Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89859 Case Number: LCR12702 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MEATH COUNTY COUNCIL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the privatisation of the refuse service.
Recommendation:
6. The Court has carefully considered the submissions of the
parties both oral and written.
The Court recognises the financial constraints placed on local
authorities and the need to make difficult decisions as a
consequence of these constraints.
The Court however considers that the difficulties being
experienced should not preclude issues, having major implications
for the workforce being discussed in a meaningful way with the
employees and their representatives before decisions are made.
It is the view of the Court that the manner in which the issue was
dealt with in this case was not conducive to the maintenance of
industrial peace and unlikely to secure the co-operation of the
employees.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that the decision of the
Council should not be implemented before discussions take place
with a view to finding a basis to amicably resolve the issue
between the parties and meet the financial needs of the Local
Authority. These discussions to be completed within a period of
six months.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89859 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12702
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MEATH COUNTY COUNCIL
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the privatisation of the refuse service.
BACKGROUND:
2. Since the late 1960's the refuse collection service has been
carried out by hiring refuse disposal vehicles with drivers from
private contractors, while employees of the Council (two per
vehicle) collect the refuse and put it into the packer. In 1984
charges for the use of the service were introduced, in order to
offset the expenses of the service. Due to serious financial
difficulties a special meeting of the County Council was held on
26th September, 1989 to discuss the future of the refuse service.
On 3rd October, 1989 the Union wrote to the Council stating that
it had been brought to its attention that the Council was
proposing to privatise the refuse collection service and
requesting a meeting. A meeting took place on 27th October, 1989
and the Union was informed that there was a proposal before the
Council to privatise the refuse collection service from 1st
January, 1990. The Union objected to this proposal on the basis
that there was no need to privatise the service which was giving a
very good service and that negotiations should take place with a
view to coming up with an alternative method of bringing in the
revenue required to fund the refuse collection. The Council has
stated that it will absorb the workers now in the refuse
collection service into the road section. The Union position is
that job losses will result as existing temporary workers who
would either have been retained as temporaries or made permanent
will now lose their jobs and some of the permanent workers
redeployed will lose allowances and overtime.
3. The final decision to privatise the service was made at a
special meeting of the County Council on 6th November, 1989. On
9th November, 1989 the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held
on 15th November, 1989 at which no agreement was reached and on
5th December, 1989 the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 12th December, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Although an agreement exists with the County Council to
the effect that prior consultation should take place before
sanctions are imposed by either party, the Council did not
inform the Union of its decision to privatise the refuse
collection service. Neither did the Council consult with the
Union in an effort to find other means of bringing in revenue
to fund the service. In addition the decision to privatise
the refuse collection was made behind closed doors in the
Council Chamber so that neither the general public nor the
Union had the opportunity to make suggestions. The Union has
informed the Council that there should be proper meaningful
negotiations with the Council so that an alternative method of
bringing in revenue into the County Council can be found in
order to fund the refuse collection. There is a right to a
stay of execution being put on the tendering of refuse
collection to contract as there should be prior consultation
and discussion as stated in section 2, paragraph 11 of the
Programme for National Recovery.
2. Under the terms of the Programme, jobs in the public
sector can only be reduced following consultation and
discussion and then on the basis of voluntary redundancy. The
County Council's decision also affects jobs in the Urban
Councils and the Union believes that twenty jobs will be lost.
The Union has at least twenty temporary members who have been
working for the County Council on a regular basis for the last
six years and more. The Union was hoping that this year these
workers would be made permanent due to their service which
although broken is of a long period. The Council has argued
that all workers in the refuse collection service will be
absorbed into the road section, however, the Council will
benefit from a recent Government decision to allocate #70m
into roads, #20m of which is for secondary roads. Therefore,
the Council would have to employ more people to meet the roads
requirement in any event.
3. The Labour Court previously dealt with such an issue in
the case of Wicklow County Council (LCR NO. 11816 of 20th
June, 1988, refers). As well as the fact that the Council has
a duty to the workers it also has a responsibility to the
population of the County to provide services such as refuse
collection. It is likely that contractors will only take the
more lucrative densely populated areas and will refuse to
accept the outer lying areas of the County. In addition,
people who at present are on a waiver system will not have
their refuse collected at all as a contractor will only be
interested in collecting from those who have paid. The Union
is also concerned by the threat to the environment, if high
amenity areas in the County become littered with refuse. In
other areas where the refuse has gone to contract it has been
shown that the system is not working effectively and is a
potential environmental hazard (details supplied to the
Court).
4. 4. If one considers the figures on the costs of the refuse
collection service since 1984 and breaks them down it is clear
that the revenue received by the Council for the service is
increasing and that each year the cost to the Council is being
reduced (details supplied to the Court). The Council has
stated that the loss, or in fact savings to them, if this
scheme is abolished will amount to #660,000 per annum.
However, the 1989 figure shows that the total loss to the
Council was only #189,000. The Scheme should remain and
discussions should take place to find a way of making the
scheme less costly. There should be time for a delegation
consisting of representatives from the Union and Management
sides and indeed Councillors to approach the Government to
have money allocated to the Council under the rate support
grant.
5. Private contractors will be more expensive and less
effective in refuse collection. If this ludicrous proposal is
implemented approximately twenty local authority jobs will be
transferred to a private contractor. As the Council is going
to benefit financially from the Programme for National
Recovery the Union believes that the Council should live up to
its obligation of maintaining these twenty public sector jobs.
This would be in line with the terms and spirit of the
Programme for National Recovery. The County Council should
enter into negotiations to improve and maintain the service
and to find a means of adequately funding it. In doing this
the Council would be meeting its statutory obligations to the
community of Meath.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Local authorities are faced with an extremely difficult
financial situation and have had to undertake a total review
of their operations and to consider the re-organisation,
contraction or termination of services provided. The refuse
service in County Meath has been provided at a considerable
expense to the Council. Since 1984 the cost of the service
has been #3.508m while the amount received from charges has
only been #1.485m leaving a deficit of #2.023m. (details
supplied to the Court). The Council has made every effort to
make the refuse service viable. Revenue collectors were
appointed to collect the refuse charge, an extensive publicity
campaign was introduced at national and local level and
incentive schemes were introduced to encourage the public to
pay the charge. Despite these measures the income from the
charge has remained at a completely unsatisfactory level. Due
to these losses and a serious overall financial situation the
Council decided that the only viable option was to fully
contract out the service.
5. 2. Due to its serious financial situation the Council has had
to severely restrict and rationalise many services. These
include housing construction and maintenance, road
construction and maintenance, water and sewerage improvements
and maintenance, etc. Re-organisation could not take place
without redeployment of existing staff. If County Managers
are denied the right to redeploy workers their ability to
implement necessary rationalisation measures would be
impossible. The County Manager has a statutory responsibility
to ensure that the Council's services are provided on a cost
effective basis. Before deciding to contract out the refuse
collection service, the Council considered all other options
and met with the Union to consider the issues. However, due
to the financial situation the Council had no option but to
decide to fully contract out the service. Contracting out has
always been a feature of local authority operations and there
is no agreement which precludes management from doing this.
3. One of the principal objectives of the Programme for
National Recovery is to control and curtail public
expenditure. This County Council has complied with the terms
of the Programme in all respects. The Union has alleged that
the Council is breaching the Programme by abolishing the posts
of refuse collector. However, the Programme does not refer to
'posts' but states that the reduction of public service
employees will be on a voluntary basis. Contracting out the
refuse collection service does not involve loss of employment
as the workers will be employed in other areas. The overall
level of employment in the County generally will in fact be
increased as private contractors will have to replace Council
workers who are currently engaged in the service. In
addition, the Council is not breaching the Programme by
contracting out as this is not covered by the Programme (LCR
NO. 11873 of 30th May, 1988 refers).
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court has carefully considered the submissions of the
parties both oral and written.
The Court recognises the financial constraints placed on local
authorities and the need to make difficult decisions as a
consequence of these constraints.
The Court however considers that the difficulties being
experienced should not preclude issues, having major implications
for the workforce being discussed in a meaningful way with the
employees and their representatives before decisions are made.
It is the view of the Court that the manner in which the issue was
dealt with in this case was not conducive to the maintenance of
industrial peace and unlikely to secure the co-operation of the
employees.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that the decision of the
Council should not be implemented before discussions take place
with a view to finding a basis to amicably resolve the issue
between the parties and meet the financial needs of the Local
Authority. These discussions to be completed within a period of
six months.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
__________________________
15th January, 1990. Deputy Chairman
U.M./M.F.