FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WARNER LAMBERT - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. (1) Disturbance. (2) Retrospection.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates two pharmaceutical manufacturing plants in Cork and has a further two plants in Dublin. In April, 1997, the Company acquired the Hickson Pharachem Limited business in Ringaskiddy, Co. Cork. Following the acquisition, the Company invested £225 million in capital expansion projects in Ringaskiddy. Discussions also took place with the Union in order to harmonise rates of pay and conditions between the Ringaskiddy plant and the Company's sister plant in Little Island, Cork. It was agreed to harmonise the rates over a three year period.
In 1998 the Union lodged a claim for payment of compensation for adverse working conditions and loss of overtime earnings resulting from the major construction work being carried out at Ringaskiddy. The Company rejected this claim.
In early 1999 the Union became aware that workers at the Little Island plant had shift premium consolidated with basic pay for overtime purposes, while the workers at Ringaskiddy did not. The Company offered to pay retrospection to the 1st of August, 1999, but the Union claimed retrospection to the 1st of August, 1997. Both claims were the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission on the 28th of September, 1999. As agreement was not possible, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 19th of January, 2000, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute in Cork on the 11th of April, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Compensation for disturbance: All members, both day workers and shift workers, have been working in a facility for the past two years which has effectively been turned into a building site. The Company's offer to pay £600 compensation to shift workers only to reflect the loss of overtime was a divisive offer which was rejected by the workforce.
2. The workers had to deal with various hazards such as excessive noise, fumes and gases, dust, cold, odours and obstacles such as scaffolding, wiring, etc., yet no production time was lost and the facility successfully passed an FDA audit. The Union's claim of £1,500 for each worker encompasses the loss of available overtime, in addition to compensation for the stress suffered by them.
3. Retrospection: In order to harmonise rates and conditions of employment, the Company identified areas of disparity such as VHI payments, bonus payments and Christmas vouchers where workers had to accept reductions. The Company did not, however, alert the Union to the disparity in the consolidation of shift premium, which amounts to approximately £36 per week. As this should have been part of the Partnership 2000 discussions, the Union is seeking retrospection to the beginning of that Agreement - the 1st of August, 1997.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Compensation for disturbance: All employees at the Company's four facilities have been exposed to expansion activities for the past year. Should one group of workers receive compensation, the Company would have to consider compensation for all 1000 employees. This additional cost would undoubtedly affect future investment decisions in Ireland.
2. The Company is a technology driven business which will constantly need to modify and upgrade facilities. Any barrier to doing this will lead to a lack of competitiveness and will ultimately lead to job losses. The Company has recently been acquired by Pfizer Incorporated, whose other facility in Ringaskiddy has been undergoing changes for many years and, to the Company's knowledge, no compensation for disturbance has been paid.
3. Retrospection: In 1997, the Company stated its intention to review the disparities between the two Cork plants. It did not become aware of the consolidation disparity until late 1998. The Company's offer to pay the Little Island rate from the 1st of August, 1999, would give the employees the opportunity to earn up to an additional £850 per person. Based on twelve hours overtime at double time employees would receive an increase of 14%.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions, finds as follows on the issues before it:-
1.Compensation for disruption:
Management, while rejecting the Union's claim for compensation for disruption, have agreed to pay compensation for loss of overtime to a significant number of employees. The Union's position is that everyone should be compensated for disruption and that this compensation could take into account the overtime claim.
The Court, while rejecting the Union claim for compensation for disruption, recommends that the figure on offer for overtime loss, currently c. £40,000, be increased to £45,000 and that this money be divided between the employees as decided by the Union.
2.Retrospection on overtime rate:
The Court accepts the management submission that it was not aware of the consolidation arrangement existing in the other plant at the time of the 1997 negotiations.
However, the Court recommends that the Company proposal to pay the consolidation rate from August 1999 should be amended to the 1st of July, 1999 in full and final settlement of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
17th April, 2000______________________
D.G./C.C.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.