LCR22409

FULL RECOMMENDATION

SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990

PARTIES :

KILKENNY CO 
(REPRESENTED BY KILKENNY COUNTY COUNCIL)

- AND -

OUTDOOR STAFF KILKENNY COUNTY COUNCIL
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)

DIVISION :

SUBJECT:

1. Use Of Contractors

BACKGROUND:

2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 25 February, 2021 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 4 May, 2021.

UNION’S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The Union believe that Management is continuously giving work proper to members, to contractors without any consultation.

2. The Union believe that Management is abusing the dispute resolution process.

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Council state that they act in accordance with the provisions of the Public Service Agreements which provide specific criteria for the outsourcing of core work.

2. The Council state that they will adhere to its obligations and where there is a proposal to outsource a new or existing service which has not previously been outsourced it will engage with the unions as provided for under the Public Service Agreements.




RECOMMENDATION :

The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.

The matter before the Court relates directly to the operation of the parties’ Public Service agreement and in particular to clauses relating to outsourcing / the use of contractors including a matter related to the interpretation of appendix to the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014 which referred to “work that may reasonably be considered as small in scale”.

It is the view of the Court that it would be inappropriate to issue a recommendation purporting to describe what is meant by the appendix to a Public Service Agreement at issue when it refers to “work that may reasonably be considered as small in scale”.

A recommendation from the Court on this matter could potentially be seen to have wide application. This would be inappropriate against a background where the Court has no understanding of the general view of the matter across the sector. In those circumstances, the Court recommends that the parties should engage further to address this matter locally or through the relevant agreed dispute resolution mechanisms if local resolution is not achievable.

A second matter before the Court essentially relates to the structure of meetings required in order to implement the parties’ agreement on consultation with regard to outsourcing / the use of contractors. The Court notes that this matter is currently under discussion between the parties with the assistance of the Workplace Relations Commission and the Court recommends that this process should continue to a resolution. If the current discussions cannot achieve a mutually acceptable outcome as regards meeting structure, the parties should give consideration to securing the assistance of the Advisory Service of the WRC in order to review the framework for the effective conduct of engagements within the Council.

The Court so recommends.

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Clodagh O'Reilly, Court Secretary.