FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH BLOOD TRANSFUSION SERVICE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Alleged breach of the Public Service Agreement (Re: Outsourcing the work of Driver Clerks).
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute arose from the the HSE's decision to go to tender for the collection and delivery of blood products which the Union considers is outsourcing its Members' work in breach of the Public Service Agreement. This 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 19th October, 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th January, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Union does not accept the Employer's claim that the the HSE's decision is a fait accompli.
2 The Employer is allowing this work to be outsourced without first exploring if this work can remain in-house.
3 The Employer is, accordingly, in clear breach of the Public Service Agreement.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Employer is not outsourcing the Driver Clerks' work.
2 The Employer is merely responding to the the HSE's decision to go to tender for all collection and delivery services to and from all of its hospitals.
3. Once informed of the the HSE's decision, the Employer entered into consultation with the Union in full compliance with the terms of the Public Service Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns an alleged breach by the Irish Blood Transfusion Service Board (IBTS) of the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014 (the Agreement). The Union on behalf of Driver Clerks employed within the Transport Department of the IBTS contended that the IBTS specifically contravened the Agreement in the review undertaken by management of its transport function and services provided.
The Union submitted that the IBTS tendering of the Driver Clerks’ work for the collection/delivery services of the transport department constituted ‘outsourcing’ and as such it had failed to comply with the provision contained within Section 6 of the “Service Delivery Options” appended to the Agreement and was therefore in contravention of the Agreement. The Union contended that the IBTS had not engaged with it prior to any decision being taken to outsource the collection/delivery work rather than maintain it in-house.
Management denied that it had acted in breach of the Agreement. It further denied that it was in the process of outsourcing the work of the Driver Clerks and it submitted that the decision to tender for the collection/delivery work was made by the HSE to encompass not just blood products but other temperature controlled products as well. Management denied that it was party to the tendering process but informed the Court that it had provided technical information to the HSE for inclusion in the information given to potential tenderers of the specific requirements necessary to collect/deliver blood products. Management stated that the HSE is its largest customer for its blood products and that it currently delivers these products to the HSE's hospitals. The IBTS is directly involved in the delivery of 61% of its blood products, predominately to the HSE hospitals. Half of the Driver Clerks are involved in this work on a rotational basis with between 3 to 4 Driver Clerks on driving duties on any one day. The remaining 50% of Driver Clerks do not engage in driving duties at all.
Management stated that as collection/delivery is not part of its core functions it was not in a position to submit a tender and in any event the tender encompassed the collection and delivery of substantially more products than just blood products. It stated that the HSE made a decision to implement the collection and delivery service in a more cost efficient manner and consequently decided to consolidate all collection and delivery service with one provider. The the HSE tender document is entitled“Framework Agreement for the provision of Temperature Controlled Supply Chain Management Services”.
Management contended that it had entered into a comprehensive communications and consultation process on its transport function with the Union in line with the Agreement and that one of the key reasons for this was the decision by the the HSE to go to tender for the collection and delivery of all products to and from their hospitals.
The Court has carefully considered the position of both parties. The essence of the Union’s claim is that the IBTS was obliged by the Agreement to consult with it before a decision was made to enter into a tendering process.
Section 6 of the “Service Delivery Options” appended to the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014 provides:
- “In the first instance, in respect of an existing service, both sides give a commitment to consult on the development of a service plan. This plan will evaluate the existing in-house service, the outsourcing option, and compare both. As part of the evaluation both Parties will consult with a view to agreeing a plan to address the service changes necessary to retain the service in house. In evaluating any proposal to proceed with outsourcing, a number of factors will be taken into account, including overall costs, quality of service, effectiveness, and the public interest. All relevant costs will be included in the evaluation but it will not be determined by unit hourly rates of pay.”
However, the Court is satisfied that the HSE made a decision to enter a procurement process for the collection and delivery of blood and other products and that decision will clearly have an impact on the Driver Clerks in the IBTS, as that aspect of the business will be substantially reduced by the loss of the HSE as a customer. Consequently, the Court does not find that the IBTS has acted in contravention of the Agreement.
The Court is satisfied that the consultation process entered into on 1stApril 2011 between the IBTS and the Union was initiated to deal with the impact of the the HSE’s decision to go to tender, to deal with the consequences of retirements among the Driver Clerks and to address any inefficiencies in the current transport operations. A series of meetings ensued culminating in the issued being referred to the Labour Relations Commission and eventually to the Court.
The Court is satisfied that the initiative to review the transport function within the IBTS and the consultation process entered into are in line with Clause 1.4 of the Agreement. The Court recommends that this process should be completed as expeditiously as possible in line with the Agreement.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
3rd February, 2012______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.