FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SMITHKLINE BEECHAM (CORK) LIMITED TRADING AS GLAXOSMITHKLINE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Compensation for Holiday Cover, Overtime and Weekly Hours in excess of 39
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and Union in relation to Compensation for Holiday Cover, Overtime and Weekly Hours worked in excess of 39. The Union's claim is that these issues are covered in long-established Company/ Union agreements and cannot be unilaterally removed without adequate compensation.
Managment's position is that in light of the current financial situation within the Company and the current level of utilisation, there is no need for such cover and is seeking that the Holiday Cover Agreement between the parties be terminated. The other issues in dispute between the parties are the subject of separate discussions at the Labour Relations Commission.
The matter at issue before the Court was not resolved at local level and was the subject of a number 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 21st December, 2009 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act. A Labour Court hearing took place on 29th January, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The provisions of the Holiday Cover Agreement have, over many years, greatly increased the earnings of the workforce. The staff concerned have provided great flexibility to the Company in covering such absences and it is unreasonable that the Company is now attempting to unilaterally withdraw from the Agreement.
2 The Holiday Cover Agreement clearly states that there must be negotiations on any changes to its provisions. It is accepted that there are certain financial and commercial issues that the Company must address but it must be done through agreed practices and procedures with an appropriate level of compensation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Company must address its current operating losses and the fact that the plant is operating at a low level of utilisation. It is essential that the Holiday Cover Agreement be terminated as the associated costs can no longer be sustained in circumstances where the cover in question is no longer needed.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of the parties and recommends as follows in relation to the issues in dispute: -
- Holiday Cover Agreement
It is clear that this is a long-standing Agreement which provides those to whom it relates with significant additional earnings. However, no agreement can be regarded as immutable for all time and it is not unreasonable for the Company to seek agreement to its termination in circumstances where the overtime in question is unnecessary and the Company’s financial and commercial circumstances have deteriorated. However, given the period of time over which the Agreement has operated, and the monetary value of the overtime which it generates, substantial compensation is warranted.
The Court recommends that the parties should now agree to terminate the agreement on the following terms: -
Other Issues
The Court further recommends that the other issues raised by the Company in its submission should be the subject of further discussions with a view to reaching final agreement. These discussion should commence as soon as possible following acceptance of this Recommendation and should conclude within a period of two months. If final agreement is not reached and outstanding matters should be referred back to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
15th March 2010______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.