When the parties negotiate restrictions or conditions on the exercise of their legal rights, the Authority has decided that the contract interpretation test issued in the IRS applies. Thus, the Authority must interpret the importance of these tariff clauses to the same standards and principles that arbitrators interpret in the interpretation of contracts at both the federal and private levels, as well as by federal courts, in accordance with section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. The IRS authority stressed that the importance of the agreement should ultimately depend on the intent of the parties. The intention of the parties is to give a dominant weight, whether that intention is motivated by the language of the clause itself, by the conclusions arising from the contract as a whole or by extrinsic evidence. IRS, 47 FLRA to 1110. (7) 3. The parties laid the groundwork for Article 44 in previous negotiations on Article 43, local supplements, where local trade unions have been granted the right to negotiate matters in their endorsements already covered by the MA as long as there is no opposition with the MA. Gage testified that “until we did the mid-term negotiations, all parties understood that we would not do it – if a case could not be negotiated in the medium term, it should be identified in each article. 5. The e-mail referred to a letter of intent dated September 1, 1995. Although CENTRE AIT defended its conduct in this case on the grounds that the purpose of the amendment to this procedure was covered by an agreement, on 1 September 1995, the agreement was not invoked by the VA Center during that proceeding, nor was it subject to investigation or explained. Instead, VA Center relied only on section 20 of the parties` current authorization to base its defence that it was not required to conclude because the purpose of the amendment was within the contract of the parties. Both Mr.
Gage and Mr. Perkins played an important role in the Section 44 negotiations. Your statement makes it clear that the parties intended to give the Union the right to negotiate at the local level all the issues dealt with in the treaty. Mr. Gage testified that the preliminary work of section 44 was set out “by” declarations of waiver of Article 43, in which the Union had the right to negotiate matters in its local endorsements already covered by the treaty. Mr. Gage and Mr. Perkins also explained how the parties agreed that local unions should have the freedom to negotiate treaty matters because of the local changes expected as a result of the massive restructuring of the VA.
The parties agreed that local institutions would benefit from the freedom of negotiation at the local level. If an object of the contract were excluded from local negotiations, it would be “stipulated in each article.” (Article 44, Section 1). Article 20 does not provide for such a limitation for missions. Another conclusion would render the language of the parties to Article 44 insignificant and nullify the explicit purpose of Article 44.