Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94391 Case Number: LCR14579 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ROTUNDA HOSPITAL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the use of contract cleaners.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is
satisfied that the Company's proposals for the cleaning of the new
unit are reasonable and should be accepted by the Union.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94391 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14579
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
ROTUNDA HOSPITAL
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the use of contract cleaners.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Hospital opened a new 3 storey wing in 2 phases (May
and October) of 1993. The Hospital employs 67 ward
orderlies and domestic staff to provide cleaning
services throughout the Hospital. During the
construction of the new wing, the Hospital engaged the
services of contract cleaners to clean the new block on
a temporary basis.
2. In July, 1993, the Hospital wrote to the Union and
outlined its proposals for the provision of cleaning
services in the new block. It was the Hospital's
position that by engaging the services of contract
cleaners, it would save over #21,000 per annum. The
Union objected to the proposals and treathened
industrial action.
3. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission (LRC) and conciliation conferences were held
on 13th October 1993, 10th January and 25th May, 1994.
At the first conciliation conference, both parties
accepted the following proposal:-
"1. For a trail period of one month (i.e. 15th
November, 1993) cleaning duties on the first and
second floors shall be offered to existing staff.
2. All things being equal the contract cleaners shall
go from the Ground floor at the end of the month.
3. If any difficulties arise in the interim, both
parties shall revert to the LRC."
4. Both parties referred the dispute back to the LCR. At
the second conciliation conference, the Company agreed
that the workers had shown efficiency and flexibility in
the carrying out of their duties. However, the Company's
position remained the same as the cost factor remained
unsustainable (#44,000 as compared to #22,000). The
Union sought time to examine the Company's figures.
5. Prior to the third conciliation conference, the Union
commissioned an assessment of the issue by the IPC. At
the third conciliation conference, the Union questioned
a number of the assumptions on which the Hospital had
based its figures (details supplied). The Company was
satisfied that it had received accurate tenders and no
agreement between the parties was possible.
6. On 21st July, 1994, the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute
on 29th September, 1994 (the earliest date suitable to
both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is very concerned about the Hospital's plans
in this area and the future implications for its
workers. It asked the IPC to examine the Hospital's
costings. The IPC saw a number of questionable
assumptions.
i. The contractor envisaged 57 hours per week
compared with 114 on the part of household staff.
ii. Higher levels of skills and equipment by
contractor.
iii. No tender headings were available - The Union is
not sure on what basis the contractors submitted
tenders.
2. The Union can show that the Hospital's figures are
inaccurate using exaggerated hours and costs to fulfil
the contract. The IPC report gives a much more
realistic assessment of the costs involved. The Union
has costed its own proposals and found them to be
favourable to that of the contractor (details supplied).
3. The Hospital has breached agreements on the use of
contractors. The workers have provided loyal service in
poor conditions over the years. The Hospital, while
acknowledging that the workers provide an acceptable
level of services, is not allowing them the option of
providing services to the new facility. The only
workers whose terms and conditions of employment are
treathened are the ancillary staff.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union's proposal for the cleaning of the new block
is unacceptable to the Hospital. Its current cost is
now estimated at #43,340 per year which is more that
twice a mid-range quote from a reputable contractor. It
is important to note that the area in which contract
cleaning is proposed is the Hospital's new 3 storey
block and it does not impinge on existing arrangements
in other parts of the Hospital.
2. The Hospital has an obligation to approach its cleaning
requirements in a cost effective and efficient manner.
It has given a commitment to ensure that the legitimate
entitlements of present staff are not adversely
affected. The permanent workers are not affected by the
introduction of contract cleaners and no permanent jobs
will be eliminated.
3. Contract cleaners are and have been for many years
involved in cleaning hospitals and most Dublin Hospitals
would have such arrangements. The contract workers will
be Union members and the Hospital has dealt only with
reputable contractors. It is in the best interests of
all parties that the Hospital secure the most cost
effective and efficient method of operations.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is
satisfied that the Company's proposals for the cleaning of the new
unit are reasonable and should be accepted by the Union.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
13th October, 1994 Evelyn Owens
J.F./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.