FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : KLINGE PHARMA (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Review of grading of laboratory staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. Klinge Pharma is a pharmaceutical and fine-chemical company which produces bulk pharmaceuticals. The Union's claim is on behalf of four workers employed in the Laboratory Department who are currently graded as General Operatives (GOs). There were originally eight employees in the Department. The Union is seeking to have them regraded and has indicated that it is willing to have a job evaluation exercise carried out to compare the roles of the workers concerned to that of the GOs. The grades have been aligned since the Company was established in 1972. The Union first made the claim in March, 2002, seeking a review of salary of the workers taking into consideration what now applied in the pharmaceutical industry generally. The Company has rejected the claim, stating that it is in breach of Sustaining Progress.
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 21st of October, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th of April, 2004, in Tralee, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Since the original agreement in 1972, the pharmaceutical industry has changed dramatically. Laboratory technicians are now paid on different grading structures to GOs.
2. The workers concerned have a higher level of responsibility and require greater training than the GOs. The Union is willing to have a job evaluation carried out to prove its point.
3. Three members of the Laboratory Department were recently re-graded to Staff positions with improvements in salary and conditions of employment. These three workers continue to do 95% of the work they did before being regraded.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers concerned enjoy very competitive pay rates within the pharmaceutical industry. There is a unified grade rate which applies to production, laboratory and warehouse personnel in the Company.
2. The Company operates in a very competitive industry. It has experienced a fall in turnover for the last few years. The Company is not in a position to entertain any additional costs.
3. The claim, if conceded, would lead to further claims for a review of the grading structure within the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the Laboratory Staff post is aligned with the General Operatives grades, as part of an agreement entered into by the Company and the Union.
While the Court accepts the Union argument that the Company's action in promoting a number of Laboratory Staff while this claim was on the table has made the situation more difficult, it cannot recommend that a job evaluation exercise be carried out for four employees.
The Court also finds the claim to be cost increasing and to be prohibited under Sustaining Progress.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
14th May, 2004______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.