FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GLAXOSMITHKLINE - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Implementation of the Vision Factory Project
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between SIPTU and Glaxosmithkline in relation to the implementation of a new method of operation entitled "vision factory." The Company operates at Carrigaline, Co Cork and is part of the Glaxosmithkline Manafacturing Network. The Company in engaged in the production of primary drug substances. The parties are in dispute in relation to what should be conceded by management in return for cooperation with the "vision factory" project. The Union is seeking the following: (a) consolidation of 6% performance related pay into basic pay, (b) 3% productivity payment added to basic pay, (c) 24 hours extra holidays p.a., (d) new performance based pay scheme, (e) VHI cover for retirees (f) maximum site CIM to apply into the future and (g) agreed manning levels for cooperating with the
implementation of the project.
Management rejects the Union's claim on the basis that the changes emerging from the "vision factory" project will be minimal. In addition,the Company's other plants implemented the necessary changes without seeking additional payments.
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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 4th April, 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 9th August, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers sought proactively to be involved in the pilot projects of "vision factory" but were excluded from discussions. The Union subsequently sought more information on the project so that an agreement could be concluded concerning its implementation. The Company have not accepted that the changes involved will be significant and will result in savings for the company.
2. It is unacceptable that management do not consider changes arising from vision factory as significant unless a possibility of "a loss of earnings and having implications for security of employment" exists. The project clearly provides for a much more efficient running of the Company's operation which will inevitably result in significant changes and savings.
3.Any changes that may occur whereby "efficiencies could be identified which could lead to changes in shift patterns or exchanges of duties between groups" must be considered as significant and must be the subject of negotiation between the parties. Given the changes and savings involved, the Union's claim is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The introduction of vision factory is nothing more than an example of normal ongoing change. It is unacceptable that the Union and its members have delayed the implementation of the project on the basiss that the changes involved are significant. Significant changes that may occur as a result of the implementation of the project will be the subject of negotiation between the parties in the normal way.
2. The Company is operating in an extremely competitive environment. The Company's Cork plant has been identified as a global supply plant and a new product introduction site. It is essential that the vision factory project be implemented to ensure that the Company remains competitive. Other sites have accepted the implementation of projects as normal ongoing change.
3. The claim is cost increasing and precluded under Sustaining Progress.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the Vision Factory project, which forms the subject matter of this dispute, involves normal ongoing change which, in itself will have a minimal impact on the Union members. Should proposals emerge from the project which could be regarded as significant change, the Court notes the Company's assurance that its implementation will be the subject of negotiation between the parties through normal channels. Should agreement not be reached on any such proposals the parties have the facility to refer the matter to the Court under the appropriate provision of Sustaining Progress (or its replacement).
However, the current dispute was not referred to the Court under Clause 1.10 (iv) of Sustaining Progress and the Company has made an offer in return for co-operation with Vision Factory. The Court is satisfied that having regard to all the circumstances the offer is reasonable and and should be accepted in return for full co-operation with the implementation of Vision Factory. The Court does, however, recommend that an amount equivalent to the site CIM bonus adjustment witheld in 2005 should be paid to each employee associated with this claim on acceptance of this Recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
30th August 2006______________________
AHKevin Duffy
Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.