FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SHERING-PLOUGH (BRINNY) COMPANY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. (i) Sick pay scheme.
(ii) Claim for double time on the consolidated rate for overtime after 12 midnight.
(iii) Warehouse operatives pay rate.
(iv) Claim for compensation for change of shift.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Sharing-Plough (Brinny) Company is part of the Shering-Plough Corporation with headquarters in the USA and is engaged in the chemical industry. It manufactures two commercial products, Intron A and Leucomase and is currently manufacturing two other products for clinical trials. It employs 431 workers at its location in Innishshannon, County Cork.
The dispute before the Court concerns a number of claims lodged by the Union in 1994. Local level discussions took place but progress could not be made and the issues were referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences were held on 24th October, 1994 and 16th February, 1995 As no agreement could be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 8th March, 1996 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place in Cork on 17th April, 1996.
SICK PAY SCHEME:
3. The Union is seeking 26 weeks full pay less social welfare entitlements. Currently the 88 workers concerned are paid 6 weeks pay after 12 months service and 8 weeks pay after 3 years service. The Union's claim is based on a scheme in operation for the Company's monthly paid employees.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Union is seeking similar benefits for monthly paid employees who are paid 26 weeks sick pay benefit.
2. The sick pay benefits of the workers concerned are substantially out of line with workers in similar employment where 6 months sick pay plus other benefits is the norm.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. Clause 4 of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW) provides for claims for improvements in existing schemes "where such schemes are substantially out of line with appropriate standards in comparable employments". This Clause further provides that "negotiations shall be governed by the capacity of the enterprise to absorb the costs involved and the possibleimplications for attendance".
2. There are many employments with schemes which pay benefits below that which are paid to the workers concerned. There is no basis for the Union's claim that the Company's scheme is substantially out of line.
3. Any cost increase arising from a change in the sick pay scheme would place the Company at a competitive disadvantage. This is contrary to the PCW.
4. The Company is currently experiencing cost pressures caused by various market factors and especially the continuing trend in reduced prices. This pressure is a sensitive one as a cost comparison matrix in the Corporation can influence the directions of future investment and product manufacturing opportunities.
5. Because of major research costs associated with plants like Brinny, each location must assist in the cost of funding research. Without this 'total involvement' of a location within, the Corporation would be unsatisfactory. Against this background it is unrealistic of the Union to expect the Company to compare with the leading companies in Ireland in terms of sick pay schemes.
CLAIM FOR DOUBLE TIME ON THE CONSOLIDATED RATE FOR SHIFT WORKERS WHO WORK OVERTIME AFTER 12 MIDNIGHT:
4. BACKGROUND:
The 58 workers concerned operate a two shift rota (8.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m./3.45 p.m. to 11.45 p.m.) for which they are paid 16.66% shift premium. On occasions the workers are required to work overtime during the hours 12 midnight to 8.00 a.m. but the shift premium is not included in the overtime calculation. The Union is seeking payment of double time at the consolidated rate for such overtime.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. Workers who are required to work overtime at the end of their shift continue to be shift workers. In industry generally, payment for such overtime is paid at double time inclusive of the shift rate.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. In any period of 24 hours the workers concerned are paid overtime at time plus one-half consolidated. Therefore after 12 midnight they receive time plus three-quarters basic rate for each overtime hour worked.
2. The Company does not differentiate between a pre or a post 12 midnight overtime rate for shift employees. The period after the first 4 hours triggers the higher rate.
3. Currently there is no internal inequity between the consolidated overtime rates paid to shift workers. Concession of the Union's claim would result in consequential repercussive claims from 3 and 4 shift workers.
4. The claim is in breach of Clause 6 of the PCW.
WAREHOUSE OPERATIVE PAY RATE:
5. From the commencement of the Company's operations in Cork the pay structure has operated on the basis of the Process Operative1. being a higher grade than the Warehouse Operative. The Union is seeking the application of the Process Operative 1. rate of pay to the Warehouse Operatives. It argues that the responsiabilities of the Warehouse Operative have increased considerably and that payment of the Process Operative 1. rate is justified.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The workers concerned have taken on new duties and responsibilities. The warehouse staff are now expected to do quarantine labelling. This is a new function involving all raw materials entering the warehouse.
2. The workers are involved in the off-loading of tri-chloric acetic acid. They monitor and control the correct flow of these materials and take levels for safety purposes. This is a highly responsible operation and justifies payment of the Process Operative 1 rate of pay.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. Much emphasis has been placed on the question of change. Changes are a normal part of any modern warehouse facility and in themselves do not justify an upgrading. The relative position has not changed in terms of knowledge and skills. It this principle is not upheld then it defeats the basis on which a job grading structure is built for pay increases.
2. There has been no significant change of emphasis in the warehouse operation. A differential between warehouse and process operatives is well established in the Health Care Section.
3. This claim is in conflict with Clause 6 of the PCW.
CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION FOR CHANGE OF SHIFT:
6. The warehouse operatives concerned were required to work on shift from 1991 to 1994. The workers were paid the shift rate of pay for up to 6 weeks after the shift work ended as per Company/Union agreement. The Union's claim is for compensation for permanent loss of shift.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The agreement under which the Company pays compensation of 6 weeks shift premium was intended to cover the temporary loss of shift. The Company has accepted that a higher formula of compensation for the permanent loss of shift is required.
2. The earnings of the workers have been substantially reduced as a result of the permanent loss of shift. In the circumstances the Union's claim is reasonable.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. Under the terms of the Company/Union agreement all operatives are required to work shift as required. If the Company concedes a payment for permanent loss of shift it would amount to a declaration that it was highly unlikely that it would ever again be on shift This is not the situation in so far as the Company can foresee.
2. The Company frequently moves groups of employees between shift systems including craftworkers, operatives and Q.C. Personnel. This movement up and down from shift and between shifts is the norm and must be accepted as such.
3. Increasing the cost of moving employees to and from shfitwork would decrease the Company's ability to react quickly and cost effectively to change. It would also impair the ability of the Cork Plant to remain competitive within the Shering Corporation and externally.
4. Temporary loss cannot become permanent loss unless there is an agreement that such a position exists. It is wrong for the Union to pursue its claim based on an opinion that is in conflict with the best estimates of the Company for the future.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions and arguments made by the parties on the various items in this dispute.
The Court sets out below its recommendation.
SICK PAYMENT:
The existing scheme be amended to 12 weeks pay after 3 years service and 16 weeks after 5 years. In the long term the Company should consider agreeing to parity throughout the plant. To assist in this process a system of monitoring absence should be put in place, with a view to bringing about parity of absence levels.
WAREHOUSE OPERATIVES PAY RATE:
On the basis of the evidence presented the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
DOUBLE TIME PLUS FOR 2 SHIFT OPERATION:
The Court is of the view that the Company's offer of consolidated rate of time x 1.75 should be accepted for overtime after 12 midnight.
COMPENSATION FOR PERMANENT LOSS OF 4 SHIFT ROTA:
The Court recommends an additional clause be agreed, viz. loss of shift which continues over a period of 12 months will be compensated by payment (in retrospect) of a further 6 weeks of shift premium.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
20th May, 1996______________________
F.B./S.GChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.