LCR23294

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Referral under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990.

BACKGROUND:

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 18 February 2026 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.       

A Labour Court hearing took place on 02 July 2026.          

UNION'S ARGUMENTS.               

1. The proposed outsourcing of the stores function at Saint-Gobain Gyproc is neither justified nor necessary. 

2. SIPTU maintains that the stores function can and should be retained internally.         

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS.                       

1. A clear and legitimate business rationale exists for outsourcing the Engineering Stores function.               

2. No employee will lose employment as a result of the change.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Dispute

The within dispute arises from a decision of St Gobain Gyproc (‘the Company’) to outsource its engineering stores division which is currently staffed by two directly employed General Operatives.

The Company submits that outsourcing is a cost-neutral way to achieve the level of efficiency and security that it requires in this area of the business as part of its drive to be as competitive as possible in advance of a new manufacturer of plaster products commencing production in Ireland in 2027. The Company further submits that there will be no job losses arising from the proposed outsourcing. Finally, it is the Company’s position that it has engaged extensively both locally and under the auspices of the Conciliation Service with the Union in respect of all aspects of the outsourcing.

The Union is opposed to the outsourcing of the engineering stores as it has concerns that the Company may attempt to outsource other elements of the business in future that could result in job losses. The Union does not accept that the Company engaged in good faith in relation to the proposed outsourcing on this occasion and, in particular, submits that it was not provided with any detailed financial rationale for the Company’s decision.

Decision

The Court recommends that the outsourcing exercise is paused while the parties engage without delay in a joint exercise to evaluate and compare the existing in-house service, the outsourcing option and the cost of providing training to the Workers currently managing the engineering stores facility. The evaluation should take into account factors such as: overall cost, quality of service and effectiveness. This evaluation exercise should be undertaken jointly by a suitably qualified expert nominated by the trade union and a suitably qualified expert nominated by the employer. The outcome of the evaluation exercise should then be the subject of further engagement between the parties, including the use of the services of the Workplace Relations Commission if necessary.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
AR	______________________
03/07/2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be in writing and addressed to Mr Aidan Ralph, Court Secretary.