Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95211 Case Number: LCR14838 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: RHONE POULENC RORER (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning a claim by the Union that the Company has changed work practices by moving senior personnel.
Recommendation:
The Court finds that the 1981 Agreement is not superseded by the
1993 Agreement, where the content of the 1981 Agreement is not
referred to in the 1993 Agreement.
However, where all things are equal the Court recommends that
seniority should be taken into account in the movement of
Employees for reasons of flexibility.
Division: Mr Flood Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95211 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14838
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
RHONE POULENC RORER
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a claim by the Union that the Company has
changed work practices by moving senior personnel.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company was established in Nenagh Co. Tipperary in
1981. Its parent Company is based in Pennsylvania with
worldwide headquarters in Paris. The Company employs
175 workers in the manufacture and distribution of a
wide range of pharmaceutical products. It has two main
activities in production, tablet manufacture and the
preparation of liquid/ointments.
2. To avoid an excess of stock at the end of 1994, the
Company had to reduce manufacturing activity. On 16th
December, 1994, all temporary staff were released. In
addition six workers were re-deployed (details
supplied). One worker was re-deployed from the coating
to the granulation area. The worker was the most senior
worker in the coating area and he objected to the
transfer.
3. Following local discussions, the worker agreed to
transfer under protest pending the referral of the
matter through the grievance procedures. As part of the
internal grievance procedures, the dispute was
considered by the General Manager of the Company in
January 1995. The General Manager could not resolve the
grievance and it was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission.
4. A conciliation conference took place on 22nd February
1995. No progress was possible and on 30th March, 1995,
the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in
accordance with the terms of Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act 1990. The Court investigated
the dispute in Limerick on 22nd June, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union's position is that when transferring workers
whether on a temporary basis or not, the criteria should
be that seniority is the deciding factor, all other
things being equal. The principle of seniority is
enshrined in the Union's agreements with the Company.
2. The worker is the most senior person in his area. He is
being moved from a position which he had to compete for
in 1986. The worker was informed that his move was for
monetary reasons (details supplied). The worker has
been victimised by the Company. This has been
exacerbated by the fact that he has been forced to work
under protest for six months.
3. The Union does not object to the transfer of workers
provided that seniority is the ruling guideline. The
Union's agreement with the Company (1993) does not
include a "mobility of labour" clause. The Union is
prepared to discuss with the Company any proposals on
flexibility which it may have. It is not prepared to
allow the Company to introduce new practices without
negotiation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A manufacturing rate applies to production jobs. This
rate applies to all areas and supports the
interchangeability and mobility of labour. The Company
must be allowed to transfer workers based on individual
suitability and the Company's requirements. This is an
essential flexibility required to manage the business.
2. The principle of seniority is enshrined in Company/Union
agreements for specific cases (details supplied). For
operational reasons, it does not apply as a criterion
for the re-deployment of individuals where other factors
can take precedence.
3. Clause 7 of the 1981 Company/Union agreement on the
mobility of labour states that "the company will have
the right to move staff from one function to another
within the limits of the factory operations." The
worker's transfer is in accord with the provisions of
the agreement. The Union's claim is incompatible with
the terms of flexibility set out in the Programme for
Competitiveness and Work.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court finds that the 1981 Agreement is not superseded by the
1993 Agreement, where the content of the 1981 Agreement is not
referred to in the 1993 Agreement.
However, where all things are equal the Court recommends that
seniority should be taken into account in the movement of
Employees for reasons of flexibility.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th July 1995 Finbarr Flood
J.F./A.K. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.