Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94148 Case Number: LCR14485 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: SWORDS LABORATORIES LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning compensation for changes in work practices.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered all of the views of the parties as
expressed in their oral and written submissions.
The Court is concerned at the manner in which negotiations are
undertaken at local level and at union/management level without
continuity, and considers this can only serve to create a climate
of unstable relations between the parties.
The Court recommends that in the interests of both parties they
should agree such arrangements as are necessary to stabilise the
industrial relations climate by agreeing and following procedures
for negotiations both locally and at official level between them
and ensuring that the procedures are understood and adhered to by
all parties concerned.
With regard to the revised work practices the Court recommends
that these be implemented on a trial basis for six months during
which they should be monitored by both parties. The parties
should review their operation at the end of this period. The
Company to implement their pay proposal from the dates indicated.
The Court is conscious of the issues raised regarding safety and
makes the above recommendations on the condition that safety
standards are not impaired.
In this regard the Court recommends that during the first month of
the trial the parties, in their monitoring of the changes, pay
particular attention to safety aspects so as to ensure that no
adverse effects have occurred.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94148 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14485
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
SWORDS LABORATORIES LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning compensation for changes in work
practices.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Swords Laboratories Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary
of Bristol-Myer Squibb Company of New York, U.S.A..
The Swords plant was established in 1963, and employs
266 workers. It is engaged in process development and
manufacturing of bulk fine chemicals for pharmaceutical
use.
2. In 1993, in the course of discussions on Clause 3 of the
Programme for Economic and Social Progress, the Company
informed the Union that it required changes in work
practices in order to avert the threat of redundancies.
The Company sought a reduction in double manning in
certain operations where it was safe to have a one man
operation and the elimination of static watching in
favour of periodic checking where no operator input was
necessary. The Union rejected this and the issue was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
Conciliation conferences were held on 17th September,
1993 and 9th December, 1993. No progress was made and
the dispute was referred by the Labour Relations
Commission to the Labour Court on 8th March, 1994. The
Court investigated the dispute on 13th May, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is performing well both financially and in
the growth rate on site.
2. New employees are being taken on at plant level and
management level.
3. The workers have honoured all the recent national wage
agreement's and have remained less than militant since
the early eighties, with virtually no industrial action
taking place until recently.
4. The Company's proposals for changes in work practices
were rejected by the workers on the basis of their
concern for health and safety in the workplace by being
deprived of the assurance and security of a second
worker.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Clause 10 of the House Agreement governing this
employment specifies the recognition of the parties for
the need for adaptation and change in order to survive,
remain competitive and secure employment. Clause 11
concerns the flexibility that the workforce will
demonstrate. Co-operation with change or flexibility
has not been forthcoming.
2. The Company is entitled to demand the changes based on
the common interest of the parties and the fact that the
principle of co-operation and flexibility has already
been agreed and paid for since 1981. The changes
required place no significant burden or risk upon the
personnel concerned.
3. The Swords plant is the only one in the Group which has
increased staff numbers in recent times. It is hoping
to expand but in order to do so cost structures must be
controlled.
4. There will be no job losses as a result of the proposed
changes.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered all of the views of the parties as
expressed in their oral and written submissions.
The Court is concerned at the manner in which negotiations are
undertaken at local level and at union/management level without
continuity, and considers this can only serve to create a climate
of unstable relations between the parties.
The Court recommends that in the interests of both parties they
should agree such arrangements as are necessary to stabilise the
industrial relations climate by agreeing and following procedures
for negotiations both locally and at official level between them
and ensuring that the procedures are understood and adhered to by
all parties concerned.
With regard to the revised work practices the Court recommends
that these be implemented on a trial basis for six months during
which they should be monitored by both parties. The parties
should review their operation at the end of this period. The
Company to implement their pay proposal from the dates indicated.
The Court is conscious of the issues raised regarding safety and
makes the above recommendations on the condition that safety
standards are not impaired.
In this regard the Court recommends that during the first month of
the trial the parties, in their monitoring of the changes, pay
particular attention to safety aspects so as to ensure that no
adverse effects have occurred.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
24th June, 1994 Tom McGrath
P.O'C./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.