Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90186 Case Number: LCR12816 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SYNTEX (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICES, INDUSTRIAL, PROFESSIONAL, TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Company concerning its proposal to modify the production process and to introduce new products.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that the Company's proposals to increase batch
sizes by a further 10% and introduce a new product come within the
terms of the Agreement made by the parties in 1988, which
terminates in February, 1991.
The Court accordingly recommends that the Union agree to the
Company's proposals.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90186 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12816
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: SYNTEX (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
SERVICES, INDUSTRIAL, PROFESSIONAL, TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Company concerning its proposal to modify the
production process and to introduce new products.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which was established in 1974, is involved in the
pharmaceutical industry. It primarily produces one product,
Naproxen, a drug for the treatment of arthritis. The Company
currently employs 282 workers. The Company wishes to increase the
production batch size by 10% which it argues it is entitled to do
under the current Company/Union Agreement. The Union rejects this
arguing that it has already accepted an increase in batch size and
regards any further increase as an increase in productivity
requiring payment. The Company also wishes to introduce a new
product to the production process in an effort to expand its
product profile. The Union rejects this proposal viewing it as a
productivity issue requiring compensation. As agreement could not
be reached locally, the issue was referred on 11th May, 1990, to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court. No agreement could
be reached at a conciliation conference held on 12th May, 1990,
and on 23rd May, 1990, the dispute was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was
held on 25th April, 1990.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company wishes to increase batch size by 10% in one of
the production processes. This is necessary to bring the
Company in line with their sister site in America and to
ensure production targets for the year are met.
3. 2. The Company/Union Agreement provides for an increase in
batch size, stating "plant experimentation will begin
immediately to determine the optimum batch size which will be
in the region of 10-20% increase ultimately". To-date there
has been an increase of 4.5% in batch size. The proposed
increase will bring the total increase to 14.5%.
3. The Union has contended that a 10% increase in batch size
introduced in February, 1988 is included in 20% increase
permitted under the Agreement. The current Agreement was
signed on 9th May, 1988, it covers the period March, 1988 to
February, 1991. No reference is made in the agreement to the
February, 1988, increase in batch size.
4. The Company's patent on the prime product it manufactures
is running out and there is a need to introduce new products
to counter competition from other drug companies and intersite
competition from sister plants. The Company intends to give
detailed training to 8 of the 28 chemical process operators
and general appreciation training to all 28 in the production
of a new product. Detailed training for all 28 operators will
depend on repeat orders. The Union, however, want all
operators trained which without the certainty of repeat orders
does not make economic sense.
5. The Union is also seeking compensation for the
introduction of new products. This is totally unreasonable
especially when viewed in the context of the Agreement which
states that there will be "no further claims of a cost
increasing nature...." and the Union's undertaking to
co-operate "with ongoing technological improvements related
to current products and new products manufactured for the
duration of the agreement."
6. The future viability of the Company depends upon its
ability to meet committed production targets and its ability
to become a multi-product site with an enhanced product
portfolio. For this reason it is imperative that the
Company's proposals be introduced without delay.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In conjunction with the Programme for National Recovery
the Union and the Company negotiated an agreement which
provided for production requirements and changes for a three
year period. One week prior to discussions taking place, the
Company sought and were granted an increase of 10% on batch
sizes. This increase was given on the clear understanding
that it would form part of the Agreement. To-date batch sizes
have been increased by 14.5%.
4. 2. The Agreement allows for an increase of 10-20% in batch
sizes. The Company are now seeking a further 10% increase
above the 14.5% already conceded. The Union contends that any
increase above the agreed 20% maximum should be negotiated as
a separate productivity agreement.
3. The Company's proposal as regards the introduction of a
new product will require changes in work practices. Whilst
mention is made in the Agreement concerning the introduction
of new products, it was never meant to be done on a 'carte
blanche basis.' Accordingly, because of its productivity
element, this should also be included in a new productivity
agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that the Company's proposals to increase batch
sizes by a further 10% and introduce a new product come within the
terms of the Agreement made by the parties in 1988, which
terminates in February, 1991.
The Court accordingly recommends that the Union agree to the
Company's proposals.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___30th___April,___1990. ___________________
B. O'N. / M. F. Deputy Chairman