Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87893 Case Number: LCR11732 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WYETH (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the Union's right to negotiate on a revised Pension Scheme with the Company on behalf of approximately 130 workers.
Recommendation:
9. The Court accepts the view that one pension scheme should
operate in respect of all employees. In the particular
circumstances of this case it is also the view of the Court that
there should be an annual structured meeting between the Company
and the representatives of all its workers where matters pertinent
to the Pension Scheme should be reviewed. The Court recommends
accordingly.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87893 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11732
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: WYETH (IRELAND) LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the Union's right to negotiate on a revised
Pension Scheme with the Company on behalf of approximately 130
workers.
BACKGROUND;
2. The Company commenced production in Askeaton in 1973 and
produces infant nutritional products exclusively for export. The
Company employs approximately 300 people.
3. In 1979, the Company introduced a Pension Scheme for all of
its employees. The Scheme was uniform in its application and did
not distinguish between groups of employees.
4. In October, 1986, the Company indicated to its employees
that it was planning to revise the Pension Scheme. The intention
was to up-date elements of the original Scheme to provide
increased and additional benefits. The Union while recognising
that most of the changes were improvements, considered that one or
two areas represented disimprovements particularly for the lower
paid category.
5. The Union wishes to enter into negotiations on the Scheme.
The Company have refused on the grounds that the elements in the
revised Scheme are non-negotiable. It has, however, given the
members of the Union the option of remaining in the old Scheme.
6. The matter was referred to the Conciliation Service of the
Labour Court on 30th April, 1987. Conciliation Conferences were
held on the 3rd and 11th June, 1987, at which no agreement was
possible. In late, 1987, both parties requested an investigation
and recommendation by the Labour Court. A Court hearing was held
in Limerick on 16th February, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Company's argument that it could not accept a
situation whereby one group could determine the conditions
for another group within the employment is at variance with
the facts. There are four negotiating groups within the
Company and as negotiations are conducted independently with
each group on all issues it is unavoidable that the outcome
will have an impact on other groups. The Court should fully
understand this point as it was a feature of Labour Court
Recommendation No. 11662 on the wage round with this Company,
whereby an offer made to one group is now the offer to all
groups.
2. In its simple form a pension is no more than deferred
wages. Where it exists in an employment it is part and
parcel of an employee's remuneration and, therefore, must be
subject to the normal process of negotiations that apply to
pay and conditions of employment. This Company must not be
allowed to maintain for itself the right to decide if any
changes will ever take place in the pension scheme.
3. In the Union's experience, it is not the normal pattern
for companies to exclude employee representatives from the
negotiating process on Pension Schemes.
4. The Company in refusing to negotiate on the Pension
Scheme are in breach of the spirit and intent of the
Company/Union Agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. Having regard to the complex nature of pension schemes
and the objective of uniformity among schemes within the
Wyeth group, the Company was not in a position to negotiate
aspects of the revised Scheme with the different bargaining
units. The I.T.G.W.U. were not an exception, negotiations
did not take place with other groups.
2. The Company believes that the revised Pension Scheme
represents a significant improvement on the original scheme
(details supplied to the Court). The Company has also gone
to considerable lengths to ensure that its proposals were
clearly understood. In an effort to allay fears and achieve
consensus, the closing date was extended to 22nd February,
1987.
3. A comprehensive Pension Scheme was introduced by the
Company without negotiation in 1977. The development of
improved pension and related benefits by the Company is in
the long-term interest of its employees. It is also in
keeping with the corporate objectives of having a uniform
pension scheme for all employees consistent with that
operating in other Wyeth subsidiaries. The traditional
bilateral negotiating process is inappropriate in these
circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court accepts the view that one pension scheme should
operate in respect of all employees. In the particular
circumstances of this case it is also the view of the Court that
there should be an annual structured meeting between the Company
and the representatives of all its workers where matters pertinent
to the Pension Scheme should be reviewed. The Court recommends
accordingly.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
18th March, 1988 Nicholas Fitzgerald
M.D./P.W. Deputy Chairman