FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : PFIZER IRELAND PHARMACEUTICALS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. 1. Conditions Of Employment 2. Shift Introduction 3. Union Management Agreement
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court today concerns changes identified by the Company required from employees following major investment and expansion. The changes identified include the introduction of a 24/7 shift working, new job descriptions and role profiles, the redeployment of some work functions and moving from hourly rate of pay to a performance related pay model. The Union has stated that it wishes to negotiate an agreement which facilitates and secures investment and jobs whilst also protecting decent existing terms and conditions of employment. It does not believe that this change is covered by the Analogue Agreement of 2003 as this expired in 2006. The Company's position is that these changes are covered by Analogue agreements and the national Wage Agreements. The Company believe that each of the changes are separate and distinct from each other and therefore should be considered separately on their particular facts and merits.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 17th September 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th November, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Union understand and accept the requirement to introduce shift working at the Company. Management have to provide the necessary detail to address the matter. The Union dispute the annual leave suggested for those who are on shift work. The Union has outlined a number of issues that must be addressed in relation to a fair and balanced agreement on shift working
2 Regarding new job descriptions and role profiles, the Union broadly accepts them, However a few issues remain outstanding. Issues remain regarding the redeployment of work functions but it remains within management's remit to resolve these issues to the Union's members satisfaction
3 The Union is opposed to the substitution of the existing process of pay determination to be replaced by the Company's merit pay system for current and future job holders identified. There is no logical or legitimate reason as to why either the current incumbents or future job holders should have their pay determination model changed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Company have the right to manage their business and by this fact can restructure roles to support the organisational needs. It is clear that there is no collective agreement in place in relation to these roles.
2 The various issues do not affect one particular group as a whole but rather affect various employees to varying degrees. Each change should be considered separately on its particular facts and merits.
3 The changes amount to normal ongoing change and as such are covered under National Wage Agreements and the site Analogue Agreement of 2008, which provides for change over and above normal ongoing change.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recommends as follows:
24/7 Shift Working:
The parties should jointly finalise the details of shift working. Points 1-4 of the Union's suggested 6-point plan in this area would represent a reasonable basis for this.
Shift Premium is paid for the inconvenience of working shift. Overtime payment is separately paid for having to work overtime. The parties should agree on a compensation package for any worker who suffers a loss of earnings directly and demonstrably attributable to the introduction of shift working for them or others. Such a package should accord with the norms which this Court has recommended in the past.
Job Description / Role Profiles:
The parties should finalise these in line with the clarifications given at the hearing on 20th November, 2008.
Redeployment of Work Functions:
It is for the Company to manage its business and to best deploy workers within the enterprise. These changes should be agreed to.
Change from hourly rate of pay to PMS System - FLM's & PTSE:
Unless reassurances can be offered regarding minimum increases in pay or unless workers opt to change to such a system, or until and unless any alternative agreements on pay determination are arrived at between the parties, the Court recommends that the pay terms of National Pay Agreements should continue to apply to the group concerned.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
23rd December, 2008______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.