FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GLAXO SMITH KLINE DUNGARVAN LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Pay claim.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures pharmaceutical products in Dungarvan, mainly ‘over the counter’ products, and employs about 276 workers.
The dispute before the Court concerns a pay package that the Union negotiated with the Company and recommended for acceptance. This was subsequently rejected by the workforce and then withdrawn by the Company. The Union is now seeking to have the package they rejected converted to a single benefit 6% increase in basic pay.
The Company has completed two payments on the second phase of Sustaining Progress, 1.5% from April 1st 2005 and 1.5% from October 1st 2005. The Company position is that it always operates within the framework of the national pay agreements and on certain occasions makes additional adjustments in favour of employees.
The Union maintain that every year improvements have been negotiated over and above the national wage agreements.
The dispute could not be 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 dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 29th July 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd March, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Union recommended acceptance of the 'Benefit Package' negotiated with the Company as it was believed that it would advance some of the outstanding issues and requests that had been on the table. The membership rejected the package.
2. The Union were instructed by their members to seek a 6% increase in basic pay in exchange for the package negotiated and rejected.
3. The Union's members have made major contributions, savings and sacrifices that have contributed to the well being of the Company and its profits.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The offer negotiated with the Union and recommended by it for acceptance was made on the basis that the offer would be accepted in its entirety. Failure to accept it would lead to its withdrawal.
2. The Company operates within the framework of National Wage Agreements.
3. Re-opening the negotiations is not an option.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court concerns the Union's claim that the Company's offer of an improvements package to pay and conditions of employment negotiated between the parties but rejected by the workforce, should now be converted to an increase of 6% in basic pay.
Having examined the package which was on offer, the Court is satisfied that it represents a significant increase in basic pay and improvements to the conditions of employment - without any conditions attached.
In all the circumstances of this case, the Court recommends that the Company should reinstate the offer with one amendment. In line with the reduction in service requirements for Levels 1 and 2, the Court recommends that the Job rate should commence at 12 months instead of the present service requirement of 18 months. Finally, the Court recommends that the amended package should be accepted in full and final settlement of all claims submitted by the Union in March 2005.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
5th April, 2006______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.