Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92495 Case Number: LCR13772 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CARLOW URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A dispute concerning the retention of the existing refuse collection crew and area of operation.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court takes the view that the reduction in work was entirely
outside the Urban District Council's control and accordingly
redeployment of staff is essential in the circumstances. The
Court therefore recommends that, in accordance with the terms of
the General Productivity Agreement the Union agree to the proposed
transfer from the refuse truck without further delay.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92495 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13772
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CARLOW URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute concerning the retention of the existing refuse
collection crew and area of operation.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The U.D.C. operates a refuse collection service for the
Carlow urban area. In addition, for a number of years the
Council has collected refuse on an agency basis from 500
houses in the County Council area. The U.D.C. received
#16,000 per annum for this service.
2. From 10th August, 1992, the Council privatised its refuse
collection. The U.D.C. service was no longer required and as
a consequence of losing 1/6 of its area and #16,000 per annum,
the U.D.C. decided to reduce its refuse collection crew from
one driver and 4 crewmen to one driver and 3 crewmen. The
surplus crewman was to be redeployed to general operative
duties in accordance with the agreement on general operative
duties.
3. The Union objected to the change and argued for the
retention of the agency work. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Relations Commission and the status quo was maintained
while negotiations were ongoing. No progress was made towards
resolution at a conciliation conference held on 14th August,
1992. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 18th
August, 1992 and a Labour Court investigation took place in
Waterford on 26th August, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The decision by Carlow County Council to terminate the
collection of refuse was discussed and agreed at conciliation
with the Labour Relations Commission. During conciliation the
Council give an assurance that the privatisation of refuse
collection in the Council area would not affect the U.D.C.
area. At no stage did the Council indicate that there would
be a knock-on effect.
2. The collection service operated by the U.D.C. is
economically viable and there is no reason why its area of
collection should be reduced with a consequential loss in
income of #16,000. This loss will make the refuse collection
service uneconomic and will lead to further cuts. The U.D.C.
has refused to give the workers an assurance that their future
work is secure. The workers feel that the County Council
negotiated the privatisation with a hidden agenda.
3. The Union is not opposed to negotiating change but it will
not accept unilateral action by the U.D.C. which leaves little
room to negotiate. The decision by the U.D.C. results in a
loss of income with an increase in unit costs. There is no
opportunity for expansion in the urban area. The loss of the
500 houses agency work will upset the balance of payments
between commercial and domestic groups.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. As a result of losing work from the County Council it was
decided in the interests of cost effectiveness and good
management practice to redeploy one crewman to general
operative duties. The right of management to redeploy workers
is in accordance with the productivity agreement for general
operatives. This is standard practice within the U.D.C.
2. The U.D.C. maintains that interference with the right to
redeploy is contrary to the operation of normal industrial
relations procedures. The U.D.C. has no control over a
decision taken by the County Council. It is now simply taking
appropriate action to prevent the service becoming non-viable.
The change in crewing is clearly necessary for the ongoing
viability of the service. It is now neither practical nor
economically viable to have a crew of 4 on the refuse truck.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court takes the view that the reduction in work was entirely
outside the Urban District Council's control and accordingly
redeployment of staff is essential in the circumstances. The
Court therefore recommends that, in accordance with the terms of
the General Productivity Agreement the Union agree to the proposed
transfer from the refuse truck without further delay.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
-----------------
30th September, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.