Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Operator

Pharmaceutical Plant

Representatives

Tom Fitzgerald of Unite the Union

HR Director

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00009278-001

25/01/2017

This case was an urgent reference to the WRC as the Plant in question is due to finally close by the end of June 2017. It is recognised that an additional 24 claims on almost parallel facts are also lodged with the WRC.

The closure of the Respondent Plant by mid-Summer of 2017 was first announced in November 2013. A lengthy phasing out process commenced. Production of product was continued almost to the final end of the Plant. A very major series of negotiations on the closure took place, in early 2014, with UNITE the Union . A very comprehensive Redundancy package was agreed in May 2014.

A part of this process was that a Voluntary Exit process, in parallel with the main Package would be established. Arising from the Voluntary Severance exit process vacancies would arise in sections that were not due for immediate closure . These vacancies could be filled by short term redeployments from sections of the Plant that were listed for earlier closing. Effectively this would give some extra employment to some employees who did not want to compulsorily exit at earlier dates.

The LIFO process was to apply to the selection of these “Stay On” employees. In the case in hand this process was breached and the Claimant (An employee in Dept. A) was denied an opportunity for some extra weeks work as shorter service employees remained in Department B for some weeks longer .

The Redundancy deal reached with UNITE was generous by any reasonable standard. The work in Department A finished on the 25^th November 2016 and the work in Department B finished on the 16^th December 2016.

Department B was working at full capacity to complete final orders. It had already accepted 6 redeployments and further redeployments (necessitating the release of experienced, albeit marginally shorter service employees to create vacancies in Department B) would have been grossly disruptive and effectively damaging to the business of the Company.

The Complainant accepted a very good Redundancy package and the current claim (effectively for a period of a theoretic loss of three week’s work) is completely unwarranted.

The case was the subject of considerable oral pleadings and discussions. Cross questioning was allowed and availed of. It was recognised that the discussions were in the context of a claim under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

The negotiators, both Respondent and Union, of the Redundancy deal of May 2014 were present and I looked at the document in some detail.

It was recognised that the Redundancy Deal of April/May 2014 had been, to use a phrase employed at the hearing, “Padded” in certain sections to enhance benefits. In discussions it was recognised that the use of “Padding” in negotiations of this nature was often to iron out minor difficulties in the deal that could not be anticipated fully at the time of the negotiations.

The issue in this claim is one of these difficulties (a minor deviation from LIFO for a small number of staff for good business reasons in the last four weeks of the Plant) and has, in my view, been adequately provided for in a very substantial Redundancy package. There is no valid argument in this case to enhance or reinterpret the package agreed in May 2014.

In addition the Respondent arguments, in detail from the Manager of Department B, that the simple logistics of exiting experienced staff and accepting further redeployments to the 6 already taken in earlier would have been most disruptive in the last few weeks of operations of the Department. The highest standards of quality and compliance were required in what was a Pharmaceutical production facility. I accepted that there was very good common sense in this organisational point.

Accordingly taking both points above into account I dismiss this claim in its entirety.

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Recommendation

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00009278-001

Claim is not well founded and is Dismissed.