Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95689 Case Number: LCR15150 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: ELAN CORPORATION PLC - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Union Recognition.
Recommendation:
The Employer did not attend the Court hearing but did submit a
written submission which the Court considered together with the
Union's written and oral presentations.
The Company has stated that as it is engaged in the development
and production of delivery systems for pharmaceutical compounds on
behalf of companies located outside the state, extensive
flexibility and security of supply are essential to its ability to
continue trading and maintaining employment. It has submitted to
the Court that recognition of the Union would render it unable to
offer the necessary guarantees as to security of supply and
flexibility, to its customers.
It was further stated that the investors will not continue to
invest in the Company if a Union is recognised.
The Union for its part has established that a significant number
of those employed in the category in which it seeks recognition
are members of the Union and wish to be represented by the Union.
The Court is of the view that the circumstances of this case are
unique for a number of reasons, including the fact that the
Company's major shareholders are U.S. institutional investors
and the unique nature of the Company's business within the Irish
Pharmaceutical Industry.
The Court in considering this case is extremely sensitive to the
issues involved and is particularly concerned at the Company
statement that any concession of the Union claim will result in
the investors discontinuing to invest in this Company, presumably
with a resultant loss of employment.
However, the Court has traditionally granted requests from trade
unions for representation in cases that were well founded.
In this case the Court is also conscious of the Union's stated
willingness to address the Company's fears in relation to
flexibility and security of supply.
Having considered all aspects of this case the Court recommends
that the parties meet to arrive at an agreement that would meet
both sides aspirations. Those discussions should be completed
within 6 months.
If the parties fail to reach an agreement and the situation
remains as is, then the Court recommends that the Company at end
of this period recognise the Union's request to represent the
employees it has in membership, should these employees so desire.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95689 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15150
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
ELAN CORPORATION PLC
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Union Recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the pharmaceutical industry,
primarily in research and development, and is located in
Athlone. The Company also has manufacturing facilities in
the U.S. and Switzerland.
In October, 1995 the Union wrote to the Company stating that
it had taken a substantial number of workers in the operative
and related grades into membership. The Union sought a
meeting with the Company to discuss recognition and
negotiating rights on behalf of its members in relation to
wage rates and conditions of employment. Subsequently the
Company wrote to the Union indicating that it was Company
policy not to recognise trade unions. In December 1995 the
Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section
20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be
bound by the Court's recommendation.
The Company declined an invitation to attend a hearing but
submitted a written submission which was considered by the
Court. The Company maintained that unionisation was
inappropriate to the industry, it would not be supported by
U.S. investors, and that the Employee Representative Council
(E.R.C.) formed in December, 1995 adequately catered for the
needs of workers and had majority support. The Court
investigated the dispute on the 4th March, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. A majority of the permanent operative and related
categories are members of the Union. The Union has
enacted and carried through a partnership approach with
the private sector at national and local level. The
Company has no reason to fear a relationship with the
Union which is based on mutual respect and a commitment
to the development of the Company.
2. The Union represents employees at all levels in the most
advanced technological sectors. It has concluded
flexibility arrangements which do not in any way hamper
effective and efficient operations. The Union
recognises that modern companies need to be able to
respond quickly, flexibly and efficiently to competitive
challenges.
3. The Union has concluded security of supply agreements
with other companies in the region and is prepared to
replicate such an agreement if circumstances so require.
4. It is essential that there is a commitment by the
parties to embrace the concepts of consultation,
negotiation, independent conciliation and arbitration
during which both sides have recourse to all the
expertise and resources available through the respective
Trade Union and Employer Organisations. The Union
cannot accept that the Employee Representative Council
is an effective representative forum in isolation.
5. The Union rejects the argument that it would be viewed
as an external influence by U.S. investors. The Company
is quoted on the Stock Exchange, as are many other
public companies which are extensively unionised. This
does not inhibit their share price.
6. The right to organise, be recognised and have collective
negotiations is implicit in the Constitution and
contained in the I.L.O. Convention on Freedom of
Association and Protection of the Right to Organise.
The Labour Court has, on numerous occasions, recommended
in favour of Union recognition.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Employer did not attend the Court hearing but did submit a
written submission which the Court considered together with the
Union's written and oral presentations.
The Company has stated that as it is engaged in the development
and production of delivery systems for pharmaceutical compounds on
behalf of companies located outside the state, extensive
flexibility and security of supply are essential to its ability to
continue trading and maintaining employment. It has submitted to
the Court that recognition of the Union would render it unable to
offer the necessary guarantees as to security of supply and
flexibility, to its customers.
It was further stated that the investors will not continue to
invest in the Company if a Union is recognised.
The Union for its part has established that a significant number
of those employed in the category in which it seeks recognition
are members of the Union and wish to be represented by the Union.
The Court is of the view that the circumstances of this case are
unique for a number of reasons, including the fact that the
Company's major shareholders are U.S. institutional investors
and the unique nature of the Company's business within the Irish
Pharmaceutical Industry.
The Court in considering this case is extremely sensitive to the
issues involved and is particularly concerned at the Company
statement that any concession of the Union claim will result in
the investors discontinuing to invest in this Company, presumably
with a resultant loss of employment.
However, the Court has traditionally granted requests from trade
unions for representation in cases that were well founded.
In this case the Court is also conscious of the Union's stated
willingness to address the Company's fears in relation to
flexibility and security of supply.
Having considered all aspects of this case the Court recommends
that the parties meet to arrive at an agreement that would meet
both sides aspirations. Those discussions should be completed
within 6 months.
If the parties fail to reach an agreement and the situation
remains as is, then the Court recommends that the Company at end
of this period recognise the Union's request to represent the
employees it has in membership, should these employees so desire.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
26th April, 1996 Finbarr Flood
T.O'D./S.G. ________________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.