Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92584 Case Number: LCR13799 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BECTON DICKINSON AND COMPANY LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for compensation for female workers who are liable for night work.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions made by the
parties has come to the conclusion that the claim for additional
compensation for the employees concerned is not warranted. In
particular the Court notes the terms of settlement of the Clause 3
negotiations under the terms of the P.E.S.P. of which the
acceptance of the additional liability by the workers concerned
formed a part. The Court therefore does not recommend concession
of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92584 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13799
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: BECTON DICKINSON AND COMPANY LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for compensation for female workers who are liable for
night work.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is one of the world's leading manufacturers of
hypodermic needles and syringes and other health-care products.
It has two plants in Ireland, in Drogheda since 1964 and Dun
Laoghaire since 1969, with a staff of 250 and 315 respectively.
The claim for compensation is on behalf of forty-three female
employees currently employed by the Company, who commenced
employment with the Company prior to April, 1987. In April, 1987,
the Employment Equality (Employment of Women) Order, Statutory
Instrument No. 112 of 1987 removed the prohibition on the
employment of females in industrial work at night. In October,
1987, two male employees were re-deployed onto permanent
night-shift. As a consequence of the above change in law, a claim
was brought by the two male employees and the Employment Equality
Agency against the Company, on the basis of discrimination. The
claim was the subject of an Equality Officer's investigation
(Recommendation EE6/1988) and a subsequent appeal to the Labour
Court in 1989, (Determination DEE189). The decision of the
Equality Officer, which found in favour of the claimants, was
upheld by the Labour Court. In its determination the Court
stated, inter alia -
"..... The court notes the Equality Officer's statement at
paragraph 26 regarding those workers whose existing contracts
restrict them from redeployment to night work. This and any
residual problems fall to be resolved through normal
industrial relations machinery in accordance, as stated in
the Recommendation, with the provisions of the Employment
Equality Act, 1977".
In February, 1992, agreement was reached between the Company and
the Union covering a wide range of issues including the
implementation of a new four-shift roster for all employees.
The Union is claiming compensation for the 43 female workers whose
pre-April, 1987 contracts made them liable to work 2-shift working
or days, and who are now liable for 4-shift working and nights.
The Company rejects the claim. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Relations Commission and conciliation conferences were held
on 8th June,1992 and 23rd June, 1992 at which agreement was not
reached. The dispute was then referred to the Labour Court on the
23rd of July, 1992 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the
dispute on the 11th September, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Under their existing contracts, the forty-three employees
in question are only liable to work days, or 2-shift and not
the new 4-shift system.
2. The new shift operation would cause serious problems for
the workers concerned through social upheaval, and through
adverse effect on health and family life.
3. Compensation is justified because, while the forty-three
workers' contracts are for days and two-shift only, they are
and will be willing to work the new four-shift system as
required.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim is discriminatory in that it seeks special
compensation for a group of female employees who are now
eligible for night work - a liability that was brought about
with the coming into force of the Employment Equality -
Employment of Women Order in April, 1987.
2. Agreement was reached with the Union in February, 1992
whereby all employees would be available for 4-shift work
regardless of sex.
3. Major benefits have already been agreed and implemented in
return for, amongst other issues, liability for 4-shift
working for all employees. These benefits include the maximum
6% increase provided for under the P.E.S.P., additional
bonuses and shift allowances.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions made by the
parties has come to the conclusion that the claim for additional
compensation for the employees concerned is not warranted. In
particular the Court notes the terms of settlement of the Clause 3
negotiations under the terms of the P.E.S.P. of which the
acceptance of the additional liability by the workers concerned
formed a part. The Court therefore does not recommend concession
of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________
23rd October, 1992. Deputy Chairman
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.