Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87373 Case Number: LCR11337 Section / Act: S67 Parties: PFIZER CHEMICALS - and - ITGWU |
Dispute concerning changes to the Company/Group of Unions comprehensive agreement.
Recommendation:
6. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and having regard to the clear necessity for the Company to adapt
to technological change and its undertaking that reductions in the
workforce will be by voluntary redundancy only, the Court
recommends that the Company's offer together with the proposed
operational changes as set out in the Company's letter and
document of 5th February be accepted by the workers concerned.
The Court recommends however, that at the end of the Company/Union
Agreement 1986/87, should the Union feel that losses have arisen
from the proposed manning changes, they should be free to raise
such losses with the Company. In the absence of agreement as to
the resolution of such claims, they may be referred back to the
Court.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87373 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11337
CC87308 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11337
Parties: PFIZER CHEMICALS
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS')
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning changes to the Company/Group of Unions
comprehensive agreement.
Background:
2. On 5th February, 1987 the Company offered a package proposal
to all unions involving improvements in efficiency in return for a
fifteen months agreement from 1st October, 1986 to 31st December,
1987 with a 6% increase from 1st October, 1986 and a further 4%
wage increase from 1st July, 1987. These proposals were accepted
by four of the signatory unions to the Agreement but were rejected
by the Union which represents approximately 240 general workers.
The present rate of pay of these workers commences at #190.29.
The 25th wage round expired for these workers on 30th September,
1986 and the Union was claiming a 12% wage increase over twelve
months plus 1 additional day's service leave for workers with more
than 10 years' service.
3. No agreement was reached through local negotiations and on
17th February, 1987 the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. Conciliation conferences were held
on 19th March, 1987 and 6th May, 1987 but no agreement was
reached. The Company had agreed that changes in manning levels
would only take place after the normal conditions. On 8th May,
1987 the case was referred to the Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held on 17th June,
1987 in Cork.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) The Union does not want any tie-up between a wage
increase under the 26th wage round and the proposed job
losses. The workers see these as two separate issues.
The Union is not saying it will not accept a reduction
in the number of jobs under any circumstances. If the
Company can prove that due to automation or new
technology the proposed job losses can easily be
accommodated then the workers will have to take
cognisance of that fact.
(ii) The workers have accepted that there may be some job
losses in the recovery department and merely requested
that the Company wait until it is proved to the workers
satisfaction that the proposed manning levels are
workable. In accordance with the Company/Union
Agreement the Union asked the Company to allow the
workers serve a claim for loss of earnings. The
Company refused this reasonable request.
(iii) The Company has not explained to the staff the way it
intends covering the present workload in the
fermentation department with one worker less per shift.
The workload in the department has increased since the
last review of manning levels in 1983. This workload
will increase further when the production problems in
the recovery department are sorted out.
(iv) The way in which the workers in the fermentation
department will be able to take their annual leave
entitlement has been a matter for concern for some time
now. Since the essential problem is the reducing
number of workers available how can the Company state
that it is addressing this problem by reducing the
workforce further. The Company's proposals make no
provision for malfunction problems or for safety
demands. There is a clear lack of planning evident in
the Company's proposals.
(v) The Company's proposals for the engineering department
are seen as part of an ongoing plan by it to eliminate
the engineering mates. Implementation of these
proposals would result in the number of mates being
reduced to one third of the number that existed in 1982
at the time an assessment was carried out by a Rights
Commissioner. In addition the Company is now also
using outside contractors who are doing work which
engineering mates did in the past. There is sufficient
work to keep the present number of mates, and more,
gainfully employed.
(vi) It has not been proved to the workers' satisfaction
that the organic synthesis plant can be operated
satisfactorily with one worker less. This can only be
proved after the operation commences, as this is not
due during the current agreement the matter should not
be included the wage round proposals.
(viii) The workers' preference was for a 12 month agreement
but the Union agreed, at the Company's, request to
extend it to 15 months. The wage round claim therefore
for 12% over 15 months is only 9.6% annualised. This
claim is not out of line with what a successful and
highly profitable chemical/pharmaceutical Company
should be expected to pay.
(viii) On the claim for one extra day's annual leave after 10
years' service the Union believes it is to be very
modest given that no improvement in annual leave
entitlements have been conceded by the Company for a
number of years despite persistent claims.
(ix) In addition to the wage claim and the claim for the
improvement in annual leave entitlements, the Union is
asking the Court to recommend that wages should not be
tied in with manning levels. If at the time the
changes are being introduced the Company can prove that
the new manning levels are workable the workers will
respond in a positive way. In any case the Court
would have great difficulty in deciding if the proposed
manning levels are correct given that they have not yet
been introduced.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) The Company's basic approach has been to conclude an
agreement which has regard to the strict competitive
needs of the business. It takes account of the
significant impact of wage increases on manufacturing
costs and provides for improvements in working
arrangements which are considered essential for the
sound conduct of the business.
(b) The chemicals operation is undergoing a necessary major
investment programme to improve plant efficiency and
reduce costs, including labour costs. The aim is to
bring our efficiency and costs into line with those of
our sister plants and our competitors. This is
absolutely essential for the continued survival of the
chemicals business in an extremely competitive market
in which it is not possible to recoup increases in
costs through price increases.
(c) In accordance with established Company practice, where
employment levels are affected, the plan is to achieve
these by voluntary means. Those who wish to leave can
do so with attractive incentives available. Those who
remain will have the benefit of a significant
improvement in employment terms. The reduction will
occur by gradual attrition over a period, and
implementation can be flexible with regard to timing
etc.
(d) The impact of the Company's original proposals on jobs
has been reduced by the creation of additional
operating positions in OSP. The actual number of job
reductions currently outstanding is thirteen and there
are still two vacant positions in OSP.
(e) The Company is satisfied that the changes in working
arrangements proposed are reasonable and practicable.
The level of work content which will result will be
fair, and within the capacity and competence of those
affected.
(f) It should be stressed too that the programme to improve
manpower effectiveness has not been confined to this
group. Agreement has been reached with the No. 4
branch of the I.T.G.W.U. (representing supervisory,
technical and clerical employees) on an approach
containing essentially the same features as proposed
for employees represented at today's hearing of the
court. The Company therefore continues to adapt a
balanced approach on these matters.
(g) The Company is completely satisfied that its existing
employment package of remuneration and benefits and the
significant level of improvement proposed compares very
favourably with other similar employments.
(h) Having regard to all the circumstances outlined above,
the Company holds that its proposals represent a fair
and reasonable basis for final settlement of this
Agreement and respectfully requests that the Court
recommend accordingly.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and having regard to the clear necessity for the Company to adapt
to technological change and its undertaking that reductions in the
workforce will be by voluntary redundancy only, the Court
recommends that the Company's offer together with the proposed
operational changes as set out in the Company's letter and
document of 5th February be accepted by the workers concerned.
The Court recommends however, that at the end of the Company/Union
Agreement 1986/87, should the Union feel that losses have arisen
from the proposed manning changes, they should be free to raise
such losses with the Company. In the absence of agreement as to
the resolution of such claims, they may be referred back to the
Court.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
Deputy Chairman
27th July, 1987
T.O'M./J.C.