FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : PERSONAL INJURIES ASSESSMENT BOARD - AND - PUBLIC SERVICES EXECUTIVE UNION CIVIL AND PUBLIC SERVICES UNION ASSOCAITION OF HIGHER CIVIL AND PUBLIC SERVANTS DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Breach of the Public Services Agreement (Outsourcing of the preparation of files for Statutory Assessors).
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a decision by the Personal Injuries Assessment Board to outsource the preparation of files for Statutory Assessors. The Unions argues that in doing so, management did not comply with the procedures contained in the Public Service Agreement. Management argued they have utilised an outsourced centre from the time it was established, and with the increased volume of work and moratorium on recruitment it was necessary to outsource this element of the work also. This dispute could not be 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 dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 15th May 2014, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th July 2014.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The staff has been accommodating and cooperative in relation to the outsourcing of non-core work. Prior to 2013/2014, no claims file handling was carried out by anyone other than permanent members of staff of the Injuries Board.
2. The outsourcing of work was done without any consultation and no cost benefit analysis was completed prior to the outsourcing.
3. Given the fact that the Board which is self-funding and not a burden on the exchequer, has effected savings of €1 billion in the ten years of its existence, this outsourced work could be undertaken by directly employed staff rather than through outsourcing.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. As with all public sector bodies, the Board is subject to the moratorium on recruitment and currently has an Employment Control Framework staff allocation number of 67.
2. It was never the intention of the Board to have the external contractor undertake this additional work.
3. If sanction is received to recruit additional staff the work will be brought back in-house.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having carefully considered the submissions of both sides in this dispute the Court finds as follows: -
1.The allocation of the impugned work to an outside agency constitutes outsourcing for the purposes of the Haddington Road Agreement.2.In coming to the decision to outsource this work the Board has not complied with the outsourcing provisions of the Agreement.
Based on these findings the Court recommends that the Injuries Board takes the necessary steps to comply with the provisions of the Haddington Road Agreement.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
CR______________________
7th August, 2014.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.