Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 571: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the position in relation to the prison officers ballot for annualised hours which was rejected by their union; the reason the ballot was turned down; if he will reconsider this decision (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21890/05]

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

Prison officers voted to reject the proposal for organisational change in the prison service by a majority of about two to one.

I cannot offer an explanation why the proposal was rejected despite a strong recommendation for acceptance by the national executive council of the Prison Officers' Association. By any standards, the deal on offer was extremely attractive. It included a pensionable operational allowance equivalent to 8% of basic pay and lump sum payments amounting to €13,750 per officer, in return for the level of change envisaged. Under the deal, a basic grade prison officer would have potentially earned almost €70,000 per year at the top of the scale.

Despite the reservations I held about the deal that emerged, 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 main benefit to the taxpayer would have been a significant reduction in the bill for additional hours working in the prison service, predictable future costs and a more efficient service going into the future. At the same time, staff would have secured attractive, stable and predictable overall rates of remuneration.

As regards the proposal from the Prison Officers' Association for a cost neutral realignment of the additional hours bands which are a central feature of the proposal for organisational change, I have already explained to the House in some detail the reasons for my decision to reject those proposals. I refer the Deputy to my answer to question Nos. 21320/05 and 21465/05 of 23 June. In my response, I set out my main objection to the Prison Officer's Association proposals, namely, that they would, if accepted, fundamentally alter the deal which was on the table and consequently they would seriously compromise the integrity of the industrial relations machinery, in particular the arbitration process.

I will not be led down the path of renegotiating an agreement which has already been arbitrated upon as to do so would be to undermine a process which has served the State well for many years. I have no option now but to move ahead, with or without agreement, to implement whatever measures are required to realise the necessary cost efficiencies in the service.

As I have already indicated to the House, I have invited the Prison Officer's Association to meet me so that I can outline in detail my plans for the future.