FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TUSLA, CHILD AND FAMILY SUPPORT AGENCY - AND - FORSA TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Geraghty Employer Member: Ms Connolly Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Breach of Public Service Agreement/ external or internal delivery of service.
BACKGROUND:
2. This issue relates to the delivery of services at the Rathmines Women’s Refuge and whether this should be delivered by an external supplier or by permanent employees of Tusla, the child and family support agency. There are approximately 15 staff employed in the Refuge, represented by F�rsa Trade Union. The centre closed temporarily in September 2017 to facilitate necessary structural work and all staff were facilitated in jobs on alternate sites. Prior to the Refuge re-opening, the Employer communicated a decision to transfer delivery of the service to an outside provider from 2019.
This was opposed by the Union.
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.
The first conciliation conference took place on the 31stof January 2019, a second conciliation conference took place on 28thof February 2019. As agreement was not reached, the Union requested that the matter be referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 9thof May 2019
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. F�rsa contends that Tusla have not complied with their obligations under the Public Service Stability Agreement by deciding to outsource the Rathmines Womens’ Refuge.
2. F�rsa prepared a very comprehensive document which it believes addresses Tusla’s rationale for outsourcing the service.
3. F�rsa requests that Tusla engage with F�rsa on what it believes to be any shortcomings or difficulties it has with Rathmines Women’s Refuge using normal industrial relations processes. F�rsa also contends that Tulsa should comply with its obligations under the PSSA and engage meaningfully with F�rsa on an alternative to outsourcing.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Tusla believes that they are in compliance with the Public Service Stability Agreement and that consultation is on-going.
2. Tusla have made clear to F�rsa that further scoping on commissioning out of a service is required and welcome F�rsa’s engagement in relation to this scoping.
3. Once this scoping is completed, and if an external provider is identified and successful through this process, engagement will then be required with individual staff.
4. Tusla have previously committed and continue to be committed to facilitating staff as best they can, including facilitating a transfer to the external provider, in line with TUPE, or progressing redeployment, in line with public service agreements.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue for the Court is whether the terms of the Public Service Stability Agreement, (PSSA), have been met.
It emerged in the course of the hearing that this dispute between the parties was delaying the re-opening of the Refuge and, as a result, this vital public service was unavailable to the vulnerable women who require it. It is, in the view of the Court, inexplicable that the employer waited until the Refuge was almost ready to re-open before unveiling its intentions, given that it was apparent that these intentions would lead, inevitably, to serious concerns on the part of affected staff.
However, it arose, the Court finds itself in the invidious position of having to deal with this issue as a matter of extreme urgency.
It is clear to the Court that the employer has not met the requirements of Para. 6 of the Appendix to the Public Service Stability Agreement, (PSSA) headed ‘Service Delivery Options’. This requires consultation, ‘in the first instance’, on a development plan in respect of any existing service, which must evaluate the existing in-house service and the out-sourcing option and compare both and, further, that this evaluation must involve consultation on any plan to address service changes necessary to retain the service in-house. This has not happened.
Both parties agreed at the hearing to engage under this paragraph and both indicated a desire for facilitation. That being so, the Court has advised the Workplace Relations Commission, (WRC) of the terms of this Recommendation.
In view of the urgency, the Court recommends a period of intense and meaningful engagement with the assistance of the WRC, in accordance with Para. 6 and with a view to concluding agreement within four weeks of this Recommendation. Given the nature of the service, the Court has stated to the parties that it believes that they should both enter this process in a genuine spirit of seeking to reach an agreement within this time-frame and the Court has expressed the view that this issue should be, and could be, resolved through this meaningful engagement.
The parties need to contact the WRC immediately to commence the process recommended.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom Geraghty
CH______________________
10th May 2019Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Carol Hennessy, Court Secretary.