FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BAUSCH & LOMB LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Reward for change programme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures contact lenses in Waterford and employs approximately 1600 workers of whom 1400 are SIPTU members.
The Union is seeking a mechanism to reward change at the plant, which it says significantly impacts on its members in terms of extra productivity and flexibility. The Union are also seeking meaningful negotiations for a reward for change programme:
- For workers adversely effected by the change programme.
- For the unmeasured co-operation and commitment that contribute to the success of the Company.
- The Company rejects the claim.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 16th June, 2005 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th July, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The type of change programme envisaged by the Company is one of automation, increased productivity and efficiency. This will lead to a reduction in jobs earning potential and security of employment.
2. Co-operation with this change programme needs to be managed and rewarded to the highest level. The original gainshare agreement although expired, no longer adequately rewards workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 Pay, benefits and conditions of employment within the Company are superior, workers are expected to deliver superior performance and flexibility.
2. The requirement for co-operation with change is dealt with in Sustaining Progress.
3. The claim as presented is a cost increasing claim and is therefore precluded by the terms of Sustaining Progress.
4. The position of the Company in the 'internal competitiveness league' has deteriorated. This is a requirement to restore that position in order to protect jobs.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Company contend that the initiatives contemplated or introduced constitute normal ongoing change. The Union contend that the change program goes beyond normal ongoing change and amounts to significant change.
It is clear that the terms of Sustaining Progress commits the parties to cooperation with normal ongoing change and further cost increasing claims cannot be pursued for such cooperation.
In the present case, the full impact of the change proposed will not become clear until it is fully implemented. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the Union should cooperate fully with the change programme proposed. A review mechanism should then be established between the Union and the Company to assess the impact of the change and address any issues arising in accordance with the custom and practice in the employment relating to the introduction of such change and having full regard to the terms of Sustaining Progress.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
3rd August, 2005______________________
JBChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.