FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS IN IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Dispute concerning contracting-out.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute relates to the College's decision to contract out its portering, cleaning and maintenance facilities to various specialist companies. Management claims this is necessary in order to achieve optimum level of service in a flexible cost-efficient manner.
The Union rejected the proposal but stated that it was prepared to enter into negotiations on rationalisation based on workers remaining as direct employees of the College. This was unacceptable to the College.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the 30th September, 1998. Agreement could not be reached and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the 6th of October, 1998, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court carried out its investigation on the 23rd of October, 1998. A letter of recommendation was issued on the 28th October, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The workers concerned are long serving employees and are clearly angered by the College's decision. They consider that their reward for loyal service is the decision, for spurious reasons, to transfer them to contract companies. The College is in breach of an agreement (1993) covering the 3 cleaners wherein they were given a commitment their continued employment was guaranteed in return for their for co-operation with the introduction of contract cleaning in the College.
2. Irrespective of the College's portrayal of the situation the workers consider the prospect of giving up their direct employment status as totally unacceptable.
3. The workers feel so strongly on this issue that they are prepared to withdraw their labour if the College proceeds with contracting out.
4. The Union is willing to negotiate on restructuring/rationalisation. It recognises the need to take on board the requirement to co-operate with measures to improve efficiency and contain its costs. The Union is prepared to do so on the basis of sustainable arguments on costs etc., provided it is in the context of a continuation of direct employment.
5. Discussions were held in late 1997 and early 1998 under the auspices of an independent chairman on a number of proposals. There is no reason why these negotiations cannot be reconvened to endeavour to conclude an agreement acceptable to both sides.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The proposed transfer of portering, maintenance and cleaning services is necessary to achieve greater efficiency, flexibility and optimum level of service. It will be made to reputable and experienced organisations who are fully aware of the workers' terms and conditions of employment (details to the Court). The transfer will be totally in accordance with the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations, 1980.
2. The College recognises that the workers affected have concerns on the issue and will endeavour to alleviate these concerns to the best of its ability. This commitment, however, has been inhibited by the Union's outright refusal to negotiate, despite numerous attempts by the College and the Labour Relations Commission. For it to do so, it is essential that the Union enter into meaningful negotiations with a view to ensuring that the transfer take place in accordance with the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations, 1980.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is not satisfied that meaningful negotiations have taken place so far. While recognising that the College has an obligation to remain viable, it must also acknowledge the concerns of its staff.
The Court acknowledges the Union's intentions to engage in immediate negotiations. Therefore, the Court recommends that such negotiations should commence with an open agenda on all issues, including those referred to the Court. If the issues are not resolved within six weeks from the date of receipt of the Court's decision then the issues should be referred back to the Court for a recommendation.
In relation to the issue of the three cleaning staff, it is not clear that a commitment was given to them, that their jobs would be held open indefinitely, from the documentation supplied by the Union.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
12th November, 1998______________________
TOD/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.