FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HOSPIRA LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Pay and related matters.
BACKGROUND:
2. Hospira Limited manufactures medical products in Donegal and was formerly part of the Abbott corporation It employs approximately 530 workers. The Company does not apply National Wage Agreements but negotiates its own wage agreements.
The last agreement expired on 28th February, 2004 and the Union is seeking a substantial increase in basic pay plus other improvements for an 18-month agreement. Following a meeting with the Union in April, 2004 the Company made an offer which was rejected by the employees.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission.A further offer was made by the Company and this was also rejected by the workers. As agreement was not reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 31st August, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th October, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Company is successful and profitable and the Union's members have contributed hugely to this profit.
2. The conditions and the work done in Donegal is similar to that done in Sligo and therefore justifies the same rate of pay.
3. The Union member in Donegal have cooperated fully in all initiatives designed to improve productivity and enhance competitiveness.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Company's current offer exceeds the terms of Sustaining Progress in terms of the percentage increases and the phasing arrangements along with the improvement to employee benefits.
2.The offer made to the employees is fair and will help the Company to secure employment.
3. The Company has in it's offer attempted to address almost all of the components of the Union claim (including improvements to medical insurance subsidy and service pay).
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is of the view that the proposals developed at conciliation are reasonable and there is no justifiable basis upon which the Court can recommend that they be significantly improved.
However, in the interests of bringing finality to these negotiations the Court recommends that the offer be modified as follows:
Duration of Agreement.
The agreement should be of 27 months duration.
Pay Increases.
The following phasing should apply:
5% from 1st March 2004 (10 months duration)
3% from 1st January 2005 (8 months duration)
2.5% from 1st September 2005 (9 months duration)
Sick Pay.
The Court recommends that the sick-pay scheme should be equalised as between craft workers and those associated with this claim. The Union should also agree to cooperate fully with management in taking such initiatives as are necessary to reduce absenteeism.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
15th November, 2004______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.