FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WYETH MEDICA - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Pay and conditions.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company has been in existence since 1992, and is a manufacturer of solid dose pharmaceuticals. The claim concerns 800 workers. The Union believes that for some considerable time the workers have fallen "out of line" with comparators in the industry. It sought the introduction of an analogue system to compare conditions/pay with other companies but this was rejected by the Company.
There have been numerous meetings between the parties since 1998, with the workers believing that they were constrained by the nature of the National Agreements. The Union supplied a list of issues that it wanted addressed (details supplied to the Court) including a review of shift handover, introduction of health care and improvement in various allowances. A number of these items were conceded by the Company.
In April, 2001, a conciliation conference with the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) took place and one of the proposals was to set up 3 Process Improvement Teams (PITs) to examine the situation. An outside facilitator was also brought in to assist the parties. In December, 2001, the Company made the following offer:-
2% on entry into discussions on the performance process (already paid 1st April, 2001)
2% over PPF to be paid on 1st July, 2002.
1% over PPF to be paid on 1st January, 2003
Early payment of 2nd phase of PPF (3 months early-1st October, 2001).
Early payment of 3rd phase of PPF ( 6 months early -1st July, 2002)
3 extra days' annual leave phased in over three years.
Improvement in long-term disability benefit 66% up from current level of 55%
A definitive proposal on the sick pay scheme within 6 months of agreement.
The offer was rejected by ballot in December, 2001 (and by a second ballot in July, 2002.) The Union was seeking the following:-
1% lump sum on basic pay (National Agreement) to be increased to 2% on all pay, the additional 2% offered from 1st July, 2002, be brought forward by 4 months to 1st March, 2002,
the 1% offered from 1st January, 2003, be increased to 2% and be brought forward by 4 months to 1st September, 2002
two days' additional leave to be awarded in 2002, and the third in 2003.
On the productivity items the Union suggested the formulation of 3 protocols to be agreed on shift handover, running equipment through breaks and on packaging line changeover.
As the parties could not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 23rd of March, 2002, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th of September, 2002, the earliest date suitable to the parties. The Company clarified a number of items in a letter of 15th of July, 2002, but the proposals were again rejected by ballot.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers have fallen behind comparators in the Industry in terms of pay and conditions. The renegotiation on the comprehensive agreement did not deliver on their expectations.
2. The PITs will be of more benefit to the Company than the offer to the workers.
3. Negotiations have been ongoing since 1998. The workers have stayed strictly within procedures but have seen very little return for their patience.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Since 1992, the Company has paid all National Agreements and, in addition, has introduced a range of benefits covering sick pay, healthcare cover and service leave.
2. The current rates of pay are extremely competitive and are in the top quartile of the healthcare industry.
3. Both parties are bound by the PPF, and any additional pay increases have to be on a productivity/self-financing basis.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully examined the proposals which emerged from the protracted negotiations between the parties. It is clear that both parties have striven earnestly to achieve final agreement on productivity improvements and associated enhancement in the pay and benefits of the staff concerned. The Court believes that the final proposals developed jointly by the negotiators, together with the clarifications provided at the Union's request, represents a reasonable package which goes as far as could be realistically expected in current circumstances. It is also apparent that some of the productivity measures now in contention were agreed in earlier agreements.
It is noted that the Union has sought the introduction of an analogue system for the purpose of comparing the relative position of current pay levels to the historical ranking of those rates within the sector. The Court does not consider that such an arrangement would be either practicable or appropriate. Such arrangements are not normal in this sector or in private enterprise generally. Furthermore, any useful comparison would have to take account of a broad range of factors which would have influenced pay movement over time including productivity movements and the commercial and economic circumstances of particular companies. Moreover, pay cannot be judged in isolation from other elements of the overall employment package.
Finally, regard must be had to the terms of PPF, to which both the Union and the Company are party. This agreement precludes cost-increasing claims and, consequently, any increases must be matched by cost offsetting productivity measures.
However, the Court recommends that in a final attempt to bring closure to these negotiations two modifications should be made to the proposals. Firstly, the Court believes that in the context of the introduction of a seamless shift handover thegraceperiod before which payment is due should be reduced from eight minutes to three minutes. The parties should agree the detail adjustments in overtime/late attendance arrangements necessary to give effect to this change. Secondly, the Court believes that the proposal on improved annual leave should be modified so as to provide for one additional day in the leave year 2002/2003 and two days in the leave year 2003/2004.
The parties should accept that the package, as amended by this Recommendation, is the final attempt to reach agreement. It should be considered and decided upon by the parties in that context.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
30th September, 2002______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.