Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD908 Case Number: LCR12938 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MERCK SHARP AND DOHME (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union concerning a once-off payment to 44 process operators for their co-operation during 1987/88 in the use of pH meters.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is of the view that the use of the pH meter by process
workers in the manufacture of Lisinopril is not outside the normal
on-going level of change which has been traditionally accepted
without specific compensation by the workers in the Company. The
pH meter is used by workers in the monitoring of water and sewage
without additional payment and although the Union claims that
greater responsibility rests with its use in drug manufacturing,
the Court, having regard to the production controls which are in
place, is not convinced that the responsibility involved is so
onerous as to merit special payment.
The Court also notes that the acceptance of technological change
is only one of several significant elements in the Flexibility
Agreement concluded last October and as such is not adequate
grounds for the Union's claim. In all the circumstances, the
Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD908 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12938
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MERCK SHARP AND DOHME (IRELAND) LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union concerning a once-off payment to 44 process
operators for their co-operation during 1987/88 in the use of pH
meters.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1987, the Company introduced a new Lisinopril process which
required the use of pH meters by the process operators. The
operators claimed that this was new technology involving extra
work not undertaken before and as such merited a compensatory
payment. This was rejected by the Company. The operators
continued to use the pH meters under protest until December, 1988,
when the Company indicated that they proposed using the meters in
a demonstration on a new Acylhydrazine process. Again the
question of compensatory payments arose in local discussions and
was rejected by the Company. The operators refused to operate the
meters from the end of December, 1988, however they did not object
to the supervisors using the meters; on this basis the
demonstration on Acylhydrazine went ahead. In March, 1989,
negotiations on the use of pH meters for the Lisinopril process
resulted in agreement between the parties. The operators,
however, rejected the agreement as it did not include a specific
payment for operating the meters. The matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. On 12th April, 1989,
the Court's Industrial Relations Officer proposed the following
formula to resolve the dispute:-
"I recommend that this claim be processed in accordance with
the Company/Union agreement, under the umberella of the
present negotiations on a new plant agreement covering pay
and conditions of employment. If the issue remains
unresolved at that stage it will be referred separately, as
on exempt item to the Labour Court".
In January, 1990, an agreement was reached between the parties
concerning co-operation, flexibility and new technology, in return
for which an increase of 2.5% from 1st January, 1989 and 2.5% from
1st January, 1990 was to be granted. The agreement also provided
for the reference of the original claim for compensation for the
working of the pH meter to the Labour Court. On 8th February,
1990, the issue was referred to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 19th
June, 1990, in Kilkenny. At the Court hearing the parties said
that the Court's recommendation would be accepted.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The pH meter is used to monitor and test chemical liquids.
The instrument has always been used in the laboratory by
technicians who are on a higher wage rate than the process
operators.
2. The working of the meters involves the checking of
readings to enable appropriate decisions to be taken during
the manufacturing process. There is also a safety element
involved. There is a high skill content and responsibility
level involved. The meter is also worked by a similar grade
in the utilities area of the plant, however, the
responsibility of monitoring a highly valuable and dangerous
product in the process area is far greater.
3. The Union maintains that the operators gave their full
co-operation on the use of the meters in 1987/88. The Union's
claim for compensation was well known to the Company at this
time. The Union is now claiming that a lump sum payment
equivalent to 2.5% of the then current earnings be paid to the
operators concerned as compensation for the working of the pH
meters during the 96 week period March, 1987 to January, 1989.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Over the years the jobs of the majority of employees have
changed as the Company developed. New duties have been added
and others removed as is normal in a developing Company. The
rate of change tends to be greater in a high technology
operation and this is reflected in wage rates. The Company
believes that the operation of the pH meters is part of the
operators responsibilities. Without this meter the process
can not be run. The meter has the potential to reduce
exposure to the product thus improving operator safety.
2. The Company contends that Clause 12 of the Company/Union
agreement gives it the right to change technology where it is
of benefit to the Company and the employees. Clause 12
states:-
"The Union agrees to acknowledge the Company's prerogative to
carry out activities designed to increase productivity,
including work-study, job evaluation, manpower utilisation,
training (including re-training and cross-training),
introduction of new technology and the promotion of
co-operation between different technical groups".
"The Company agrees to provide full information on such
activities to the Union and decisions on implementing changes
arising from such studies will be discussed with the Union
prior to implementation."
3. In terms of pay and conditions, the Company ranks
extremely well with other employers. The Company and Union
have agreed on significant improvements in pay and conditions
over the terms available nationally. This claim for a special
payment for a specific group is not justified and could lead
to a destabilisation of the Company's pay structure.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is of the view that the use of the pH meter by process
workers in the manufacture of Lisinopril is not outside the normal
on-going level of change which has been traditionally accepted
without specific compensation by the workers in the Company. The
pH meter is used by workers in the monitoring of water and sewage
without additional payment and although the Union claims that
greater responsibility rests with its use in drug manufacturing,
the Court, having regard to the production controls which are in
place, is not convinced that the responsibility involved is so
onerous as to merit special payment.
The Court also notes that the acceptance of technological change
is only one of several significant elements in the Flexibility
Agreement concluded last October and as such is not adequate
grounds for the Union's claim. In all the circumstances, the
Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Kevin Heffernan
___10th____July,____1990. ___________________
B. O'N. / U.S. Chairman