FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 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 Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. The future of security on site.
BACKGROUND:
2. Since 2005, corporate security in New York has directed that no Pfizer facility of any description should have its own in-house security. All over the world agreements were drawn up with specialist security firms to take on this work, Ringaskiddy Cork is now the only plant to continue with its own in-house security. The Union in return for its support is seeking concessions but the Company is insisting on outsourcing security without any preconditions.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a number of Conciliation Conferences which took place under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 23rd October, 2007, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd January, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. No economic argument was used to promote the outsourcing of the security role by the Company instead they are using the closure of the production unitto shed the in-house security staff.
2. The directly-employed security staff have delivered an impeccable service over the past 35 years, no recorded breach has been reported and such excellence may be hard to find when relying on outsourced staff.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is no longer willing to provide non-core activities including cleaning, catering, etc. which are now all outsourced and security must be provided by an external specialist firm.
2. In order to strengthen the future viability of the plant the Company must maintain an unremitting competitive drive to be more responsive, agile and cost-conscious in the manufacture of pharmaceutical intermediates and ingredients which is its only core activity.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is noted that the Union accepts the inevitability of security services being outsourced. It is however seeking some form of compensatory concession in return for agreement to what is proposed.
Having regard to the Union's stance on the matter and the circumstances in which the question of outsourcing arose, the Court recommends that the Company's proposal be accepted. The Court does not accept, however, that a case for compensation has been made out.
The Court further recommends that the Company ensures that any contractors engaged in providing security services observe appropriate conditions of employment for the sector in respect of employees engaged at the plant.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
5th February, 2008.______________________
JF.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.