Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90673 Case Number: LCR13194 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ANTIGEN PHARMACEUTICALS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning various issues.
Recommendation:
9. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends as follows in relation to the various items in dispute.
1. SHIFT RATE AND CONSOLIDATION OF SAME:
The Court recommends an increase in Shift rate to 20% from 1st
January, 1991. The Court does not recommend concession of the
claim for consolidation.
2. CONSOLIDATION OF BONUS:
The Court recommends that the Bonus be consolidated into basic
rate phased in over a period of 5 years.
3. INCREASE IN HOURLY RATE FOR CERTAIN WORKERS:
The Court recommends that the Annual Supplement be increased to
#1000 and red circled.
4. BONUS FOR LAB. STAFF:
To be treated as at 2 above.
5. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE:
The Court recommends that the Union agree to the introduction of a
Grievance Procedure based on the Company's proposals as included
in their submission. Local negotiations on this matter should be
finalised as a matter of urgency, assisted (if required) by an
Industrial Relations Officer.
6. PENSION:
The Court recommends that this item be the subject of further
negotiation at local level.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90673 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13194
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ANTIGEN PHARMACEUTICALS
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning various issues.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company which is located in Roscrea, is involved in the
manufacture and marketing of a wide range of generic
pharmaceutical products on both home and export markets. The
Company is Irish owned and employs 170 people.
3. The Company is in production since 1946. In 1985 the Company
had to upgrade its facilities or face closure. It invested #7
million in modernising its plant. In 1987, because of serious
financial difficulties, the Company and Union entered into an 18
month agreement to expire on 31st December, 1988. The Agreement
provided for a pay pause and a modest pay increase (details
supplied to the Court). The terms of the Programme for National
Recovery (P.N.R.) became effective from 1st January, 1989.
4. During the course of 1988 the Company sought the
implementation of a rationalisation plan. Following local
negotiations and the issue of Labour Court Recommendation L.C.R.
11919 agreement was reached on the implementation of a plan which
provided for redundancies, introduction of shifts, extension of
working week and a wide range of productivity proposals.
5. During the course of 1990 the Company and the Union have held
several meetings on the introduction of a Company/Union
Comprehensive Agreement and a series of operational changes
(details supplied to the Court). Although progress was made at
local level there were some outstanding issues on which the
parties could not reach agreement.
6. The Company is seeking (A) the introduction of Company/Union
Agreement with particular regard to (i) ongoing changes, (ii)
grievance procedure and (iii) the right to establish "correct"
manning levels/workloads (B) Conditions of Employment, including
in particular (i) agreement with regard to availability of staff
for overtime, (ii) shift working and (iii) breaks. Examples of
specific changes required including in particular flexibility
Quality Control/Quality Assurance and production functions. The
Union in return for further concessions is seeking an element of
monetary compensation i.e. (1) increase in shift premium and
consolidation of same, (ii) consolidation of average bonus with
basic pay, (iii) increase in hourly rate for workers put on 40 our
(now 39 hour) week from 35 hour week, (iv) bonus for laboratory
staff to be 25% minimum and consolidated for overtime, (v)
improvement in pension benefits and (vi) productivity increase if
formal plant agreement implemented. These issues were referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 20th September,
1990. A conciliation conference was held on 26th September, 1990.
As no agreement was reached on the outstanding issues the parties
subsequently consented to a referral to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held in
Nenagh on 4th December, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. Over the past number of years the workers have agreed to
wide ranging changes in work practices and conditions of
employment in order to sustain employment and help the Company
through its difficulties. As a result pay and certain
conditions of employment have fallen behind comparative
employments both locally and nationally.
2. The Union considers that since 1988 there has been a
turnaround in the Company's fortunes financially and
productivity wise. The Union's claims are an attempt to bring
conditions of employment in this Company somewhat nearer the
general average and also as recognition of the commitment and
efforts of the staff to increasing productivity etc.
3. The Company are seeking several changes in work practices
and procedures. The Union is prepared to negotiate but the
Company's response has not been satisfactory. The Union
considers that even if its claims were conceded the Company
should also pay for the changes sought.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Company is a small privately owned pharmaceutical
Company and has operated out of Roscrea since 1946. The
Company is competing both at home and on international markets
with major multinational companies. It has had to radically
revise its plant and introduce new products in order to
survive. It is also endeavouring to diversify its markets as
it is facing serious difficulties regarding its major export
market (details supplied to the Court).
2. The Company has faced significant financial difficulties
in 1987/1988, and in addition is now facing serious problems
in the market place. It is the Company's intention to become
strong. This can be achieved through good marketing and
efficient production methods. This is necessary in order to
provide secure employment in the Roscrea area for the
foreseeable future.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends as follows in relation to the various items in dispute.
1. SHIFT RATE AND CONSOLIDATION OF SAME:
The Court recommends an increase in Shift rate to 20% from 1st
January, 1991. The Court does not recommend concession of the
claim for consolidation.
2. CONSOLIDATION OF BONUS:
The Court recommends that the Bonus be consolidated into basic
rate phased in over a period of 5 years.
3. INCREASE IN HOURLY RATE FOR CERTAIN WORKERS:
The Court recommends that the Annual Supplement be increased to
#1000 and red circled.
4. BONUS FOR LAB. STAFF:
To be treated as at 2 above.
5. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE:
The Court recommends that the Union agree to the introduction of a
Grievance Procedure based on the Company's proposals as included
in their submission. Local negotiations on this matter should be
finalised as a matter of urgency, assisted (if required) by an
Industrial Relations Officer.
6. PENSION:
The Court recommends that this item be the subject of further
negotiation at local level.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
___________________________
19th February, 1991. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.