FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 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: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Cost reduction proposals
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company acts as an agent and is also involved in the wholesale distribution of pharmaceutical products. It employs approximately 80 part-time workers among its total workforce. The dispute concerns the issue of cost reduction sought by the Company following a loss of business in 2002. All of the areas affected had a reduction in workload, and the Company proposed reducing the hours worked in these areas by one half hour each day as a means of cost reduction. The Union claims that the Company is mainly concentrating on the warehouse area and believes that this is unfair as the workers there are all part-time employees. The Union maintains that the reduction in hours should be spread across all sections of the Company.
The issue was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 12th of December, 2002, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th of April, 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The part-time workers are the lowest paid in the Company. They stand to lose 2 hours' pay per week as against workers in other section who will lose 1 hour. It is unfair that they will have their low wages reduced even further. The Union did propose some cost-cutting measures - including all workers losing 10 minutes per day - but this was rejected by the Company.
2. Since the Company first outlined its requirement for cost reduction it has employed a number of additional workers. The Union believes that the Company increased its profits in 2002 by 20%.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company lost its biggest customer with the sale of the Unicare Group to Gehe. This resulted in a loss of turnover and a substantial loss in profit.
2. The workers in the main picking warehouse are employed on a flexible part-time basis with no guarantee of hours. This is the first time that the Company has had to implement any reduction in hours.
3. The Company considered a reduction in warehouse hours as more agreeable than redundancies.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the position of both sides. The Company is seeking to achieve cost savings as a result of a loss of a major contract. While the Union has not found favour with the proposals put forward by the Company to achieve those savings, it has indicated that it has certain views on cost cutting measures but has not engaged in discussions to date.
Consequently, the Court recommends that the Union should now engage with the Company in discussing measures which will give rise to cost savings and which will be mutually acceptable to both parties.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
6th May, 2003______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.