Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89800 Case Number: LCR12662 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WESTERN HEALTH BOARD - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the introduction of contracting catering facilities at Castlebar General Hospital.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has carefully considered the submissions from the
parties involved in this case, and the subsequent detailed
supporting information supplied verbally at the hearing.
The subject of the dispute being the contracting-out of catering
facilities, the Court had particular regard to the position of the
existing staff employed in the Hospital's catering facility. The
Court accepts the assurances of the Hospital management that no
loss of employment or earnings will take place among either the
permanent or temporary catering staff, following a change to
contract catering.
In the circumstances the Court is satisfied that the management of
the Hospital are not acting unreasonably in their proposals to
contract out the catering services.
The Court therefore does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89800 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12662
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: WESTERN HEALTH BOARD
(CASTLEBAR GENERAL HOSPITAL)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the introduction of contracting catering
facilities at Castlebar General Hospital.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1985 the Department of Health approved the development of
improved in-patient and out-patient facilities at Castlebar
General Hospital. Phase one of the development commenced on 19th
January, 1986 and was completed on 9th March, 1988. The system of
catering provided for in the planning brief was the ganymede
system i.e. conventional method of cooking. During the course of
construction of phase one the Department of Health agreed to a
submission by the Board to substitute a cook chill system of
catering. The Board claims that under the cook chill system there
would be savings in the order of #100,000 per annum. In early
1989 the Board decided to examine the feasibility of having the
cook chill system carried out on a contract basis. Selective
tenders were sought on 8th June, 1989 with a closing date for
receipt of tenders of 27th June, 1989. The Board subsequently
decided in principle to proceed with contract catering and
informed the Union of this decision on 28th September, 1989. The
Union has no objection in principle to the cook chill system but
contends that the work should be carried out by Hospital
personnel. The Board is in favour of the use of contract catering
as it claims that further savings in the order of #200,000 per
annum can be made by Hospital. The matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 20th October, 1989.
No agreement was reached at a conciliation conference held on 31st
October, 1989 and the matter was referred on the 1st November,
1989 to a full hearing of the Labour Court. The hearing took
place on 28th November, 1989. The parties requested an urgent
recommendation which was issued to them by letter 30th November,
1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union has requested but has not received a breakdown
of the estimated savings of #200,000 which the Board claims
will be made by using contract catering. The only possible
way that there could be savings of this magnitude would be
through the unacceptable use of low paid and unskilled
workers. In essence, the proposal of the Board is simply a
cheap labour option.
2. Contractors in the catering industry are notorious for
their use of part-time and casual workers and have a large
turnover of staff. It is doubtful if a private contractor can
have the same commitment to the special needs of hospital
patients as the workers concerned who have a proven commitment
to the Hospital.
3. The decision of the Board to privatise catering facilities
has major national implications on the Union's attitude to the
introduction of the cook chill system, and other efficiency
and economy measures in other employments, which might open
the door to further contracting out of services.
4. The Unions have not refused to co-operate with measures to
improve efficiency and contain costs. The workers concerned
have the skills and commitment to operate the cook chill
system and are prepared to do so at the nationally agreed
rates of pay.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Due to the present difficult budgetary position it is
incumbent on the Board to maximise the efficient use of
resources. As a saving of the order of #200,000 can be
achieved the Board has decided to introduce contract catering.
2. Contract catering and contract cleaning are already
features of the provision of services within the Board. The
report of the Commission on Health Funding, recently
published, recommends the contracting out of services. The
Court has in previous recommendations rejected challenges to
the contracting out of services by Health Boards and Local
Authorities (L.C.R. No's. 11816, 11873 and 12008 refers).
3. Assurances have been given to the Union that no job losses
would result from the proposal to introduce contract catering.
With the opening of phase one it is likely that additional
jobs will be created.
4. The Board has stipulated to the contractor that pay and
conditions of staff shall comply with all local and national
agreements appropriate to the grades employed.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has carefully considered the submissions from the
parties involved in this case, and the subsequent detailed
supporting information supplied verbally at the hearing.
The subject of the dispute being the contracting-out of catering
facilities, the Court had particular regard to the position of the
existing staff employed in the Hospital's catering facility. The
Court accepts the assurances of the Hospital management that no
loss of employment or earnings will take place among either the
permanent or temporary catering staff, following a change to
contract catering.
In the circumstances the Court is satisfied that the management of
the Hospital are not acting unreasonably in their proposals to
contract out the catering services.
The Court therefore does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_______________________
13th December, 1989. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.