Dinny McGinley (Donegal South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 88: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance if he has initiated consultation with ICTU regarding transferability between State bodies and between State bodies and the wider public service as an element in the implementation of decentralisation. [23604/07]

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My Department has been in contact with ICTU seeking to get discussions under way on the range of industrial relations issues impacting on relocating State agency posts to locations outside of Dublin. I understand that ICTU is considering this proposal and I remain hopeful that meaningful discussions can take place on the full range of issues impacting on the relocation of the State agencies. I will not repeat what I said earlier.

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is 12 months since the decentralisation commission specifically asked the Minister to activate discussions with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. From what I understand of the Minister's reply, however, all that has happened is that a letter was sent to congress and there has been no reply yet. That hardly represents alacrity on the part of the Government in trying to implement this programme, or am I missing something?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is missing the fact that to have a discussion people need to engage. The industrial relations problem in FÁS was used as a reason engagement could not take place until clarification was brought to certain issues, which I would regard as self-evident.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister said that 1,000 employees in State agencies have indicated that they may want to move. However, is it not the case that resistance to the move in State agencies is so great that there could be considerable damage to the corporate memory and business efficiency of such agencies if enforced moves continue? Is the Minister's failure to have meaningful interaction with congress due to the fact that he has thrown in the towel as regards the State agencies?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On the contrary, no enforced moves are envisaged. The Government has always recognised that this aspect of the programme presents different challenges from that of the Civil Service. As the Deputy said, more than 1,000 employees of State agencies have expressed a preference on the central applications facility to relocate with either another public service or Civil Service organisation. It is not unreasonable for these applicants to expect their applications to have been advanced by this stage. The Labour Court recommendation concerning the dispute between FÁS and SIPTU provides a renewed opportunity for unions and management to address the relevant issues. I would have thought the policy of non-co-operation could now be dispensed with on the basis of the Labour Court's recommendation. In the interests of fairness to everybody, those who do not wish to relocate received assurances on foot of that recommendation. As regards those who wish to relocate — there are 1,000 of them, although it is not as simple as relocating them willy-nilly — there is a need to engage on how best to address the issues raised by the Deputy. The Labour Court suggested the best way to achieve that is to examine State agencies generally to see how an accommodation might be reached for those agencies and the people who wish to relocate.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In the event that the decentralisation of State agencies is to proceed, how does the Minister envisage the practical outworking of the recommendation that workers not relocating would be provided with realistic alternative career options? Is it not unrealistic to consider people with specific, specialised roles and responsibilities as part of a multi-transferable workers' template between the various State agencies? Many such agencies have completely different focus points and purposes. It is most unlikely that people who have spent many years training and carrying out their specific functions in a State agency will find themselves comfortably fitted within another entity. What is the Minister's response to SIPTU, which represents 1,600 workers in State agencies, when, in light of all the information we have and the difficulties clearly signalled, it calls on him to abandon the proposal to relocate State agencies?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My response is that that is not the recommendation of the Labour Court, which we need to implement in full. The membership has once again received an assurance from the Labour Court that no involuntary transfers are envisaged and that those who do not wish to be transferred should be offered some alternative career options. The same Labour Court recommendation also states that there is a need to engage generally to see how we can move this issue forward.

As regards the Deputy's second point concerning the specialised nature of work, I understand there are specific challenges in this area, which is why we should have an engagement. Non-engagement achieves nothing, particularly for the 1,000 employees of those agencies who wish to relocate, not simply to other State agencies or the same State agencies but who are available to Civil Service organisations as well. The idea that there is a homogenous group of people who cannot be transferred is incorrect. I agree that there has never before been a culture of inter-transferability within State agencies, and there was not before there was decentralisation in the Civil Service either. That is the challenge. The experience of those who have relocated and transferred to other organisations is that it has been a good move to the benefit of everyone concerned. I have not heard anybody suggest otherwise. Rather than take the approach of non-co-operation, given that we have a recommendation, best industrial practice now dictates that we should proceed to an engagement on the issues.

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If someone wants to move from the Ordinance Survey to Fáilte Ireland, for example, will that not require a Government decision to facilitate such a transfer? It would involve a transfer across Departments and would require the Minister for Finance's approval so is the onus not on him to bring forward some framework as to how these issues might be resolved?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My staff, the group and everyone involved in this process are available to discuss all those issues. What has been absent has been engagement.

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister has made no proposal as to how it will be resolved.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Proposals cannot be made in the absence of co-operation from all concerned and a commitment to resolve the problems. Up to now, we have had a stand-off. Indeed, the policy of non-co-operation has been stated on the SIPTU website, even in the aftermath of the Labour Court recommendation. Having got their clarification, it is time for us to get down to discussing the issues to see what can be resolved.