FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : PFIZER IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Additional holidays.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns 2 branches of the Union in the Company's plant in Dun Laoghaire - the Chemical, Healthcare and Distribution Branch ( the Healthcare Branch), and the Administrative, Supervisory and Sales Staff Branch (the Administrative Branch). Until March, 2003, the Company employed approximately 190 staff in the manufacture of chewing gum base (gum base plant) and bulk pharmaceuticals (pharmaceutical plant) at 2 plants in Dun Laoghaire. The Company sold the gum base plant to Cadbury Schweppes in March. It was agreed that disputes already in progress would be honoured by Pfizer and Cadbury Schweppes management. The claim concerns 17 workers in the Administrative Branch and 60 workers in the Healthcare Branch.
The dispute concerns the Company's decision in 2001 to award additional leave (2 Company days plus 2 service days) to its employees in 3 of its Cork plants. This came about as a result of harmonization of terms and conditions of employment. The 2 Union branches wrote to the Company in July, 2001, claiming an equivalent award for their members. The Union claims that the 2 branches have existing agreements for additional service leave which were negotiated in 1980 - 2-5 days for the Administrative Branch and up to 2 service days over 5 years' service for the Healthcare Branch. The Company agreed to increase the holidays as applied in Cork on a phased basis, and workers whose holiday entitlement exceeded that applicable in Cork would retain their higher level. The Union rejected the offer.
The dispute 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 26th of November, 2002, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th of August, 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company made a unilateral decision to increase the holiday entitlements of the workers in Cork.
2. The workers in Dublin achieved their additional leave in 1980 by agreeing to the introduction of computerisation and the loss of 8 jobs. The workers in Cork did not have to make any sacrifices to achieve their additional leave.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers concerned already receive holiday entitlements which are in excess of their counterparts in Cork, and are well in excess of the Industry norm.
2. The cost of the claim would be approximately €120,000 which the Company cannot afford to pay.
3. None of the workers concerned have lost out in any way as a result of the improved holiday entitlements in Cork.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claimants in this case have not suffered any diminution in their conditions in consequence of the harmonisation of holiday entitlements. In these circumstances, the Court can see no merit in the claim and does not recommend its concession.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
15th September, 2003______________________
CO'N /BGDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.