FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ASTELLAS IRELAND CO. LIMITED (KERRY PLANT) (REPRESENTED BY JOHN HORGAN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Implementation of agreement on Multi - Skilling Assembly/Disassembly).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a finished pharmaceutical manufacturer and was formerly known as Fujisawa Ireland Limited. The dispute concerns the implementation of the terms of a social partnership agreement which dates from July 1999. The agreement included a clause on multi-skilling, and the specific issue concerns the disassembly/reassembly of capsule-filling equipment by production operators in conjunction with a technician. The agreement provided for two additional increments on the pay scale / creation of grades 11 and 12.
The Company employs two permanent technicians who disassemble / reassemble the equipment (there are also a number of temporary technicians). If one of the technicians was not available a production operator would assist in the work. The Union is claiming that the Company wants the production operators trained-up as a technician and maintains that this was not part of the agreement. It is also concerned that the Company might eventually do away with the technicians posts. The Company denies this, stating that the operators are only being asked to assist a technician when the second technician is not present (there was disagreement between the parties as to the exact wording in the agreement).
The dispute was the subject of a number of conciliation conferences with the Labour Relations Commission as well as independent investigators (including an IPC report). In May, 2004, the Union sought payment of €900 for Grade 12 operators in relation to multi-skilling but management refused to pay. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 31st of May, 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th of January, 2006, in Tralee, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The 1999 agreement included a list of basic competencies (details supplied to the Court). Workers had to take on 2/3 of these skills as part of multi-skilling but it was never intended that they would be competent in all skills or that they would do the full work of a technician. Workers who are skilled in 3 competencies should be paid as per the agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has gone to great length to convince the Union to implement the terms of the 1999 agreement. A document dated November, 2003, clarifies the Company's position. The future of the Company is best served by developing a highly skilled and flexible workplace.
2. The Company does not intend replacing the permanent technicians with production operators.
3. If grade 12 employees are to be paid the €900 claimed they must be skilled in the disassembly / reassembly of the capsule-filling equipment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having regard to the wording used, and all other relevant considerations, the Court accepts that the Multi-Skilling Agreement obliges Grade 12 Operators to undertake the work involved in the disassembly of capsule filling equipment in conjunction with a technician. The Court recommends that those involved should now agree to undertake this work with whatever training is necessary.
The Court noted the Company's assurance that the implementation of this agreement will not result in any redundancies amongst permanent technicians. The Court recommends that this commitment be formally conveyed to the Union. The Court further recommends that following the full implementation of the Agreement (as interpreted above) the parties should have further discussions regarding the future employment of the temporary technicians currently employed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
3rd February, 2006______________________
CON/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.