Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90234 Case Number: LCR12945 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WARNER LAMBERT IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for lead-in and premium payments for twenty nine biochemical operators engaged in the manufacture of purified lung extract (P.L.E.).
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court recommends that the parties agree to retain the services of
an assessor to establish to what degree if any the work in
question differs from the range of duties normally expected of
staff in the biochemical area. Should the parties fail to agree
on the appointment of an assessor the Court will be willing,
should they request it to do so, to nominate a suitable person.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90234 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12945
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: WARNER LAMBERT IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for lead-in and premium payments for twenty
nine biochemical operators engaged in the manufacture of purified
lung extract (P.L.E.).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical
products and chewing gum base at two plants in Dun Laoghaire, Co.
Dublin. In 1988 the Company announced its intention to produce
P.L.E. at the Irish plant instead of importing it from a sister
Company in North America. P.L.E. is extracted from bovine blood
and lungs and is necessary for the manufacture of a blood clotting
agent marketed by the Company. Initial pilot manufacturing of
P.L.E. was commenced by the Company's technical services
department in February, 1989. The intention was that, if approval
were received for the transfer of P.L.E. manufacture to the Irish
plant, the biochemical operators would be involved in the process.
The Company therefore wished the biochemical operators to become
involved in the pilot process in March, 1989 once some initial
batches of P.L.E. had been manufactured by the technical services
department. Local negotiations between the parties were held on
the matter and the Union expressed concern over health and safety,
the unsavoury nature of the work, and the need for compensation.
The Company rejected the claim for compensation, claimed the work
is appropriate to biochemical operators, and had medical checks
carried out on the health and safety aspects of P.L.E. The
Company received approval for P.L.E. manufacture with effect from
October, 1989 and then commenced production with the involvement
of biochemical operators. In November, 1989 the Union claimed a
lead-in payment of #300 and an additional #25 per week for all
biochemical operators in respect of the manufacture of P.L.E. The
Company rejected the claim and as agreement could not be reached
at local level the matter was referred on 13th February, 1990 to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 30th April, 1990 at which the Company
offered to have the job evaluated but the Unions rejected the
offer. As no agreement could be reached the matter was referred
on 30th May, 1990 to a full hearing of the Labour Court which took
place on 29th June, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The work involved in the manufacture of P.L.E. is
revolting and disgusting and is far beyond what the workers
concerned could have expected as part of their normal duties.
Many of the workers are still unwilling to carry out this type
of work as they have found it absolutely nauseating.
2. The Union accepts that the Company has implemented
handling procedures and thus reduced the risks to health.
Nevertheless the workers are constantly apprehensive
concerning the risk to health from the processing of raw meat.
3. The Company has benefitted greatly by the local
manufacture of P.L.E. which has reduced costs.
4. In a comparative case involving the Company, the Court
upheld a claim by the Union for a regular payment in respect
of unusual duties i.e. the collection of fresh blood from an
abbatoir.
5. The Union is not in favour of the performance of a job
evaluation on the duties of a biochemical operator. However,
the Union would have no objection to a job evaluation on the
P.L.E. process to see if it compares with the normal duties of
a biochemical operator.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The manufacture of P.L.E. is appropriate to the grade of
biochemical operator. Biochemical operators are required to
handle and process biological material and the processing of
bovine lungs is merely an extension of this requirement. The
Company cannot be expected to pay wage rate increases when
workers are required to handle different animal tissue.
2. The Company sought medical advice and took steps to ensure
that there are no increased health and safety risks to
biochemical operators involved in the processing of bovine
lungs as part of the P.L.E. manufacturing.
3. The Union has referred to a Labour Court recommendation
issued some years ago regarding the collection of fresh bovine
blood. The recommendation in question referred to a different
type of operation and is not a comparative case.
4. In September, 1989 the Company concluded negotiations with
the Union in relation to productivity in its gum base plant.
The basis of this agreement was the terms of a Labour Court
Recommendation (No. 12289) which recommended in return for
productivity concessions that gum base operators be paid at
the same weekly rate as the pharmaceutical biochemical
operators. The basic reason underpinning this claim is the
biochemical operators contention that they maintain a
differential which they had traditionally enjoyed over their
colleagues in the gum base plant.
5. To resolve the matter an independent third party should be
engaged to conduct on job evaluation exercise on the duties of
the biochemical operators and the gum base operators.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court recommends that the parties agree to retain the services of
an assessor to establish to what degree if any the work in
question differs from the range of duties normally expected of
staff in the biochemical area. Should the parties fail to agree
on the appointment of an assessor the Court will be willing,
should they request it to do so, to nominate a suitable person.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
12th July, 1990. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.