FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WYETH NUTRITIONALS IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - 74 LABORATORY STAFF (REPRESENTED BY UNITE) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Introduction of a new work schedule in the laboratories - "Global Lean Labs Programme"
BACKGROUND:
2. The matter before the Court concerns the introduction of Cost Competitiveness Proposals within the Quality Control Laboratories at the Company's Askeaton plant. In December 2009 the Company announced that the plant at Askeaton would be part of the Lean Labs Programme. This Programme was developed as part of a competitiveness strategy with the objective of significantly reducing the plant's cost base and determining the best way to utilise people and materials. It is the Company's position that such changes are necessary for the long term sustainability of the Askeaton plant. The Union argue that implementation of the Lean Labs Programme as it is, would be unworkable. It is seeking to continue engagement between the parties on the introduction of technological and process change with a view to ongoing improvements and efficiencies in the laboratories.
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 4th May, 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th July, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Company proposals are unworkable. Any attempt to introduce them on a permanent or trial basis will place the workers in an impossible position and lead to increased stress and conflict.
2 The workers concerned have demonstrated their willingness on many occasions to embrace technological and process changes that are stable and soundly based with predictable outcomes. They will continue to work with the Company on that basis
3 A reduction in staff numbers to reduce costs that is based on an operational model that they consider unworkable is not acceptable.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The competitiveness of the Askeaton plant's cost base must be addressed. There is excess capacity in other facilities across the Company's network with lower unit costs. The Competitiveness Strategy has been developed to address this competitiveness gap and must be implemented to secure the maximum number of sustainable jobs at the Askeaton facility into the future.
2 The delay in achieving cost savings is having a detrimental affect on the financial performance of the Askeaton plant. The necessary savings can only be achieved through the Lean Labs Programme within the Quality Control Laboratories.
3 The Company's position is that the Labour Relations Commission's recommended proposals should be implemented immediately.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns the introduction of the Company’s Cost Competitiveness proposals for Laboratory Technician Group. As part of the Company’s worldwide competitiveness plan it proposed to introduce “The Lean Labs Programme” and sought to introduce it at the Askeaton plant early in 2010. The goal of the Programme is “to reduce costs and improve quality, while maintaining a high level of customer service and establish a lab-specific continuous improvement culture”.
The Company stated to the Court that the competitiveness plan was essential in order to ensure the viability of the Askeaton plant within the Pfizer group and protect the maximum number of sustainable jobs on site.
The Court notes that an extensive consultation and engagement process was entered into between the Company and the Union over a period of sixteen months culminating in a set of proposals in April 2011 being developed and agreed between the parties under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, which was subject to a ballot of the Union members. These proposals were designed to address all remaining issues at that time and to establish a Joint Oversight Team, comprising of management and Unions members, chaired by the Labour Relations Commission to facilitate and review the operational change proposed, incorporating a three phased implementation plan. The proposals were rejected by the Union members.
The Union outlined for the Court the concerns of the Laboratory Technicians involved. These concerns mainly relate to the possibility of compulsory redundancies, lack of confidence in the operation of the proposals and the appointment of three new non-Laboratory Technician positions. While the April 2011 proposals were rejected by the Union members, the Court notes that they were not rejected in their entirety and some of the proposals were acceptable.
Having given careful consideration to the submissions made by both parties the Court recommends that the dispute should be referred back to the conciliation service of the Labour Relations Commission to finalise the April 2011 proposals in an effort to address the concerns outlined above by the Union. This process should be completed by no later than the 31st August 2011.
When the proposals are finalised and while retaining the original timelines outlined for running the trials associated with the introduction of the new proposed changes, the trials should commence forthwith.
Furthermore, the Court recommends that the final review outlined at phase three of the proposals should be availed of to address any outstanding issues which emerge from the trials. On completion of the final review stage in the event of any remaining issues outstanding at that point, they may be referred back to the conciliation service of the Labour Relations Commission/The Labour Court.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
27th July, 2011______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.