Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86863 Case Number: LCR10904 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ANCO - and - FWUI |
Claim by the Union for the implementation of an alleged agreement concerning the employment of AnCO personnel at the Loughlinstown Training Centre Canteen.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is satisfied that, on the basis of the letters
exchanged in 1983, there was an understanding that the canteen in
Loughlinstown would be staffed by AnCO staff and that AnCO, by
letter dated 12th March, 1986, indicated their intention not to
implement that understanding.
Having considered the submission from AnCO and noting the
additional points made at the hearing, the Court is satisfied that
there may be valid reasons as to why it is now more beneficial for
the Authority to continue to operate the canteen in Loughlinstown
on a contractual basis. The Court, therefore, does not recommend
concession of the Unions' claim but urges AnCO to release more
information as to comparative costs etc. to the Union.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86863 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10904
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10904
Parties: ANCO - THE INDUSTRIAL TRAINING AUTHORITY
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
Subject:
1. Claim by the Union for the implementation of an alleged
agreement concerning the employment of AnCO personnel at the
Loughlinstown Training Centre Canteen.
Background:
2. Loughlinstown training centre commenced operations in June,
1983. From the outset, a contract catering firm was employed to
run the canteen there. Following Union representations, AnCO, by
letter dated 13th June, 1983, advised the Union that the
contracting arrangement would cease and that AnCO staff would
be appointed to the canteen. On 5th July, 1983, AnCO again wrote
to the Union restating the intention to employ permanent AnCO
staff at the canteen but seeking Union co-operation with the
intention to employ contract staff for an interm 3 month period.
The Union agreed to this. The employment of the contract staff
continued, however, and throughout 1985 and early 1986 the Union,
on various dates, wrote to AnCO seeking the implementation of what
it perceived to be an agreement to employ permanent AnCO staff at
the canteen. On 12th March, 1986, AnCO wrote to the Union stating
that it was not now in a position to recruit AnCO staff for the
canteen although it had previously been intended to do so, due to
uncertainty regarding the financing of the Authority. The Union
referred the matter to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on 11th August, 1986 and a conciliation conference took
place on 9th September, 1986. No agreement was reached, however,
and the matter was referred to a full hearing of the Labour Court.
The hearing took place on 4th December, 1986.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) There is a written agreement between AnC0 and the Union
on the employment of AnCO employees for this canteen in
the form of the letters of 13th June and 5th July,
1983.
(ii) The Union has been more than co-operative in allowing
AnCO the facility to utilise contractors in the centres
and this goodwill has been abused by AnCO.
(iii) All other locations in the AnCO network are staffed by
AnCO personnel in the canteen areas even though some
training centres commenced operation after
Loughlinstown opened.
(iv) The Union does not accept that the question of finance
is a valid argument when regard is taken of the savings
which have been achieved this year. The employment of
two cooks (salary range #113.62 - #168.56) and four to
five canteen assistants (salary #117.28 per week) will
not cause major problems in regard to finance. The
Union requested a breakdown of the costings for the
contractor in Loughlinstown but AnCO have failed to
provide this.
AnCO's arguments:
4. (a) Over three years have elapsed since the issuing of
management's letters to the Union, and in the
intervening period Loughlinstown training centre has
developed. With this development a satisfactory
canteen facility, well suited to the needs of the
training centre, has been provided by the contractor,
and managed by AnCO's own Supervisor. Whilst the
practice of using contractors for canteen operations is
new to AnCO, contractors are used throughout the
Authority for the provision of training, cleaning and
security services. It is now common practice, both in
the public and private sector to contract canteen
services. In AnCO's case, only one of its training
centres i.e. Loughlinstown, uses canteen contractors.
AnCO has engaged its own canteen supervisor to oversee
the canteen operation. Furthermore, no AnCO staff were
displaced by the contractor.
(b) From 1983 up to the present time, AnCO has been under
immense pressure to reduce its complement of indirect
staff, and has been, and still is, seriously concerned
about its funding situation. The amount of money
available from the E.E.C. social fund (where over 50%
of AnCO's funding comes from), has been severely
strained. With the advent of new countries to the
E.E.C., and with changes in regulations, AnCO can
clearly see that its future funding is insecure. AnCO
management are constantly seeking methods of reducing
indirect to direct staffing levels, and this has been
given further impetus by public service embargoes and
by Government review bodies who have examined AnCO's
operation. The decision to retain the contractor
evolved over a period of time. Management sees the
Union's request to dispense with the contractor as
being unrealistic and unacceptable.
(c) The Authority's priority at this time is to protect
current jobs, and not to create new ones. To dispense
with the contracting firm which is providing a service
acceptable both to management and staff in
Loughlinstown, and replace it with a minimum of six
additional permanent staff members, is not acceptable.
Neither is it in line with current organisational
policy. Management holds the right, and must have the
facility to act responsibly in regard to how the
Authority is staffed, and is determined to make the
best decisions in the given circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is satisfied that, on the basis of the letters
exchanged in 1983, there was an understanding that the canteen in
Loughlinstown would be staffed by AnCO staff and that AnCO, by
letter dated 12th March, 1986, indicated their intention not to
implement that understanding.
Having considered the submission from AnCO and noting the
additional points made at the hearing, the Court is satisfied that
there may be valid reasons as to why it is now more beneficial for
the Authority to continue to operate the canteen in Loughlinstown
on a contractual basis. The Court, therefore, does not recommend
concession of the Unions' claim but urges AnCO to release more
information as to comparative costs etc. to the Union.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
____________________
Deputy Chairman.
7th January, 1987.
A.K./J.C.