LCR23325

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

Labour Court hearings took place on 01st July 2026 and reconvened on the 14th August 2026.

RECOMMENDATION:

The issue in dispute between the parties arises from the Employer’s decision to introduce external contractors to perform core duties, contrary to the provisions of the Public Service Agreement 2024–2026 and its predecessor agreements. The decision was also contrary to a November 2022 WRC agreement between the Employer and the Union concerning outsourcing and service delivery.

The Union submitted that, in February 2026, it formally raised concerns with the Employer that contractors had been brought in to perform work normally carried out by directly employed Council grounds staff. In that correspondence, it emphasised that the work in question was core work, should be performed by directly employed staff, and that its outsourcing to contractors should cease immediately. The Union understood that the vacancies were temporary but noted that staff from the same department, Public Realm, were available and had previously provided holiday cover.

The Union requested an urgent meeting with the Employer to discuss the matter. Some local engagement took place, but no progress was made, and the issue was referred to the WRC. The Union submitted that the Employer had breached the Public Service Agreement. It stated that it was open to a practical interim solution whereby directly employed staff would work alongside the contractors for a period, but the Employer would not agree to this.

The Union submitted that the PSA explicitly provides for engagement with the Union prior to the outsourcing of a service and that, in this instance, this did not happen. It also referenced the WRC agreement of November 2022, under which the Employer gave a commitment that, going forward, it would commit to “providing to the Union full and timely information outlining the Council rationale for the need for outsourcing, having regard to the requirement to maximise the use of direct labour.”

The Employer submitted that an issue came to its attention in February 2026 that required an immediate response to ensure continuity of operations and minimise the impact on external stakeholders and the general public. Based on an assessment carried out at the time, it did not believe that it had the in-house expertise to cover the three positions in question.

The Employer stated that, on 17 February 2026, it issued a response to the Union setting out that, because of the emergency nature of the issue that had arisen and the need to ensure continuity of service, it had to proceed in the manner that it did. It went on to say that it had determined that the necessary level of availability and expertise was not, in fact, available among the existing cohort of personnel. The Employer submitted that this was an emerging situation that was grave in nature and that the appointment of the contractor was urgent, necessary, and justified to ensure the protection of a significant Council asset. It submitted that paragraph 28.9 of the PSA provides that there can be situations in which services can be delivered more effectively by temporary outsourcing. It accepted that this paragraph requires the Unions to be notified in advance of the initiative and that it had failed to do so.

The Council did not dispute that it had not contacted or engaged with the Union prior to bringing a contractor on site, nor did it dispute that its actions were contrary to the PSA and the WRC agreement it had entered into in November 2022. In the course of the hearing, the Council indicated that it believed there were health and safety reasons why directly employed staff could not work with contractors, but it was unable to elaborate on what those reasons were. It also acknowledged that there were no specific qualifications attached to these posts. The Court suggested that it would adjourn the hearing for a short period to allow the parties to engage and see whether they could reach agreement on a pathway towards returning the roles to direct labour over a period of time. Both parties agreed to the adjournment.

The hearing reconvened on 14 August 2026. The Employer stated that it had met with the Union on three separate occasions to find a pathway for the return of direct labour to the location that was the subject of this engagement. In the course of those engagements, the Union identified four staff members whom it believed possessed the relevant experience to undertake the work in question. It was the view of the Senior Engineer with responsibility for Public Realm, the relevant department, that three of the four did not have the relevant expertise. While the fourth person had some relevant experience, the Senior Engineer did not believe that it was sufficient for the required duties. At the third meeting, on 10 August 2026, the Employer informed the Union that, having given serious consideration to the issues raised by the Union, it intended to engage an external consultant to review the overall governance and operation of the site in question. In its submission, the Employer confirmed that it would engage with the Union in respect of the scope and terms of reference of such a review, which would cover both governance and staffing arrangements.

The Employer confirmed that it fully acknowledged its long-standing obligations in respect of the use of direct labour and the commitments contained in the PSA. It confirmed that it had recently agreed a Consultation Framework with the constituent Unions and was currently operating under that framework. The Employer stated that it remained committed to constructive engagement with SIPTU and fully acknowledged its obligations regarding the use of direct labour.

The Union submitted that the engagements with the Employer did not focus on the restoration of direct labour. Instead, the Employer announced that it intended to commission an independent review of the operation of the site in question. The Union reiterated that the issue before the Court was not a review of future operations, but how the Employer intended to comply with the PSA following the unilateral outsourcing of work that had previously been performed by direct employees. The Union stated that, on this particular site, there had always been a mixture of directly employed staff and external specialist expertise, with the core operational work being carried out by directly employed staff. The Union sought the return to directly employed staff of the work traditionally carried out by them.

The Court had hoped that, given some time and direction, the parties could resolve the issue between them, but unfortunately that was not the case. It is important that the Court does not deviate from the issue jointly referred by the parties to the Court following conciliation at the WRC, namely the unilateral introduction of contractors at the site in question. The Employer does not dispute that it did not follow the procedures set out in the PSA and relies on the urgency of the situation to explain its failure to do so. The fact that there was an urgent situation requiring a quick resolution was not disputed by the Union.

The Court notes, however, that the Employer managed to complete whatever procurement procedures were required to procure the services of the contractor, yet could not find the time to follow the procedures to which it had committed under the PSA and the WRC agreement of November 2022. It engaged with the Union only after the Union raised the issue.

In its submissions to the Court, the Employer confirmed that there were no specific qualifications attached to the roles and that the employees who normally carried out the roles had built up relevant expertise. It did not dispute that, in the past, other staff from Public Realm had provided cover for holidays and absences. However, it submitted that this would generally involve one member of staff working alongside colleagues who had the relevant experience. In the current situation, those experienced staff were not available, and placing three new staff members on the site to provide temporary cover would be problematic, as they would not have that historical knowledge.

In terms of resolving the issue before the Court, which relates to three temporary vacancies, the Court recommends, as a first step, that the Council assign the Worker referred to at paragraph 2.5 of its submission, received by the Court on 21 August 2026, to the site to work alongside the contractors, with a view to bringing his expertise up to the required level. The Court makes that recommendation on the assumption that the Worker in question is willing to take that assignment and in recognition of the fact that placing three new employees on the site at the same time is not a practical option.

The intention is that he would be trained to the required standard and would then be in a position to train other staff, if required. This recommendation is made without prejudice to any outcome that may emerge from the proposed review.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
AL	______________________
15/09/2026	Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be in writing and addressed to Ms Amy Leonard, Court Secretary.