Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9160 Case Number: LCR13181 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the manning arrangements for a pilot plant at the Company's factory in Swords, Co. Dublin.
Recommendation:
9. Noting the Company's reasons for its decision to recruit
graduates for the positions in the Pilot plant and also its
undertaking not to extend the replacement of C.P.O.s outside of
the Pilot plant, the Court recommends that the Union accept the
Company's decision to revert to the pre 1987 arrangement.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9160 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13181
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the manning arrangements for a pilot plant
at the Company's factory in Swords, Co. Dublin.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company now known as Swords Laboratories Limited is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Bristol-Myers Squibb company, New York.
It was established in Swords in 1964 and since that time has been
manufacturing bulk fine chemicals for pharmaceutical use and in
producing stoma care appliances. The Companies site has 5
manufacturing plants, one back up plant, a pilot plant and a stoma
care bandage manufacturing plant as well as support services.
3. The pilot plant was first established in 1984. From then
until 1987 the plant was operated by Company employees to develop
a process on contract for a third party. During that time the
plant operated on a two shift system and was manned by technical/
professional staff. Before the setting up of the plant the Union
expressed concern that technical staff were carrying out work
proper to chemical process operators (C.P.O.). The Union sought
the same manning and structures which operated in the
manufacturing plant. Following discussions at local level an
agreement was reached which operated satisfactorily during the
third party contract.
4. From 1987 onwards the Company decided to expand its own
research and development. The pilot plant in Swords is one of two
facilities within the Group which carries out research and
development. In 1987 two chemical process operators were assigned
to work in the plant and they worked there upto September 1990.
During 1990 the Company advertised internally for two more
chemical process operators to work in the pilot plant as the
workload had increased and the operation was converting to two
shift operation.
5. Two applications were received but were deemed unsuitable by
the Company due to their inexperience. The Company then
advertised externally. In the meantime one of the original
C.P.O.s was promoted and as a result there were 3 vacancies in the
plant. The Company recruited 3 graduate professionals. The Union
objected on the grounds that technical people were now carrying
out the work of C.P.O.s and that the 3 people recruited should be
graded as such.
6. Discussions at local level failed to resolve the matter and
the dispute was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on 4th December, 1990. A conciliation conference was held
on 11th January, 1991. As no agreement was reached the parties
consented to a referral to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on 5th February, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. There is already one professional in management of this
unit and at least a minimum of two others available. The
Company's argument about the need for skilled people only
arose when they decided to recruit from the outside.
2. The Company has not discussed or defined with the Union
the changes in job description that would necessitate the
availability of knowledge or skills of extra science
graduates. The workers in this grade who are covering the
present operation of this plant on a day basis are engaged in
exactly the same duties as in other units of the plant.
3. Whether a person has extra qualifications or not when
engaged on a particular job should not alter that job
description or grade. The workers fear the incursion of
other "professional" people in time into other units and
thereby reducing their present position and the employment
potential for non graduate people.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The present staffing position in the pilot plant is the
optimal position from the Company's point of view as it
enables the personnel to cover both plant and laboratory work
in a versatile and flexible way which in process development
is essential. The work involved in operating a manufacturing
plant differs fundamentally from pilot plant operation
(details supplied to the Court). In the manufacturing
process it is understandable and acceptable that demarcation
exists between the roles of C.P.O.s, group leaders, chemists
and process managers. However, in the pilot plant where the
work is mainly experimental in trying to formulate, develop
and test new manufacturing processes there is no
justification for the same degree of demarcation which
removes the chemists/chemical engineer from direct contact
with his experiment.
2. The Court has the Company's assurance that the Company
has no wish to minimise the Union or to restrict union
membership. The Company's stance on this matter has always
been determined by the nature and purpose of the work and the
objective of placing the most capable people in appropriate
roles.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. Noting the Company's reasons for its decision to recruit
graduates for the positions in the Pilot plant and also its
undertaking not to extend the replacement of C.P.O.s outside of
the Pilot plant, the Court recommends that the Union accept the
Company's decision to revert to the pre 1987 arrangement.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
11th February, 1991 Evelyn Owens
M.D./M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman