FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION IRISH NURSE ORGANISATION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Relocation
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Daughters Of Charity, SIPTU and INO in relation to the proposed re-location of the Training, Enterprise and Employment services from its current location to a new site.
The Union's position is that the new site is totally unacceptable for the users of the service and its staff.
The Union raised issues of concern insofar as the proposed location being considered initially seemed satisfacotry and would have greatly enhanced the prospects of the service users, however, the actual location that was chosen was in an industrial estate with several health and safety concerns. Management's position is that staff, service users and their families were consulted at all times during the process and that the new facility is appropriate for the relocation of the service.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 30th May 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial RelationsAct, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 6th December 2006, the earliest date suitable tothe parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS
3. 1 The proposed new facility is totally unacceptable for the users of the service and staff. Initially, an architects drawing showed the new location as being a pleasant facility surrounded by trees and grass. In reality, the facility is in an industrial estate and is best described as a warehouse.
2 The users of this service are people with intellectual difficulties who will suffer as a result of this move. There will be far less opportunities for them to lead fulfilling lives and integrate into a community when they are located in such a location.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 Management at all times consulted with the staff, the users of the service and their families as well as the Trade Unions. The proposed new facility was shown to all before it was confirmed and no difficulties were raised at the time
2 The facility has been in place for nearly two years and the delay in transferring the service to the new facility is creating severe operational and financial difficulties for the Daughters of Charity.
3. Any difficulties raised in relation to the proposed move will be discussed with a view to reaching a satisfactory conclusion for all concerned.
RECOMMENDATION:
The subject matter of this dispute relates to the suitability of a new premises for the delivery of services to people with intellectual disabilities. The issues raised by the parties are not of an industrial relations nature and are outside the Court's field of expertise. Moreover, the taking of decisions in matters of this nature is a function of management. Except in so far as they impact on the employment related interests of staff, they would not normally be the subject of collective bargaining.
However, in this case it is clear that the staff who are responsible for the day-to-day delivery of services are adamant that the premises at issue are unsuitable from the perspective of the service users. The Court is satisfied that these concerns are based on the bona fide held views of professional and committed staff. In the Court's opinion these views cannot be ignored.
The Court notes that the Unions are seeking an independent assessment of the impact of the proposed relocation on the service users. If management are correct in their view that the premises are suitable and the move is in line with good practice, such an independent review could usefully serve to assuage the concerns of staff. On that basis the Court believes that the Union's proposal is reasonable and unobjectionable. Accordingly, the Court recomends that the Organisation should accede to the Union's proposal. The person or body to undertakee this task should be agreed between the parties
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
22nd December 2006______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.