FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : UCB SCHWARZ PHARMA (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Redundancy programme / Post redundancy structure.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company's Irish division is based at Shannon, Co. Clare and employs approximately 211 in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals. On 11th November 2008 the Company announced a reduction in the workforce of 55, leaving approximately 156 positions on site. The parent Company in Belgium instructed that the redundancies should be completed by the end of March 2009.
The issues in dispute are the severance package and proposals for the maintenance and facilities and other operating structures post - redundancy.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 26th March, 2009 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd April, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. 1. The Company is now seeking a reduction of 24 by way of compulsory redundancy from Union members and offered an initial 5 weeks pay per year of service plus statutory with a 2 year cap, this was eventually raised to 5.5 weeks plus statutory with a 2 year cap which included full and shift earnings. This is similar to an offer four years ago when other jobs were available on the open market.
2. Currently there are 50 Contractors on site, many of the jobs they perform could be carried out by direct staff at a much lower cost to the Company. In particular the calibration and instrumentation function can be carried out by qualified internal expert staff.
3.While there is an amount of flexibility in the Union's position there is one area where it cannot negotiate, that is in the area of "Lone Working", the presence of security staff does not offer a solution.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
2. 1. The Company's restructuring programme involves a plan to reduce costs across the site, through headcount reduction and all other areas of the business, with a view to positioning the Company more favourably within the UCB Group and therefore helps to secure the jobs of the remaining workers.
2. The Company must move forward with its restructuring programme, the proposals for maintenance and facilities structures, lone working and compulsory redundancies are both fair and reasonable in the current circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court recommends as follows, in the context of an overall settlement regarding the restructuring plan.
Severance Package:
In the present compulsory situation, the package should be improved to 6.5 weeks per year of service plus statutory entitlement, with the cap raised to 2.5 years' pay. A week's pay should be defined as agreed by the parties at Conciliation.
Contractor / Maintenance / Calibration Issue:
The Court recommends that the second proposal put by the Company at conciliation be accepted whereby the maintenance workers, after being made redundant, would be offered first refusal on day-to-day work which could not be covered by existing internal resources, and where they would be hired through an agency used by the Company.
Lone Working:
The Court recommends acceptance of the proposal made by the Company to utilise the 12 operators remaining on days in SPI with no manufacturing duties on a 4-cycle arrangement as proposed and encompassing the Union's suggestion that the annual 4-cycle value for four operators be equally distributed across all 12 in equal weekly instalments.
Maintenance / Facilities Operating Structure:
As indicated, the parties should conclude agreement on the basis already put forward by the Company.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
8th April, 2009.______________________
JF.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.