FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MAYO COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LGMSB) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr N� Mhurchu |
1. Privatisation of refuse collection service.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue in dispute concerns Mayo County Council's and the Town Councils of Westport, Ballina and Castlebar to withdraw from refuse collection service . The decision to withdraw from the service arises form a growing annual deficit in the provision of the service. The Council and three Town Councils currently operate a refuse collection service which involves the use of nine trucks and employs thirty three staff. Following negotiations with the Union under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission in 2000 the service has been operated in accordance with a Task and Finish Agreement. The Council claims that a loss has occurred since the introduction of the Task and Finish Agreement and that this loss is increasing yearly. In November, 2004 the Council advised the Union that it would be examining every possible option including that of leaving the refuse business. The Union indicated that it was totally opposed to the privatisation of refuse collection. In November, 2005 the Union was given a presentation of a report to the County Manager which concluded in a Recommendation that the Council withdraw from refuse collection. The Union rejected the report. The issue was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A number of conciliation conferences were held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 10th July, 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 18th October, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1. Management must engage positively with the Union to establish a strategy to increase customer base, while providing an effective efficient service. The Task and Finish Agreement provides for flexibility in all areas of the service, in maximising Management's investment on a value for money basis regarding extensions and alterations to existing and new routes. The status of this agreement remains in full and should be exercised. The Agreement freely entered into, initiated by employers contained a review clause which was completely ignored by Management.
2. The Modernisation and Change Agenda Agreement entered into in May, 2004, as per Parallel Benchmarking under Sustaining Progress, provides for protection against the refuse collection service being outsourced without workers' agreement.
3. Management's uneven emphasis on financial and legal arguments at the expense of an industrial relations basis contravenes Clause 17.7 of the Sustaining Progress Agreement. The refuse collection service is a public and essential service carrying out a core state activity and should remain and be operated by direct labour in an efficient and effective fashion.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. While the Union has advised Management that it wishes to continue to operate the refuse collection service, this position is untenable. The service is facing a projected loss of €2.1 million in 2006. The Council has looked at ways of continuing the service and even if this could logically be done with a mere skeleton crew, it is still not possible to operate a viable service. The Council has abided by best practice in the industrial relations arena throughout this process. Sustaining Progress provides for change to be introduced by public sector employees as part of the payments provided under that agreement. The decision to withdraw from the refuse collection service and the changes associated with this have been pursued by the Council in accordance with Section 21.12 of SP.
2. The Council is prepared to give an absolute guarantee in relation to continued employment for each of the workers affected. Each worker is guaranteed redeployment within Mayo County Council at his current grade. The Council also undertakes to compensate any worker for any loss in actual earnings. The discontinuation of the service means that the basis for the payment of a refuse allowance and the 9.5 hours notional overtime will no longer exist, accordingly it is proposed to compensate workers for the loss arising. This would result in an average payment of approximately €32,000 to each worker plus an absolute guarantee of continued employment.
3. Many of the issues associated with other local authorities' decision to withdraw from the refuse collection service have been the subject of Labour Court Recommendations. (LCR's 16422 and 17629 refer). The Court has upheld local authorities' decisions to withdraw from refuse collection service.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute before the Court relates to the County Council's decision to withdraw from Refuse Service Collection and to privatise the service. Management submitted to the Court that this course of action was necessary due to the losses being sustained by the service and also to a number of other factors relating to legal considerations under European and National Environmental policy and legislation.
In preparation for the cessation of the service, Management put forward a number of proposals to the Union, which encompassed a commitment to re-deploy all employees affected and setting out a formula for loss of earnings.
The Union objected to the privatisation of the refuse collection service and sought re-engagement with Management on establishing a strategy to increase the customer base, while providing an effective and efficient service.
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of both parties and to the information supplied. The Court recognises that there are financial constraints on the Council requiring it to make radical decisions to address the problem. The Court accepts that in line with a number of other local authorities, it was appropriate for the Council to give consideration to the privatisation of the refuse service as a means of addressing these problems.
Therefore, the Court recommends that discussions should commence with he Union to address the implications of cessation of the refuse service for the workforce. Both parties should enter meaningful discussions on all aspects of the change.
In the circumstances, the Court recommends that the decision of the Council should not be implemented until these discussions have been finalised. The Court recommends that discussions should be completed within a period of two months from the date of this recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
31st October, 2006
tod______________________
Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.