FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : KLINGE PHARMA LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Dispute concerning a multi-task rate of pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the production of bulk fine chemicals and pharmaceuticals. It employs 100 workers. The dispute concerns the Union's claim for the application of a multi-task rate of pay to production operators and laboratory staff. At local level discussions in 1995 the company offered an increase of 7% with certain conditions attached which was rejected by the workers. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the 13th March, 1996. Agreement was not possible and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 25th April, 1996. A Court hearing was held in Tralee on the 10th October, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned have been carrying out multi-skilled operations and undertake dismantling/maintenance duties. They are prepared to undertake further cross-skilling work in the future.
2. The Company has recognised the validity of the Union's claim by offering an increase of 7% but with conditions. The extra duties and responsibilities undertaken by the workers at present entitle them to an increase without further conditions.
3. Workers in the Company's sister plant enjoy a significantly higher rate of pay than the workers concerned. (Details to the Court).
4. The Company now wishes to introduce 'World Class Manufacturing' (W.C.M.) but the workers concerned are not prepared to discuss W.C.M. or any other system until the pay issue is resolved. It has been under consideration for a considerable time and the workers are very frustrated with the lack of progress.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company made a substantial offer to the workers relating to the multi-task rate of pay in return for which operators would undertake an expanded role and other flexibility measures. The offer was rejected.
2. The Union's claim for a substantial pay increase is based on their assertion that the production workers are performing a wide range of maintenance duties. The Company maintains that any self-financing wage increase could only be in the context of a comprehensive change programme. It cannot be retrospective.
3. The IPC report (which was carried out at the Union's insistence) confirmed that any maintenance performed by operators is an integral part of their duties.
4. With regard to the wages of operators in a sister plant, that Company operates separate rates and conditions of employment. Pay rates cannot be compared in isolation.
5. The IPC recommended that there was considerable scope for improvement in the Company's operations in light of world practices in manufacturing. In this context the Company has engaged in an extensive internal review process which has just been completed and is currently being considered by the parent company in Germany. The Company wishes to discuss future change and has offered a substantial increase to operators, however, it cannot concede an increase for ongoing maintenance, which has no validity as confirmed by the IPC.
RECOMMENDATION:
Given the nature of the pharmaceutical industry there is a continuous need to improve efficiency and cost effectiveness if the Company is to meet the needs of the marketplace and employment is to be maintained. The Court notes the workers' acceptance of and co-operation with, this need.
The Court, given all of the issues raised by the parties in their oral and written submissions, is not satisfied that the duties currently being carried out by the operatives concerned in this claim should of themselves warrant an increase given the nature of the industry. It is clear to the Court that other issues/changes need to be addressed. This has been recognised by the tabling of proposals for discussions.
The Court recommends that discussions take place on all of the issues between the parties with a view to reaching an agreement which will enable the necessary changes to take place and the aspirations of the workers to be addressed.
The discussions should embrace all employees including Warehouse etc.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
1st November, 1996______________________
T.O'D./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.