Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92242 Case Number: LCR13636 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: SLIGO COUNTY COUNCIL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the privatisation of refuse collection work.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends that the Council increase its offer in relation to
the four employees who will suffer a drop in weekly rate, to
#700 per person.
The Court further recommends that the Council offer as set out
by a letter dated 27th March, 1992 as amended by the above
proposal be accepted by the Union in full settlement of this
dispute.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92242 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13636
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: SLIGO COUNTY COUNCIL
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the privatisation of refuse collection
work.
BACKGROUND:
2. When adopting the estimates for 1992 the Council decided
that it could not provide funding for the refuse collection
service. It took the decision for economic reasons and because
of the low usage of the service by the public. The Council
proposes to redeploy the 7 staff concerned and to license
contractors to do refuse collection work. Under the
redeployment proposals all of the workers would suffer a loss of
overtime earnings and 4 refuse collection operators would be
re-graded as general operators, with a loss of earnings of
approximately #5 per week. By letter dated 27th March, 1992 the
Council made an offer of compensation (details supplied to the
Court) which is tabulated as follows:-
Present Grade New Grade Compensation Compensation
for loss of for
overtime re-grading
________________________________________________________________
Worker 1 Machine
Operator No change # 400 Nil
Worker 2 Ganger No Change # 700 Nil
Worker 3 Ganger No Change #1,200 Nil
Worker 4 Refuse General # 700 #400
Collector Operator
Worker 5 Refuse General # 700 #400
Collector Operator
Worker 6 Refuse General #1,100 #400
Collector Operator
Worker 7 Refuse General # 800 #400
Collector Operator
________________________________________________________________
The Union rejected the offer. No agreement was reached at local
level discussions and the dispute was referred on 27th February,
1992 to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation
conference was held on 25th March, 1992 at which no agreement
was reached. The matter was referred to the Labour Court on 8th
April, 1992 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on 16th
April, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers first learned of the Council's proposals
to privatise the refuse collection service in February,
1992. This has to be viewed against the background of
Council discussions which were reported in the local press.
No discussions took place with the workers or the Union
until the Council made its decision.
2. The Council has cited reasons of financial necessity
and low public usage as their reasons for privatisation.
These two problems should have been addressed by the
Council. There is an obligation on the Council to provide
a service to the public. There is no such obligation on
private contractors.
3. The Council has a duty to protect the environment in
relation to waste collection and disposal. The Programme
for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.) outlines the
benefits of environment policy for job creation and
environment protection. This particular case falls into
the jobs maintenance category and should be addressed in
the general context of clause 92 of the P.E.S.P.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS
4. 1. When preparing the 1992 expenditure estimates the
Council had to examine priorities because of its overall
serious financial position. A survey of the refuse
collection service found that only 46% of houses served use
the service and on one route the level of usage is as low
as 31%. As the service is costing #200,000 per annum the
Council could not afford to continue such on ineffective
service and decided to provide sufficient funds until
January, 1992 only. Since then the Council has continued
with the service financed by overdraft accommodation.
2. The Council has made it clear that the 7 workers
concerned would be redeployed without a reduction in
overall employee numbers. The Council's offer of
compensation dated 27th March, 1992 is based on precedent
and the Council has taken account of previous Labour Court
Recommendations. Given the severe financial position of
the Council the offer is fair and reasonable.
3. There is no obligation on a local authority to provide
a refuse collection service to the public. Under Appendix
B of the P.E.S.P. which deals with staff which are surplus
to operational requirements in any area of the public
service, the Council may deal with the problem in a number
of ways including redeployment of workers.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends that the Council increase its offer in relation to
the four employees who will suffer a drop in weekly rate, to
#700 per person.
The Court further recommends that the Council offer as set out
by a letter dated 27th March, 1992 as amended by the above
proposal be accepted by the Union in full settlement of this
dispute.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
______________________
28th April, 1992
A.S./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman