FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : PFIZER IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Interpretation of the Analogue Agreement
BACKGROUND:
2. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals is a large American multinational company consisting of research, development, manufacturing both human and animal products and sales and marketing divisions. In Dun Laoghaire it employs over 240 staff of which approximately 90 are members of the Chemicals, Healthcare and Distribution Branch of SIPTU.
The dispute arises due to differing interpretations of the Analogue Agreement regarding its scope in light of the proposed changes in work practices and job specifications sought by the Company, due mainly to the major investment at the site and the locating of the new sterile/aseptic facility. The Company's view is that the changes sought are covered by the Analogue Agreement and "Towards 2016" while the Union contends that due to the magnitude of the changes sought, they are seeking an enhanced rate of pay above that of the agreement.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 15th May 2007 in accordance with Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and both parties agreed to be bound by the recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th June 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1. The creation of the new Biochemical Technician grade and the phasing out of the Lead Hand grade is outside of the remit of the Analogue Agreement.
2. Two comparator companies are no longer within the Analogue for benchmarking purposes, these ought to be replaced by companies that operate a sterile/aseptic facility. The outstanding % increase due since July 2006 should be paid immediately.
3. Union Members aspire to having the best terms and conditions of any pharmaceutical Worker in the country and seek to be rewarded beyond "Towards 2016" and the Analogue Agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1. The Analogue consists of 13 pharmaceutical companies in Ireland and was negotiated in 1991 as a comprehensive arrangement that rewards Workers for their continued support and cooperation with change, the National Wage Agreement is paid in addition to this. The Analogue framework is therefore the appropriate mechanism for resolving the current dispute.
2. The challenges facing the Company in Ireland are numerous, including competitiveness erosion over the past 15 years, low cost locations such as India and China where labour costs are 10% that of Ireland. Tax competition with places like Puerto Rica and Singapore and the expiry of patents on specific drug products which are then produced generically.
3. Attention is drawn to the loss of a significant number of jobs in the Cork plants and the general reduction in production volumes forecast. It is appropriate to assume that the Dun Laoghaire facility is as vulnerable as any other site that is dealing with competitiveness issues.
RECOMMENDATION:
The case before the Court under Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 relates to the scope, application and interpretation of the 1991 Analogue agreement in relation to the Company's proposed changes for Biochemical Operators. The Company is of the view that the changes sought are covered within the terms of "Towards 2016" and the Analogue Agreement. It states that the comparator grades within the Analogue group of companies perform the tasks required under the Company's proposals. The Union disputes the Company's position and seeks an enhanced rate of pay due to the magnitude of the changes sought.
The Company informed the Court that the Union refused to work under protest in line with the terms of the agreement not because it disputes the proposed new work practicesper sebut because it sought remuneration for changes over and above that provided by the applicable agreements.
The Company informed the Court of its current competitive position and its necessity to meet its key project timelines, the next of which is the manufacture of validation batches in July 2007.
Having considered the submission of both parties and examined the agreement referred to, the Court is of the view that the scope and purpose of the Analogue Agreement gives the Company the right to look for change consistent with the duties and responsibilities of the comparators in the analogue companies.
Therefore, the Court concurs with the Company's position that the analogue framework is the appropriate mechanism for resolving the current dispute and decides that the Union should co-operate immediately with the proposed changes pending agreement on the outstanding issues, which should be finalised within a period of three months.
In the event that there are any outstanding issues, these may be referred back to the Court for a definite recommendation.
This decision of the Court is brought under Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and is binding on both parties.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
6th July 2007______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.