Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93421 Case Number: LCR14205 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND (ADM) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for pay parity with Pfizer Chemical Corporation.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and
the oral evidence presented at the hearing. It has also examined
the documentation presented to the transferring employees by both
Pfizer Chemical Corporation and A.D.M.
The documentation contains very specific guarantees concerning the
retention of existing pay and conditions of employment, including
V.H.I. contributions. But without exception, these guarantees
relate to the position obtaining on the date of transfer to A.D.M.
and there is no reference to the maintenance of parity with the
Pfizer Corporation into the future.
In the circumstances, the Court considers that pay and conditions
in A.D.M. are not directly linked to those in Pfizer and therefore
does not find grounds on which to recommend concession of the
Union claim.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93421 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14205
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND (ADM)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for pay parity with Pfizer Chemical Corporation.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. On 14th December, 1990, ADM with headquarters in
Decatur, Illinois, U.S.A., bought the Pfizer Citric Acid
business. This included production facilities in North
Carolina and Ringaskiddy. The staff employed in citric acid
production at the Ringaskiddy site transferred to the new
Company, ADM Ringaskiddy carrying all conditions of employment
that they enjoyed at the time. The staff involved in
pharmaceutical production remained with Pfizer.
2. From the 1st January, 1992, Pfizers concluded a new wage
agreement with their employees providing for increases over
and above those provided in the Programme for Economic and
Social Progress (PESP) i.e.
1st January, 1992 - 7%
1st January, 1993 - 4.75%
Annual Bonus increased from 10% to 12%.
In addition, the Company paid a once-off lump sum of #400 and
implemented two major improvements to the pension plan by
making it non-contributory and including shift pay in
pensionable salary. The Union sought similar terms for the
workers in ADM Ringaskiddy. The Company rejected this claim
and the issue was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
A conciliation conference took place on 29th April, 1993, but
agreement could not be reached. The matter was referred by
the Labour Relations Commission to the Labour Court on the
12th July, 1993. The Court investigated the issue on the 18th
August, 1993 in Cork.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The wages and conditions of employment enjoyed by the
workers while at Pfizer were to be maintained following the
take-over.
2. It was understood by the workers who transferred that
pay parity with workers in Pfizer would continue.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The citric acid business operates in a competitive
environment and the viability of the business depends on the
ability to control production costs.
2. The Company's wage and benefit package is very
competitive and more generous than other companies in the
industry.
3. The Company's wage structure cannot be based on those of
other companies operating in a totally different commercial
environment.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and
the oral evidence presented at the hearing. It has also examined
the documentation presented to the transferring employees by both
Pfizer Chemical Corporation and A.D.M.
The documentation contains very specific guarantees concerning the
retention of existing pay and conditions of employment, including
V.H.I. contributions. But without exception, these guarantees
relate to the position obtaining on the date of transfer to A.D.M.
and there is no reference to the maintenance of parity with the
Pfizer Corporation into the future.
In the circumstances, the Court considers that pay and conditions
in A.D.M. are not directly linked to those in Pfizer and therefore
does not find grounds on which to recommend concession of the
Union claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
28th September, 1993 ----------------
P. O'C/J.C. Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR PAUL O'CONNOR, COURT SECRETARY.