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 : SCHERING PLOUGH - BRINNY CO - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee 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. Schering-Plough (Brinny) Co. is a pharmaceutical company based in Brinny, Innishannon, Co. Cork and is involved in the manufacture of Human Health and Animal Health Products for a global market. It is part of a worldwide corporation with approximately 33 plants in total, The Cork plant is one of two sites in Ireland, the other at Rathdrum, Co. Wicklow, and employs approximately 700 people.
- The Union contends that it has significant representation rights at the Cork facility and has collective bargaining rights for 187 Process Operators and 119 Quality Assurance/Quality Compliance Personnel.
The dispute before the Court relates to a claim by the Union on behalf of ten of it’s members who work in Quality Assurance/Quality Compliance who, to date, have not been part of the collective bargaining system that applies to their colleagues in the same discipline. The Union is now seeking, on their behalf, to have the same rates of pay and terms and conditions of employment as their colleagues applied to them retrospective to October 2004, the date the Union say the claim was initially lodged.
The Company rejects the claim on the basis that it has agreements in place with the Union that covers the categories of employees that are covered by collective bargaining arrangements. These agreements do not cover the group of employees involved in this dispute who have an average time of less than two years in their positions.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court for investigation under Section 2(1) of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001, as amended by the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd June, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The group involved in this case voluntarily remained outside of the collective bargaining unit that was operating for their representative grade, grade 29. In 2004 a pay freeze was applied to the non-Union group in the Company while Union groups were in full receipt of the National Pay Agreements.
2. The Company's contention that these ten employees have higher potential earning power is clearly at variance with the facts. The Company stated that there was a continued attractiveness in stability and cost predictability. The Company also stated that their policy was to provide benefits and salaries which are competitive within the Pharmachem Industry. At present the salaries of the people represented in this claim are not even competitive with their own colleagues in Schering-Plough.
3. The Union are requesting that the benefits and salaries be competitive within their own Company and that the incremental scale that has applied since 2001 for the Analyst, Senior Analyst, Laboratory Assistant and Inspector group be extended to cover the Analysts/Senior Analysts in Quality Assurance and Quality Compliance represented in this claim, retrospective to October 2004, the date the claim was lodged.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has two types of salary policy in Cork. One is based on annual performance reviews and the other as incremental salary scales. The Company rejects the Union's claim that it has a right to convert a salary range based on performance reviews into an incremental scale, on the grounds that, the contracts of those on the annual performance reviews are individual agreements which both the employees concerned and the Company must continue unless they are changed by agreement.
2. The Union is asking the Court to endorse it's view that the Performance Appraisal System be discontinued for the ten employees who are directly involved with this dispute. The Company submits that it is not the function of the Court to determine Salary Policy for any Company. If this were to happen then in effect Companies would be denied their right to choose which Salary Policy is appropriate in their circumstances. This would be a very serious matter for the Company and Corporation overall.
3. The Company does benchmark salaries against the external market on a periodic basis. If this shows that an external inequity exists then it is addressed. The group that are involved in this dispute are being dealt with on a fair and reasonable basis by the Company. The pay range that covers them as a group is reasonable by reference to external comparison. The Union does not have the right to pursue a claim that could have the effect of increasing the Company's costs at Brinny both directly or indirectly.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim before the Court is for the members of this group to have the same terms and conditions as the Unionised group put forward as a comparator by the Union.
The workers in question became specialists and opted for a performance system with individual terms and conditions of employment.
In the context of the 2001/2004 Acts, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim as made.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
10th June, 2005______________________
JO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.