FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE WEST - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Union Claim that Mayo General Hospital failed to comply with requirement of PSA in extending cleaning contract
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between SIPTU and the HSE in relation to the Union's contention that management are outsourcing the duties of support staff at Mayo General Hospital which is at variance with the Public Services Agreement 2010-2014. Management's position is that it had no option but to extend the cleaning contract to additional wards following several unsuccessful attempts to enter into discussions with the Union on supplying support staff to these areas within the current staffing levels.
The matter was not resolved at local level and was the subject of a number of conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 25th July, 2012 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18th October, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3 1 Management's actions are at variance with the provisions of the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014. It is continuing to outsource cleaning contracts rather than entering into meaningful negotiations with the Union on a more acceptable method of providing the service from within the existing resources available.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENT:
4 1 Management has made several unsuccessful attempts to enter into discussions with the Union. The hospital must ensure that the required standards of cleanliness are achieved and management had no option in the circumtances but to extend the cleaning contract to the additional wards.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that this dispute has come before it under the terms of the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014. The issue in dispute concerns the Union’s objection to Mayo General Hospital outsourcing work of its support staff grades without observing its obligations under the Agreement, in particular under the Appendix “Service Delivery Option”.
HSE West on behalf of the Hospital stated that hospital management had sought over a protracted period of time to engage in a constructive consultative process with the Union on this issue, without success.
Having considered the positions of both sides the Court is of the view that before it should consider this matter it should firstly be dealt with under the auspices of the Health Service Implementation Body and accordingly recommends that both parties should jointly refer the issue to the HSIB and both should endeavour to seek an expeditious hearing of the matter.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
22nd October 2012______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.