FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ASTELLAS IRELAND LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY JOHN HORGAN) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Increase in basic pay over and above National Pay Agreements.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the finishing (formulating and packaging etc.) of the drug Prograf which is used following organ transplantation and is located in Killorglin, Co. Kerry. The case concerns the Union's claim for a percentage increase in basic rates of pay to which, the Union maintains, the Company had committed in 2006.
In May, 2006, the Company presented the Union with a draft document of a number of changes it felt it needed to guarantee supply of its product. The Company claims that the proposals included a standard "working under protest" clause and, if accepted by the Union, the Company would pay an additional percentage payment over and above the National Pay Agreements. The Union rejected the proposals and the Company withdrew its offer. The Company acknowledges that Union co-operated with a process called "Effectively Changing - Together" which has brought about some of the benefits sought by the Company.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement 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 28th October, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers are entitled to a percentage pay increase as promised by the Company through a number of meetings since 2006. Significant changes have taken place in the plant in Killorglin which will benefit all concerned in years to come.
2. Technicians have identified seven additional areas of operation where they can be involved. This reduces the Company's reliance on outside contractors and makes it more cost-effective.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union rejected the concept of working under pressure and continues to do so to the present day. The Company had no choice but to withdraw its offer of a pay increase. It has offered to pay two lump-sum payments of €500 each in full and final settlement of the claim.
2. The Kerry plant faces increasing competition for products and investment from other manufacturing plants in the Astellas group. Workers in Killorglin already enjoy pay rates far more favourable that those generally enjoyed in the industry.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the comprehensive oral and written submissions made to it by the parties.
The Court is of the view that the question of a percentage increase over and above the basic terms of "Towards 2016" was contingent on the acceptance of the package put forward by the Company in May 2006 and that the rejection of this package presented an entirely new set of circumstances.
The Court also notes, however, that the Company is prepared to pay for the change achieved by consensus since 2006 and that lump sums have been offered in regard to this change.
The Court recommends that the parties re-engage as a matter of urgency to agree on a level of compensation for this change.
Should no agreement be reached on the size of such lump sums, the matter may be referred back to the Court for a definitive recommendation.
The parties are, in all the circumstances, urged to engage quickly and in a positive manner on this matter.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
3rd November, 2008.______________________
CON.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.