FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MAYO COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES BOARD) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. A dispute between Mayo County Council and SIPTU over the privatisation of refuse collection.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court is a dispute arising from LCR 18752 and relates to the decision of Mayo County Council to cease refuse collection. A compensation package and redeployment has been offered to refuse collection employees. Following discussions between the County Council and the Union, full consideration was given on all matters. In accordance with the terms of Towards 2016, the Union sought the intervention of the National Implementation Body. A statement was issued on the 18th December 2006 by the N.I.B.
The statement is as follows:
"The National Implementation Body has considered the situation regarding the refuse collection service in Mayo County Council following the NIB statement of 18 December, 2006.
It is a matter of regret that events following that statement served to weaken the climate of trust and co-operation which, in the light of that statement, would have facilitated proper engagement at the LRC.
The NIB now recommends that the parties engage as a matter of urgency this week with the assistance of the LRC and, in the event of failure to reach agreement, that the issues be referred to the Labour Court such that the Court would be in a position to issue a binding determination not later than 28 February, 2007."
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commision and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties could not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 21st February 2007, in accordance with Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. Both parties agee to be bound by the Recommendation of the Labour Court.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 26th February 2007 and at the Union's request for an adjournment it continued on 1st March 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Refuse Collection employees stand to lose out on bonuses and overtime when redeployed. The Union does not accept the County Council's claim that overtime will be available to these employees in their redeployed positions.
2. The Union believe the multiple of twice the annual loss should be increased to a multiple of four times. This is due to the fact that employee allowances are built into their eventual superannuation benefit on retirement.
3. The Unions original understanding of the National Implementation Board Statement is the correct interpretation, that all matters are up for discussion not just compensation. They believe there is an opportunity for the direct labour of refuse collection to be done by Mayo County Council.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Throughout the LRC process of 2006 all options were considered by the Council; all costs and information were made available to the Union. The Council was running the refuse collection at a deficit of €2.5 million per annum. This could not continue.
2. Where staff are redeployed overtime will be available. There are procedures within the County Council Pension Scheme for restructuring of staff. Refuse collection employees pensions will be calculated taking into account the time spent as a Refuse Collector and whatever time spent in their new position.
3. The County Council can no longer engage in refuse collection as they have no customer base. It is not feasible to continue with any type of refuse collection. The multiple of twice the annual loss to a Refuse Collector employee including 9.5 hours weekly notional overtime, a weekly allowance and an average of bonuses paid over the previous five years is a generous offer.
RECOMMENDATION:
This case arises from Labour Court Recommendation No:18752, which dealt with the County Council's decision to withdraw from Refuse Service Collection. The Court notes the level of dissatisfaction felt by workers concerned with the Council's decision, however, having examined all aspects of the situation the Court accepts that there is no scope for the Council to continue with a refuse service - even on a limited basis.
The Union outlined for the Court the level of losses which will be sustained by the workers - loss of overtime, weekly refuse allowance and a weekly bonus payment.
In response, the Council put forward a proposal, which included:
- Re-deployment of staff.
- Security of employment, or alternatively an optional severance package.
- Mechanism to ameliorate superannuation effects of the loss of earnings.
- Compensation of 2 years loss of earnings for the refuse workers involved and pro-rata for relief workers who had completed a minimum of four weeks work in the years 2005 and 2006.
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, in all the circumstances of this case, the Court recommends that the County Council's proposals should be amended by improving the level of compensation on offer to three years the loss of earnings (overtime, refuse allowance and bonus). The Court recommends that this improved offer should be accepted by the refuse collection workers concerned in full and final settlement of the Councils decision to cease the collection of refuse collection.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
6th March, 2007______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.