FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 S2(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2001, AS AMENDED BY THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS(MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT, 2004 PARTIES : GE HEALTHCARE (REPRESENTED BY JOHN HORGAN) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Referral from the Labour Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001, as amended by The Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004.
BACKGROUND:
2. GE Healthcare, formally known as Amersham Health, manufactures contrast media products. It exports to worldwide markets and employs 515 people in Carrigtohill, Co. Cork. The Union is seeking the following:-
(1) The right to adequate consultation in advance of changes to working conditions and for individual members to be represented by SIPTU as the Union of their choice.
(2) A review of the Salary of the Production Operators it represents to reflect the added responsibility this transfer of duties entails. The Union has submitted a claim for 10% salary increase to reflect the changes and the responsibility attached.
(3) The introduction of a Grievance and Disciplinary Procedure as per S.I. No. 146 of 2000 Industrial Relations Act, 1990 (Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures) (Declaration) Order 2004.
The Union's claim is as follows: the dispute came about because of the Company's proposal to change work practices i.e. transfer of technical service work to production workers without agreement. There are 25 permanent operators and 35 temporary operators affected by the change. Two workers raised the grievance locally and a number of other employees support the referral by the Union. The Company believes that the changes are minor and part of ongoing change.
The grievance and disciplinary procedure:The Company has a grievance procedure. In regard to the disciplinary procedure it will allow a worker to be represented at the final stage i.e. if an employee is facing suspension or dismissal. The Union is seeking that workers should have representation at an earlier stage.
The Union referred its case to the Advisory Service of the Labour Relations Commission in June 2004, and a meeting took place in August, 2004. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred under the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001, as amended by the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004. A Labour Court hearing took place in Cork on the 4th of November, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Company brought about the changes affecting the production operators without adequate consultation. A large number of workers are affected by the changes, which are not minor as the Company claims. The Union knows of at least five workers who have objected to the changes. It also has a list of workers who have expressed concern as to how the Company approached the changeover issue.
2. The method of payment in the Company is quite ambiguous. Performance is evaluated within five bands (details supplied to the Court). The Union believes that a 10% pay increase for those affected by the changeover is reasonable due to the added responsibilities.
3. In regard to the grievance procedure, one obvious omission is for aggrieved employees to take their case to the Rights Commissioner, the Labour Relations Commission or the Labour Court.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. As the Company's business has grown, the requirement for carrying out line changeovers has been increasing until July of this year. As a result of operating efficiencies, the number of line changeovers per week has reduced from eight to 2-3. Of the 100 operators involved, only two have objected to the changes required, and these changes are minimal.
2. Because of the reduction in line changeovers, operators are only likely to be involved once per fortnight. There is no requirement for additional technical expertise on the part of the operator and, therefore, no case for additional salary to reflect this work. In addition, the Company operates a system of performance management (details supplied to the Court) by which workers are rewarded for co-operating with ongoing change and superior performance. Wages in the last five years in the Company have been in excess of the National Pay Agreements - 37.8% as against 20%.
3. The Company has a number of operating mechanisms for dealing with individual and collective issues, specifically a grievance and disciplinary procedure which is in the course of being revised. This will provide employees with the additional option of third party representation. The Company also operates a system of "skip level" meetings which are an open forum for workers to discuss issues and provide feedback to management. There is regular, active and constructive communication with employees.
RECOMMENDATION:
In response to the Union’s claims, the Company contends, inter alia, that having regard to the conditions of employment which it provides, when viewed in their totality, the intervention of the Court under section 2(1) of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2001, as amended, is not warranted. In support of its contention, the Company pointed out that between the years 2000 and 2004, the pay of its employees has increased by an average of 37.8% as against increases of 20% provided by national pay agreements over the same period. The Company submitted that the nature of its business requires flexibility and commitment to change, and that the degree of cooperation received from staff in this regard is reflected in the remuneration package provided.
The Company further told the Court that its internal grievance and disciplinary procedures are currently under review. In response to questions from the Court, the Company indicated that it would not refuse to use the service of the industrial relations machinery of the State, including Rights Commissioners, the LRC and the Court in appropriate cases.
The Court considered it desirable to first consider this aspect of the Company’s response since, if it succeeds on this point, it may be unnecessary to consider in detail the other issues raised in the case.
The Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2001, as amended, provides a significant addition to the powers of the Court in industrial relations disputes. As is well known, the Act was enacted to give effect to the report of the High Level Group established under paragraph 9.22 of Partnership 2000 to consider the detailed proposal submitted by ICTU on the recognition of Unions and the right to bargain, and the IBEC position on the impact of these proposals. This report reaffirmed the commitment of the Social Partners to the preferred voluntary approach to disputes resolution. Nonetheless, the report went on to recommend what it described as an exceptional procedure which could apply where voluntary arrangements are not followed. These procedures are now given statutory effect by the Act of 2001. In considering the nature of the new powers given to it, and the circumstances in which it is appropriate to invoke them, the Court has stated in recommendation LCR17745 (Bank of Ireland and IBOA) as follows:
The powers which are given to the Court by the Act are a far reaching departure from the normal approach to the resolution of industrial relations disputes. They provided, in effect, that the Court may arbitrate in a dispute on the unilateral application of one party and in circumstances where the other party may not consent to the process. It seems to the Court that, having regard to the voluntary nature of our industrial relations system, such an intervention is only appropriate where it is necessary in order to provide protection to workers whose terms and conditions of employment, when viewed in their totality, are significantly out of line with appropriate standards.
The new procedures are not intended to provide for trade union recognition per se, (in the sense that the Union will be recognised as the collective representative of employees in all matters of difference with their employer), and cannot produce that result. Rather, they are intended to provide a measure of protection to employees in employments where collective bargaining arrangements are not in place and, in consequence, terms and conditions of employment as a whole are out of line.
In the present case, the Court cannot see any basis upon which it could conclude that the terms and conditions of employment of those associated with the present claim, when viewed in their totality, are out of line with acceptable standards. In consequence, the Court does not consider it appropriate to issue substantive recommendations, under section 5(1) of the Act, on the claims under investigation.
In respect of the claim regarding disciplinary and grievance procedures, the Court wishes to point out that in the event of a complaint alleging an infringement of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (S.I. 146 of 2000), such complaint can be addressed pursuant to section 43(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
19th November, 2004______________________
CON/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.