FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SCHERING-PLOUGH (BRINNY) CO - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Redundancy Package, manning levels and use of cameras
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the pharmaceutical company Schering Plough, and SIPTU in relation to compulsory redundancies, manning levels and the use of cameras at the company's Brinny plant at Innishannon, Cork. The company had sought voluntary redundancies from among its employees and terms had been agreed between the parties although insufficient applications were received from the General Operative grade. The issue in dispute concerns the compulsory redundancy of 23 General Operatives. The Union are seeking an enhancement of the terms agreed for the voluntary redundancies to 8 weeks pay per year of service and for the cap of 104 weeks to be removed. Management's position is that the terms offered for the redundancies are a premium package and cannot be enhanced.
In relation to the agreed manning levels, the dispute centres around whether the agreed manning levels should be adhered to regardless of the level of activity in each area. As regards the use of cameras, an agreement was reached on this issue but had been breached by management who felt that they had no choice in the exceptional circumstances in which they found themselves. The Union are seeking a pay increase for the continued co-operation of the workers with the use of the cameras.
The issues could not be resolved at local level and were the subject of several conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the matters were referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court Hearing took place on the 10th August, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:3. 1. The Compulsory Redundancies package is insufficient. The company is a profit making organisation and should enhance the terms of the package based on the short service of the workers concerned and the fact that they do not want to leave their employment.
2. An agreement was reached on the manning levels in the company although this should be reviewed on the basis that those willing to take up the voluntary redundancy package could not be accommodated and overtime levels are extraordinarily high to meet current production demands.
3. Management breached an agreement relating to the viewing of camera footage in the production area. It had previously been agreed that a video camera would be used to record only certain activities within the production area. The use of video cameras has brought additional pressure on a workforce already operating in a very stressful environment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The company has experienced difficulties in the past number of years as a result of increased competition in the market place. In the circumstances, the package being offered is exceptional and cannot be enhanced.
2. There is no specific agreement with regard to manning levels in each particular area of the company. The only agreement with regard to manning levels sets out the overall staff numbers in the company.
3. Management accepts that it breached the Agreement with regard to the use of cameras but it was in exceptional circumstances and not an intentional breach. This Company will continue to honour this Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and recommends as follows:
Redundancy
In respect of those to be made compulsorily redundant the Court recommends that a floor payment equal to 32 weeks pay, inclusive of statutory terms, should apply. It is noted that having regard to the length of service of those likely to be made compulsorily redundant the question of a cap is irrelevant.
Use of cameras
The Court is of the view that the breach of agreement in respect of which the Union has complained arose in circumstances of force majeure and did not constitute a deliberate or continuing refusal to abide by what had been agreed.
The Court notes, however, that the Union do not object to the use of cameras in the circumstances outlined by the Company. Rather their claim is for a continuing pay increase in return for agreement to the use of these cameras. The Court is not aware of any precedent for the payment of a general pay increase in similar circumstances either within the Company or elsewhere. Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Manning levels
The Company contends that the only agreement on manning levels relate to overall staffing levels and they are adhering to that agreement. The Union contends that the agreement relates to manning levels in particular operations.
There is no evidence that an agreement in the terms contended for by the Union ever existed between the parties. In these circumstances the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
29th August 2005______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.