FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : PFIZER IRELAND PHARMECEUTICALS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Christmas cover.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a manufacturing Pharmaceutical Company and the current dispute involves the Ringaskiddy plant in Cork. Agreement was reached in 2002 for the incorporation of the Process Operator and Chargehands into the higher role of Enhanced Operator. Prior to 1998 the normal practice was to have a full and unmanned shutdown over Christmas, usually three days. The Company changed this practice in 1998 to one where it left plant services "ticking over". This was organised on the basis of 4-hour slots per person in each of the five production areas. The current payment for this 4-hour slot is €880 plus 4 hours at the appropriate overtime rate. Prior to 2005 names were drawn from a list of those workers who were interested in the Christmas cover. This included the Enhanced Operators and the Plant Shift Leaders (PSLs). The Union's claim is that the option of Christmas cover should be offered in the first instance to the Enhanced Operators and, if they are not available, the cover can be provided by the PSL. The Company's case is that in late 2005 the Enhanced Operators made a unilateral decision that they would have first choice for the Christmas cover. The Company maintains that the system which existed prior to 2005 should continue.
A number of talks took place at local level before being referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference took place but, as the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 26th May, 2006, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th December 2006, in Cork.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. (1) The Enhanced Operators provide full cover for the 362 days of the year whereas the PSL group does not provide cover at any stage of the year. The Enhanced Operators should have first refusal for the 3 days' cover at Christmas.
(2) The 2002 agreement resulted in a far greater number of Operators trained to do the monitoring role required. This meant that there was no longer such a requirement for cover from the PSL group.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. (1) Since the Company introduced the Christmas cover arrangement in 1998 no one group was ever entitled to put a claim on this cover or demand first call on any of the slots.
(2) The decision by the Enhanced Operators that the PSLs would no longer be considered to provide Christmas cover was taken without the agreement or involvement of the Company or the Union's APT branch. The decision has created a conflict between the different groups of workers.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court is of the view that, in the absence of any written agreement on "Christmas Cover", the established custom and practice should prevail. The Court is satisfied that the custom and practice established over a number of years has provided for the sharing on a fair and equitable basis of the necessary cover between Plant Shift Leaders and other grades.
Therefore, the Court recommends that "Christmas Cover" should continue on the same basis and be shared between Plant Shift Leaders and the Enhanced Operative Grade.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
9th January, 2007______________________
CON/MC.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.