FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ALLERGAN (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. 1. Compensation for new work practice 2. Payment for loss of earnings
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim before the Court is in respect of employees in Allergan Pharmaceutical Company, Westport, Co. Mayo. There are two issues:
- Claim 1is in respect of 36 employees in the Unit Dose Filling Department who are required to re-gown, up to 12 times per day. The Union is seeking 4% pay rise in respect of this change.
- Claim 2is in respect of 30 employees suffering loss of earnings due to a change in work practices
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 25th February, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th April, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.Claim 1.
After a visit by the Industrial Regulatory Body, the Food & Drug Authority it was deemed necessary to introduce a change to gowning up procedures in the Unit Dose Filling Department. The procedure requires workers working 12 hour shifts to gown up, removing all outdoor clothing up to ten times per shift. This change was introduced in 2000. Previously the gowning up procedure did not require the removal of outdoor clothing.
- 2. Workers participated with the new procedures. However, they felt that Management should accept the principle of a financial consideration being made, given the extent of the change for gowning up associated with the new procedures.
1.Claim 2
In March 2002 negotiations took place with a view to reaching agreement on a formula to compensate for changes in shiftworking system. The twelve hour rotating shift system provides a premium payment of 33.3%. These shift working include:- Days no premium
Nights 33.3% premium
2. Local negotiations concluded with an offer of:-
- Four weeks loss of shift differential per year of service
- For the purpose of calculation six months qualified as one year's service
This Offer was recommended for acceptance by shop stewards, subject to a ballot, but rejected by members. Members were looking for 6 weeks per year of service. At conciliation, Management offered 5 weeks per year of service.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.Claim 1
- The Company works in the Healthcare Sector and is subject to strict regulations as regards hygiene, health and safety etc. The new gowning up requirements came about as part of an Irish Medicines Board inspection which is an annual or bi-annual audit. There was already a form of gowning up in place, though less stringent.
- 2. The new measures now required by the Irish Medicines Board costs the Company approximately $15 per hit. This amounts to $22,000 per employee per annum and costs the company more than it used to under the old regime. The Company have to comply with the new measures regardless of cost.
- 3. When this claim arose the Company and Union had agreed a three year locally brokered deal of 4% per annum in terms of pay increases. The local deal also brought on-going cooperation together with no cost increase claims. Yet despite those clauses, the Union have brought the claim.
4. Other departments and sections within the plant, for example, the Botox department, have been doing this particular gowning up procedure for many years without any claims for extra payment. If concessions were made in this case, other claims would follow. It could destroy the culture of change built up over a number of years in relation to regulatory change.
- 1. Claim 2
- 2. All employees concerned were accommodated on the normal 8 hour, 3 cycle shifts with the shift of their choice. However, some of the workers transferred to different shift patterns under the 3 cycle, 8 hour shift which could mean that their actual loss may not be that significant.
- 3. The company made an offer at local level of 4 weeks loss per year of service that they held on the original twelve hour shift. The offer was recommended for acceptance by the Union, but rejected by the workers. At conciliation an offer of 5 weeks per year of service was offered, but rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
The domestic agreement between the parties mirrors the provision in the Programme for Prosperity & Fairness and Sustaining Progress Agreement which obliges workers to cooperate with ongoing change. Whilst it was agreed, at the time the domestic agreement was concluded, that the claim in relation to gowning could be pursued, this should not be taken as implying that it is permissible under the agreement. Rather, the net issue between the parties is whether the changes at issue constitute ongoing change, in which case the claim is precluded under the agreement, or significant change, in which case a claim may be pursued.
Gowning Procedures
In relation to this claim the Court notes the following:
- The change was imposed on the Company by an external regulatory authority. Rather than bringing any economic benefit to the Company it imposes significant additional cost.
- There is no change in the job which the workers are required to do nor is there any change in the terms or conditions of their employment.
- The change at issue is no more than an extension of a procedure that already exists.
- The procedure is already in place in respect of other employees elsewhere in the same plant who have the same rate and conditions as those associated with the present claim.
Having regard to these factors the Court has no doubt that the change at issues constitutes ongoing change. Accordingly, the Court cannot recommend concession of the claim.
Loss of Earnings.
The Court recommends that the final offer at conciliation, namely 5 weeks loss per year of service be accepted.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
7th May, 2003______________________
JB/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.