FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SCHERING PLOUGH (BRAY) LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Union Recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the TEEU and the pharmaceutical company Schering Plough in relation to Trade Union recognition on behalf of Craft workers (Maintenance Technicians) employed at the Company's plant in Bray, Co Wicklow. The Union is seeking the right to represent its members and outlined that it negotiates on behalf of workers at the Company's other two plants. The Company's position is that the workers in question transferred to salary staff status in 1998 and in return for enhanced pay and conditions accepted that future pay increases would be performance related and based on individual assessment. It also contends that the terms and conditions of the workers in question are well ahead of comparable employments and that it negotiates individually with its workers should any issues arise. Terms and conditions at the Company's other plants are negotiated on a site specific basis and are not relevant to the claimants in this case as their status and duties are different.
The Union accepts that the 1998 Agreement provided for an individual performance related pay structure for Craft Technicians in the Bray plant and that different pay arrangements apply in the other two plants. The Union is not in dispute with the Company in relation to any specific issue other than the right to represent its members should any issue arise.
The Union served notice of Industrial action on the Company to expire on February 13th 2006: This action was deferred at the request of the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) pending the outcome of the Labour Court Hearing.
The issue in dispute was not resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 16th February 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st March 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The TEEU are recognised to represent its members at the Company's other two plants. The right of the Trade Union to represent its members at the Company's Bray plant should be accepted by the Company.
2. There are several precedences where it has been recommended that Trade Unions be recognised in representing its members both individually and collectively.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has procedures in place should any issues arise and as wage determination has already been accepted, it is not necessary for the Trade Union to negotiate for its members on a collective basis. Concession of the claim could have serious repercussions for staff at the Company's other plant.
2.The group of workers in this case are not comparable to the workers employed at the other plants as they have different status as employees and different duties.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that there are no issues in dispute between the parties other than the Union's claim for recognition rights on behalf of Craft Technicians in membership of TEEU in the Company's Bray plant.
Having considered the submissions of both parties, the Court recommends that the employer should recognise the Union in respect of those of its employees, which it has in membership, for normal industrial relations purposes
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
4th April 2006______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.