FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NOVARTIS RINGASKIDDY LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Outsourcing of "H Vac" operation in the Utilities Department
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is part of the international health care company Novartis, of Basle, Switzerland. The dispute concerns the Company's intention to contract-out the "H-Vac" operation. This work has been carried out by utility operators since 1991, and there are currently 8 of them involved in the dispute. The Company wishes to combine operator duties in its 2 technical services departments - utilities and environmental - and has been in discussion with the Union since September, 1999. It sees the work as 'non-core'. The Union believes that its 8 members should continue with the H-Vac operation. There are also a number of other issues that the Union believes need addressing.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation took place . As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th of August, 2001, in Cork. At the hearing, the Company made it clear that the decision to contract-out the H-Vac operation had been made by headquarters in Basle, and that it was considered a strategic imperative. It did, however, make an ex-gratis offer of £1,000 to each worker directly affected by the change.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is no question as to the ability of the workers to continue to carry out the operation of the H-Vac. The Union is willing to explore any proposal that the Company has on the issue, including increasing the number of workers.
2. The Union was not informed of the Company's intention to contract-out the work. It was presented with a document on the 4th of September, 2000, by which time the Company had already made its decision.
3. The contracting-out of the work will lead to a "de-skilling" among the workers. The Union is not convinced that the merging of the 2 departments is the best option.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The decision to contract-out the H-Vac operation was made in headquarters in Basle, Switzerland, and the Company has no option but to implement the change.
2. The Cork site has always been positive in its response to change and this must continue. The merging of the 2 operations -utilities and environmental control - will provide the service required elsewhere in the technical services and make the operation more effective. The number of operators will be maintained.
3. The change in work will actually lead to an "up-skilling" for the workers, not the opposite as the Union claims.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties at the hearing, and the report of the outcome of the subsequent meetings between the parties.
It is clear that there is a history of change and flexibility in this Company and, for that reason, the Court adjourned the hearing to enable the parties to reach an agreement, something they failed to achieve.
The Court has considered all of the issues involved in this case, and is conscious of the commitment given by the Company that the claimants' job will not be de-skilled but enhanced by the Company's proposal.
Taking this into account, and the fact that there will be no job redundancies as a result, the Court recommends that the employees accept the Company's proposal and accept the Company offer of an ex-gratis payment of £1,000 (1,269.74 Euro).
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
19th November, 2001______________________
CON/CCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.