Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95171 Case Number: LCR14754 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: LEO LABORATORIES LIMITED (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for an increase in pay.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is of
the view that the Company's offer is not unreasonable and should
be accepted. The Court, however, also recognises that the staff
have co-operated in a very significant way in implementing change
and accordingly also recommends payment of the same lump sum
(#225) to these claimants as was paid to the operatives.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Pierce Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95171 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14754
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
LEO LABORATORIES LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for an increase in pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a subsidiary of Leo Pharmaceutical Products of
Copenhagen, Denmark. It employs approximately 400 workers in
the manufacture of pharmaceutical products for export to
world markets.
In the period 1993/1994, separate discussions took place on
the Company's proposals in relation to the operative staff
which were enshrined in a document called 'New Deal' and
proposals for the administrative/technician staff were called
'B.P.C.S.' (Business Planning and Central System).
The dispute before the Court concerns the Union's claim for a
pay increase on behalf of 80 workers. The workers concerned
are employed by the Company in administrative and technician
grades.
The Union's claim is based on the workers' co-operation with
management in the introduction of new computerised systems
(B.P.C.S.). The Union claims that the changes conceded under
the introduction of the 'B.P.C.S.' are equal in value to
changes conceded by the operative staff who received
increases of up to 12% under the 'New Deal'.
Local level discussions took place but no agreement was
reached. The matter was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission. Conciliation conferences took place on 17th
October, 1994 and 21st November, 1994. As no agreement was
reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 27th
February, 1995 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on
6th April, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The computerised system introduced by the Company has
resulted in considerable changes in the work practices
of the administrative/technician personnel. The changes
have resulted in substantial benefits to the Company and
the workers concerned should be compensated for their
contribution.
2. The introduction of 'B.P.C.S.' and 'New Deal' has
resulted in a considerable increase in the
responsibilities of the workers concerned. The 'New
Deal' has more implications for the
administrative/technician staff than their colleagues in
the operative grades. The most important benefit to the
Company under the 'New Deal' is continuous running,
which involves the running of the plant for an
additional 4 hours 19 minutes per week. This affects
the workers concerned as follows:-
(1) The foremen organise the work and workers to
achieve its implementation and provide cover during
the increased hours and are obliged to alter their
breaks to coincide with certain aspects of the
increased running time.
(2) The package and planning department have
considerably more work to cover the increased
output.
(3) The laboratories provide cover for the extra tests
etc., for the additional running time.
3. The operative staff received increases of up to 12% for
their co-operation under the 'New Deal', while the
administrative/technician grades received an increase of
3% under the terms of Clause 3 of the Programme for
Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P).
4. The value of the 'B.P.C.S.' to the Company and the
contribution of the administrative/technician staff to
the 'New Deal' is at least equal in value to the
contribution of the workers who benefited from the 'New
Deal'. In the circumstances the workers' claim is
justified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company does not pay for change. It has an
agreement with the Union going back as far as 1982 for
the operation of computerised systems. In the
circumstances the claim for an increase in pay for the
operation of 'B.P.C.S.' is inappropriate.
2. Employees have received Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. and all
other increases under the P.E.S.P. and the Programme for
Competitiveness and Work (P.C.W.) to date. Clause 6 of
the P.C.W. specifically prohibits the introduction or
processing of cost increasing claims by Trade Unions for
improvements in pay or conditions of employment other
than those provided by Clauses 2 and 4 of that
agreement.
3. The basis of the Union's claim is that the 'B.P.C.S.'
system would entail manpower savings. The Union argued
that manpower savings would arise, in particular in
Stores, Packaging, Wages and Reports. This is not the
position.
4. The Company guaranteed that no compulsory redundancies
would arise from the introduction of 'B.P.C.S.' No
compulsory redundancies have arisen.
5. In attempting to justify its position, the Union quoted
a deal done with the general workers in the Company. In
this regard the Company would make the following
points:-
(a) the deal for the general workers was a major
productivity deal involving revised working hours,
continuous running, revised clocking procedures,
full flexibility, grade restructuring, bonus
consolidation and absence control,
(b) when a similar deal was offered to the Union in
respect of Clause 3 of P.E.S.P. in September, 1992,
it was rejected.
The Union's claim that the general workers got something for
the introduction of 'B.P.C.S.', is clearly misleading.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is of
the view that the Company's offer is not unreasonable and should
be accepted. The Court, however, also recognises that the staff
have co-operated in a very significant way in implementing change
and accordingly also recommends payment of the same lump sum
(#225) to these claimants as was paid to the operatives.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
3rd May, 1995 Evelyn Owens
F.B./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.