FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BMS IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Issues Relating to Implementation of Project Focus
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its members in relation to proposed changes associated with restructuring within the Company and the impact such changes could potentially have on its members. The Company is a U.S owned multinational bio-pharma organisation and operates two major manufacturing plants in Ireland; one located in Cruiserath, Dublin 15 and the other located in Swords, Co Dublin. This dispute concerns facilities management employees at the Swords plant. The Company communicated the global requirement to restructure its facilities management operations and as part of a cost-saving initiative, the Company announced its plans to outsource its facilites management operations at the Swords plant to a Company specialising in this area. The Union on behalf of its members contacted Management and outlined their strong opposition to outsourcing. At a later stage the Union informed Management that any unilateral decision to outsource being taken would lead to industrial action commencing. 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 30th November 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th March, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that the practice of outsourcing has previously led to job losses and redundancies and is therefore strongly opposed to it.
2. The Swords plant requires a highly-skilled and experienced workforce with an in-depth working knowledge of the plant. The Union asserts that this cannot be achieved through outsourced employees.
3.The hiring of 15 additional outsourced employees will greatly increase salary costs. The Union struggles to comprehend how this can be viewed as a cost-saving measure.
4. The Union maintains that there is a strong mistrust amongst employees towards Management with regards to job security.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is a global requirement to restructure facilites management operations at the Swords plant as part of essential cost-saving measures.
2.Management contend that there will be no redundancies or changes to terms and conditions of employment associated with the proposed outsourcing. These assurances were provided in a proposal drafted in conjunction with the Labour Relations Commission however this was rejected by the Union.
3.Union members are causing unnecessary and unreasonable delay to the implementation of the proposed changes and are bringing unwanted attention to the plant.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that proposals to resolve this dispute were formulated at conciliation which were recommended by the negotiators on both sides for acceptance. While these proposals were rejected by the Union they are, in the Court's view, reasonable and safeguard fully the interests of the workers associated with this claim.
The Court further notes that the Union have put forwards a counter proposal upon which the project in issue could proceed. It is not clear where the difference in substances lies between this counter proposal and the original proposal agreed at conciliation.
The Court recommends that the parties return to conciliation for further discussions with a view to reaching agreement on a document based on both proposals. These discussions should be completed within a four-week timeframe. If final agreement is not reached the issue should be referred back to the Court for final adjudication.
In the interim the Union should agree to accept the Company's proposal in principle, subject to such safeguards as will ultimately be agreed in the process referred to above, and agreed to cooperate with such measures as are required to allow it to proceed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
11th March 2011______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.