are determined by reference to a general grade. In this case the terms and conditions applicable to those associated with the dispute are, in the main, based on Grade VII, except that the maximum point of the pay scale applicable to them exceeds the maximum point of the Grade VII scale by €188 per annum.
In the circumstances of this case the Court has come to the conclusion that the extent to which the maximum point of the Grade VII scale is exceeded is insufficient to justify classifying those concerned as other than equivalent to that grade.
The Court recommends that the two grades associated with this claim (Senior Environmental Health Officer and Neurophysiological Technician Chief II) be considered as being equivalent to Grade VII for the purposes of this dispute. Accordingly, those two grades should be considered covered by the provisions of Appendix 9. Having regard to all the circumstances the Court further recommends that any working hours adjustment arising should take effect from the date of this recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
27th January 2016______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.