FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BAXTER HEALTHCARE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Recognition of temporary service
BACKGROUND:
2. Baxter Healthcare is a manufacturer of healthcare products. The company has two plants operating in Mayo i.e Castlebar and Swinford. The claim before the Court concerns the Swinford plant. The facility at the Swinford plant manufactures a range of medical devices used in Europe, the U.S. and Japan.
The Union submitted a claim on behalf of employees who were initially employed on a temporary contract basis and later employed on a permanent basis. The claim is for recognition of temporary service which would affect the claimants in the following way; (1) Incremental credit (2) Perfect attendance benefit (3) Service pay and (4) Christmas bonus.
Management indicated that it would take into account any employee who had twenty-eight months continuous temporary service before being made permanent retroactively recognised.
The Union is seeking total service to be calculated for each employee.
As agreement was not possible the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 24th February, 2003 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute in Castlebar on the 23rd September, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is no opposition from the workers to the Company's use of temporary contracts. The workers want temporary service to attract in-house benefits.
2. The Union does not accept that a concession in 1996 to 2 workers was on a "once off " basis. There is no agreement to this effect. Furthermore, management extended payments to four other workers outside that particular claim which supports the Union's view.
3. Management has suggested that concession of the claim would have major implications in providing for retrospection on pensions and other service related benefits. Pensions are not part of this claim.
4. The workers claim that all periods of continuous service immediately prior to permanency being secured, should be taken into account when calculating payments for in service benefits.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has used these temporary contracts for several years in line with the legislation at the time and with the full co-operation of the Union.
2. The Company and the Union review the number of temporary employees in the system each year and agree who should be made permanent and from what date.
3. Any specific service related benefits such as pension, disability plan, stock purchase schemes, etc only become applicable from the date an employee is offered and accepts a permanent contract of employment with the Company.
4. Any concession of the claim would lead to knock-on consequential claims from the larger plant in Castlebar.
RECOMMENDATION:
At the hearing the Company undertook to concede service retroactively on the same basis as previously applied.
The Court understands that the employees currently employed by the Company who have had two years and four months continuous service before they were made permanent, would have that service retroactively recognised.
This is in line with the previous concessions made and should be accepted by the employees.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
15th October, 2003______________________
LW/BRChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.