Willie Penrose (Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 50: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will reopen discussions with the Irish Prison Officers' Association in regard to the dispute on overtime working, especially in view of the offer made by the IPOA at its recent conference; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16140/05]

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have no intention of renegotiating the proposal for organisational change which has already been arbitrated upon by the Civil Service Arbitration Board.

Since I took office in 2002, I have allowed ample space and time for a mutually acceptable negotiated settlement to be reached between the Irish Prison Service and the Prison Officers' Association. Following on the rejection of an earlier offer in October 2003, I agreed to use the full range of industrial relations machinery available in the State including the conciliation services of the Labour Relations Commission and the ultimate arbitration facilities of the Civil Service Arbitration Board. That process continued over a 16 month period and involved long and painstaking negotiations. Compromises were made on both sides and a set of mutually acceptable arrangements in the form of the Proposal for Organisational Change in the Prison Service eventually emerged. These arrangements included a substantial arbitration award recommendation. Despite reservations which I held about the deal, which were shared by the Minister for Finance and the rest of my colleagues in Government, I nevertheless accepted that the overall package represented a workable way forward for the future. The Prison Officers' Association, for its part, strongly endorsed the deal and recommended to the membership that it be accepted. The association sought the space and time to explain the deal to staff without any interference from the management side. Management accepted the best industrial relations advice in the matter and left the field clear for the association to explain the deal to staff over a number of weeks. Despite this level of consensus, prison officers opted to reject the deal by a very substantial margin.

I met the Prison Officers' Association at its request following the ballot result and I made my position abundantly clear. I told the national officers of the POA that I was not in the business of renegotiating the proposal for organisational change which had already been arbitrated upon by the Civil Service Arbitration Board. I made it clear that I was not prepared to compromise the integrity of the whole industrial relations process which had served the State so well and must continue to serve our public services into the future.

When I met the association, I was informed that it would review its position following the rejection of the ballot at its annual delegate conference on 5 and 6 May. I understand from media reports that the association may have a proposal to make on the proposed method of allocation of additional hours to staff and that a cost neutral reallocation of the additional hours available under the deal might provide a solution. I am not convinced by the arguments I have heard to date in this context. However, I remain open to considering any detailed written proposals which the staff side may wish to put forward but I must repeat that I will not compromise the integrity of the national and public service industrial relations machinery by renegotiating this deal for change. Whatever proposals may be put forward by the POA, they must not upset the delicate balance achieved between the negotiated and arbitrated elements of the deal. In the meantime, I intend to press ahead with the alternative measures I have outlined in the House in recent weeks.

I have given more than enough time for a negotiated resolution of the overtime problem. At this point, the public expects me to act decisively to deal with the problem and, as I see it, I have no alternative but to do so.