Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94652 Case Number: LCR14651 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: AVONDALE CHEMICAL COMPANY - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Improvement in pay and conditions.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court has
concluded that concession of the Union's claim would be in breach
of the terms of P.E.S.P..
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94652 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14651
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
AVONDALE CHEMICAL COMPANY
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Improvement in pay and conditions.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Avondale Chemical Company is based in Rathdrum, County
Wicklow. It is part of the U.S. based Schering Plough
Corporation, a multinational engaged in the manufacture of
healthcare and pharmaceutical products. Avondale is involved
in the bulk manufacture of active pharmaceuticals. This is
the raw products used by the rest of the group for
formulation into tablets, liquids and creams.
The dispute before the Court concerns the Union's claim on
behalf of approximately 100 operators for improvements in
their pay and conditions of employment. The Union claims
that the operators have taken on additional duties and
responsibilities over a number of years (related to increased
paperwork, form-filling, record-keeping, computerised
ordering etc.) and that the addition of a major new plant
(P5) has increased production. The Company rejects the
claim.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
A conciliation conference was held on 5th September, 1994.
As no agreement was reached the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission in accordance
with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A
Labour Court hearing took place on 12th December, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned have assumed additional duties and
responsibilities in recent years. Some of the duties
had previously been carried out by staff of a higher-
grade.
2. Workers employed in similar employment at the Company's
sister company in Cork are paid substantially higher
rates of pay than the operators in Rathdrum. The
concept of rates of pay based on location is outdated
and the Labour Court has endorsed this in previous
recommendations.
3. The operators ongoing co-operation and sensible approach
to industrial relations has been a major factor in the
development of the operation in Rathdrum.
4. The introduction of the P5 plant has resulted in
increased productivity and responsibilities for the
operators. The automation involved in the P5 plant has
been described as a "quantum leap" in technology. In
the circumstances there is no justification for the
Company's rejection of the Union's claim.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The need to generate records is driven by the
requirement of regulatory bodies such as the Food and
Drugs Administration (FDA), the Health and Safety
Authority, the Environment Protection Agency and the
requirements of the customer. Avondale Chemical Company
is no different to any other Company supplying goods for
human consumption. It must take account of the evolving
requirements of statutory and commercial bodies with
regard to the quality of its product.
2. The ongoing and increasing requirement to concentrate on
compliance issues is not an extra burden on operators as
they now spend less time producing the products. The
emphasis is shifting from production to quality. In
1986 each operator spent on average 1480 hours annually
producing the product. In 1992 this had dropped to 1268
hours.
3. The increased size and complexity of the site has been
matched by increased availability of expertise,
supervision and by employing extra workers. An
additional 8 workers per shift are employed since the
completion of P5.
4. The claim is in breach of the Programme for Economic and
Social Progress and the Programme for Competitiveness
and Work.
5. There is no merit in the Union's claim. The pay and
conditions of employment of the operators compare
favourably with other workers in the region and in the
industry generally. In the period 1981 to 1994 wage
increases have doubled the inflation figure.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court has
concluded that concession of the Union's claim would be in breach
of the terms of P.E.S.P..
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
30th December, 1994 Evelyn Owens
F.B./M.M. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.