FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Use of outside contractors.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim by Trinity College that, in the context of the sector-wide General Operative Benchmarking Agreement (2004) and TCD's subsequent plan for implementation of that agreement, both of which were accepted by the Union, it is entitled to (i) engage outside contractors so as to ensure value for money and efficient delivery of service, and (ii) the cooperation of the general operatives with contractors. The Union rejects the College's interpretation of its entitlements under the agreement. The Union has a difficulty with the use of outside contractors, believing it to be the first step towards the diminution of permanent and pensionable posts in TCD. Whilst opposed in principle to the use of outside contractors, the Union indicated that it would be prepared to enter negotiations with the college on the use of such contractors, only where a viable business plan is provided, and only if such use of contractors is in an area of new business and off campus (outside College Green campus). Currently the University employs about 400 general operatives, including about 100 in catering and 200 in housekeeping.
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 dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 27th January, 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. Subsequent to Conciliation, notice of industrial action was issued by the Union. It was indicated to the Industrial Relations Officer that no such action would take place pending the Labour Court Investigation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th April, 2006
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 To date, despite many local discussions Management has not provided a justifiable business case for any area of college business.
2. The Union contends that they are not in breach of Sustaining progress or Parallel Benchmarking agreements. The Union further contends that they have engaged in procedures and believe Management is deliberately holding up wage increases due to the lowest grades of staff in an attempt to force workers to agree to outsourcing and the displacement of core jobs.
3. Management seems to be convinced that Sustaining Progress and/or Parallel Benchmarking terms applyonlyto SIPTU. The terms of both agreements apply to the employer also.
4. The Union believe that the behaviour of Management is wholly unacceptable and unreasonable and that it is a misrepresentation of the level of co-operation, flexibility and ongoing change delivered on by the workers concerned.
UNIVERSITY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 While Management are convinced of the economic need to utilise contractors in certain situations, and the industrial right to do so, (reflected in the Parallel Benchmarking agreement), the University has sought to progress this issue constructively and inclusively. Proposals have been developed and have addressed a range of concerns highlighted by the Union and contain more restrictions and provisions on the use of contractors than is the norm with such agreements. ie
- the requirement for College to present the case for using contractors;
- establishing thresholds beyond which contractors could not be engaged under the agreement
- clarifying that the employment status or conditions of current staff will not be affected by the proposals
- elements from the recently agreed revisions to the 1997 Health & Local Authority Services Procedural Agreement for use of Contractors dealing with contractors obligations around HR procedures, standards and minimum conditions.
3. Management believe that Industrial Action served by the Union represents a breach of Sustaining Progress.
4. Management believe that the agreement they are seeking on the use of outside contractors is entirely consistent with the Parallel Benchmarking agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court does not accept that the various agreements upon which it relied could reasonably be interpreted as giving the College an unfettered right to contract out services currently provided by direct labour.
It is, however, reasonable for the College to seek limited agreement on the engagement of contractors in line with arrangements agreed with the Union in similar educational establishments under the terms of the relevant national agreements.
The Court recommends that the parties engage in an intensive process of negotiations with a view to concluding an agreement which would allow the College to engage contractors in limited and defined circumstances. These negotiations should take full account of the legitimate concerns of the Union to maintain appropriate employment standards together with the legitimate aspiration of the College to obtain flexibilities in line with those available to other Universities by agreement with the Union.
The parties should be assisted by an agreed facilitator who should be authorised to make recommendations where appropriate. The process should commence as soon as practicable following acceptance of this recommendation. The parties should report to the Court on progress by the end of June 2006.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
_16th May, 2006______________________
JBChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.