|
FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES: DE LA SALLE COLLEGE WATERFORD
(REPRESENTED BY DE LA SALLE COLLEGE WATERFORD) - AND - 7 WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION:
SUBJECT: 1. Outsourcing of Cleaning to Private Provider. 2. The Union states the Employer would not engage with its Members to discuss if issues had arisen with it's Members work prior to the outsourcing of work. 3. The Union states it is willing to engage in meaningful discussions and talks with the Employer in this matter. EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS: 4. 1. The Employer states is was agreed at Board of Management (BOM) level to outsource cleaning to a third party. However, the BOM decided not to proceed following engagement and consultation with the Union from August 2022. 2. The Employer explains that it proposes to reissue the BOM's intention to outsource cleaning which it feels is the best way forward with the 7 Union Members transferring to the cleaning company. 3. The Employer accepts that it had not engaged in the first instance but are willing to engage with the Union in this matter
Summary of Union position. The Employer has unilaterally sought to outsource the member’s work. No prior engagement took place prior to the Employer coming to the decision to outsource and selecting a preferred provider. This is contrary to all good industrial relations practise. The Workers were invited by text to attend the meeting where the Employers HR provider informed them that their work was being outsourced and that their new employer was in the next room waiting to talk to them. The Union strongly object to the outsourcing and submit that no legitimate basis for outsourcing these roles has been put forward. The Union indicated that they are prepared to have meaningful engagement with the Employer subject to the status quo being maintained. Summary of Employer position. The Board of Management decided to outsource the cleaning of the school and went to tender for a preferred provider. Following that in August 2022 the Board informed the Workers that their roles were being outsourced and that their employment would transfer to the preferred provider. SIPTU notified the Employer that their members did not want to transfer employers but gave no rational for same. The transfer was paused to allow for local discussions. It is the managements position that the school Principal does not have sufficient expertise or time to manage the cleaning of the school and that outsourcing is the best solution. The Employer is requesting that the Labour Court ask the staff to engage positively with the transfer to avoid industrial action. Discussion. The Court noted that if both parties were locked into their respective positions, it may not be in a position to assist them. Following discussion, it was accepted by both parties that in order to move forward they would agree to enter discussions without any preconditions and that there would have to be a full and frank exchange of information. The Employer confirmed to the Court that they were prepared to enter into discussions where not going ahead with the outsourcing was a possible outcome and to provide information in such a process about the current cost of the service and the cost in an outsourced arrangement. The Union confirmed to the Court they were prepared to enter into discussions where outsourcing was a possible outcome and to engage in respect of their concerns relating to outsourcing and knowledge they would have in respect of outsourcing models including hybrid models. The Court based on the indications received from the parties set out above recommends that the parties return to conciliation on this matter and engage in a productive manner. The Court so recommends.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary. |
