FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1); INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT; 1990 PARTIES : UNIPHAR PLC. (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Redundancy in respect of 2 general operatives.
BACKGROUND:
2. UniPhar was founded originally in 1967 as a co-operative society under the name UPC. The organisation changed its status to that of a limited company and changed its name to UniPhar plc on the 7th of November, 1994. On the 17th of November, 1994, Uniphar acquired the APD group. The APD group had premises in both Finglas and in Limerick and was involved in the wholesale distribution of pharmaceutical products and the manufacture and sale of galenical products.
The UniPhar Group acts as an agent and is also engaged in wholesale distribution of pharmaceutical products employing a workforce of approximately 220 staff of whom 64 are Limerick-based.
In October, 1999, following an inspection of the Company's premises, the licensing authority (the Irish Medicines Board) instructed the Company to cease operations in the galenicals area forthwith. Consequently, the three workers employed in the area, one manager and 2 general operatives, were offered alternative employment. In relation to the manager, an option of redundancy was also put forward by the Company and his case was the subject of a Labour Court investigation and Recommendation (LCR16396). The Union claims, on behalf of the 2 general operatives, that the work offered to them in the warehouse is not comparable to the work they carried out previously and, accordingly, is seeking that the Company offer them a redundancy package. The Company rejects the Union claim, insisting the 2 workers have been offered suitable alternative employment, adding that the 2 have been working in that area for 1.5 hours per day since 1997, following a downsizing of operations in the compounding area.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, at which agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the 1st June, 2000, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court carried out its investigation on the 13th July, 2000, the earliest date suitable to both parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The nature of the work undertaken by the two workers in the compounding area is different to that which they have been offered in the warehouse.
2. Consideration must be given, when offering suitable alternative employment, to the welfare of those being moved and to the overall effect on the existing workforce. In this case, it is well known to management that acrimony and difficulties have arisen due to the move and it is clear that the staff in the warehouse area do not want the two claimants working there.
3. An agreement between the Company and SIPTU, in 1995, offered office staff transferring to the warehouse the option of redundancy at the outset, or after a 3-month trial period. This arrangement should have been applied to the two workers.
4. The claimants did not ask for their conditions of employment to be changed. They were changed as a result of the Company not investing in the compounding area, resulting in the directive to close the area. Unless the Company can offer reasonable alternative work, incorporating a happy working environment, a redundancy settlement should be offered.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The closure of the galenicals area resulted solely as a consequence of the review carried out by the Irish Medicines Board, and its instruction to cease operations there forthwith.
2. The two employees' positions, where they worked up to 5 hours per day, were no longer sustainable. The two workers, who also worked for 1.5 hours daily in the warehouse area, were offered an extension of their hours there to 7.25 hours. They continue to work in the same location with their colleagues, under the same terms and conditions of employment, with the same rate of pay and the same hours as they had previously.
3. The two positions are suitable and there is no reasonable case for redundancy. The two workers have performed in the role of general operative grade for a number of years. They will retain their seniority in the warehouse positions.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions, does not recommend concession of the Union claim in this case.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
25th July, 2000______________________
mk/mkChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.