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 : ARKOPHARMA IRELAND LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
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. The Company manufactures natural medicines for human end use and employs 34 people at its facility in Waterford. The Irish operation was set up in 1998, the parent company is located near Nice, France. The Union, on behalf of its 16 members, wrote to the Company on numerous occasions seeking to discuss matters of concern to their members. The Company refused to engage with the Union, stating that they managed employee relations directly with employees.
The Union referred the dispute to the Advisory Service of the Labour Relations Commission and both sides met on the 12th November, 2004. A further meeting took place on the 9th December, 2004.
As no agreement could be reached the issues were referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 2(1) of the Industrial Relations (Amendment Act), 2001, as amended by the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004, on the 12th January, 2005.
The issues before the Court concern a) pay structure/wage rates, b) overtime, c) sick pay scheme, d) Grievance Procedure, e) Pension Scheme.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th February, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union members are all paid different rates despite doing the same job. The Union is seeking to have all members paid at the standard rate of €11.5316 per hour.
2. The Company only pay overtime after 39 hours worked over the course of the week. Anyone who works on after the normal working day ends does not receive overtime.
3.The Union is seeking a proper Sick Pay Scheme which is not attached to any attendance bonus and which takes account of the average earnings.
4.The Union is seeking the introduction of S.I. 146 as the Grievance Procedure as the Company's grievance procedure is out of line with the norm.
5.The Union wish to have certain matters concerning the Pension Scheme clarified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company operates a single grade policy for the jobs concerned. All employees in the relevant grade require the same level of skills and the job description is the same.
2. The Company overtime system is based on weekly worked hours. The Company is willing to change to a daily system if required.
3. On 1st January each year the Company gives each production operator a personal fund equivalent to 2 weeks gross pay. This fund is drawn on to pay employees who become sick. If the number of sick days exceeds 10 no bonus is payable at the end of the year. Anything remaining is paid to the employee as a bonus at year's end.
4. The Company has its own Grievance Procedure in place.
5. The Company Pension Scheme is a defined contribution scheme for the purposes of the Pensions Act, 1990.
RECOMMENDATION:
This dispute was referred to the Court pursuant to Section 2(1) of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001, as amended by the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004 (the Acts). The Court is satisfied that the conditions specified at Section 2(1)(a) to 2(1)(d) of the Acts were fulfilled in this case and that the dispute was properly before the Court for investigation and recommendation.
This dispute has been referred to the Court following the failure of the parties to reach agreement in relation to the matters at issue at the Labour Relations Commission under the Enhanced Code of Practice on Voluntary Dispute Resolution (S.I. 76 of 2004).
The Court has taken careful account of the submissions of the parties in their written and oral presentations. Section 5(2) of the Act provides that a recommendation made by the Court shall not provide for arrangements for collective bargaining. Subject only to that restriction the Court is required to give its opinion on the matter under investigation and, where appropriate, its view as to the action, which should be taken having regard to the terms and conditions of employment, in the employment concerned.
Utilising the provisions of SI. 76 of 2004 the Union submitted a list of claims to the Labour Relations Commission.
The Court recommends the following on the claims submitted by the Union on behalf of its members in the Company:-
Pay Structure/Sustaining Progress Payments/Team Leaders Rate
To address these claims, the Court recommends that the Company should increase Production Operators, Capsule Operators and the Team Leader rates of pay by 5% from 1st July 2005, in addition to the individual performance based increases normally given at this time.
Grievance Procedures
The employer should put in place a disciplinary and grievance procedure, which conforms to the general provisions of the Code of Practice on Grievance, and Disciplinary Procedures (S.I. 146 of 2000). Consistent with the Code, the Company's procedure should provide for Trade Union representation in processing individual grievances and disciplinary matters, where an employee wishes to avail of such representation. The procedure should also provide for the full utilisation of the normal dispute resolution machinery of the State, including the reference of disputes to conciliation, the Rights Commissioner service and the Court, as appropriate.
Pension
Reassurance was given to the Union at the Court hearing, on the funding of the pension scheme, details of the nature of the scheme and on the levels of contributions made by both the employer and the employee. The Court notes that the Union was satisfied with this information and consequently did not require the Court to made a recommendation on this claim.
Job Description/Team Leader Role and Responsibility
Job Descriptions were supplied to the Union at the Court hearing for the Production Operator and Capsule Operator Team Leader Positions. The Court notes that the Union was satisfied with this information and consequently did not require the Court to make a recommendation on this claim.
Sick Pay Scheme
The Court recommends that the Sick Pay Scheme should be improved as follows:-
The Sick Pay Scheme should apply to those members who have completed one year's continuous employment with the Company. No payment to apply for the first three days of absence. Therefore, full pay less Social Welfare Disability Benefit to be paid for up to 4 weeks absence, all absences should be medical certified. The Court recommends that the scheme should be improved to provide for up to 8 weeks full pay less Social Welfare Disability Benefit in 2006.
Overtime Premia
The Court notes that the Company proposed to concede the Union's claim for payment of overtime premia after the normal daily hours have been worked. The Company outlined its proposal as :-
Monday to Thursday -the first 8 hours at normal time, the next 4 hours at time plus a half, and double time thereafter.
Friday -the first 7 hours at normal time, the next 4 hours at time plus a half, and double time thereafter.
Saturday -the first four hours worked to be paid at time plus a half, double time thereafter.
Sunday and Public Holidays -all hours worked to be paid at double time.
The Court notes that the Union was satisfied with this concession of their claim and consequently did not require the Court to make a recommendation on this claim.
Break Structure
The Company outlined the Break Structure for Operators - two paid breaks during the shift, each breaks consists of 2.5 minutes de-gowning, 15 minutes break and 2.5 minutes gowning (20 minutes in total for each break). The Court notes that the Union was satisfied with this information and consequently did not require the Court to make a recommendation on this claim.
Implementation
Save where it is otherwise provided these recommendations should be implemented within one month from the date on which they are issued.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
24th February, 2005______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.