FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LEO PHARMA (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Changes to the working week arrangement for Production Operatives.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Employers plans to move from a 24-hour 5-day (24/5) shift to a 24-hour 7-day (24/7) shift.
- The Union said that the fundamental issue in dispute is not the introduction of 24/7 shift arrangements but the shift patterns and the terms and conditions that apply in such circumstances.
The Employer said that the 24/7 Company proposal document is the result of a long and committed effort by both management and union representatives and it meets the concerns of both parties.
- This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 4 May 2018 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1 June 2018.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The transition from a 24/5 operation to 24/7 operation is life changing, especially so in the pharmaceutical manufacturing environment as the processes are highly complex, highly regulated, high volume and highly pressurised.
2. The issues still in dispute include bank holiday arrangements, health cover, canteen facilities, sick pay arrangements, compensation for loss of overtime and a weekend opt-out clause.
3. Concession of the Union's claims in their totality will have minimal impact on the Company’s overall financial situation. However a failure to resolve them on the Union's proposed terms will have a detrimental impact on the workers health and well-being, their personal and family lives and will have serious adverse financial implications for them.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
- 1. The primary need for the move 24/7 operations arises out of the pressing need to manufacture additional volumes of a key products used in the treatment of a range of human diseases.
2. The company is behind schedule in its efforts to meet market demand for its products despite extensive weekend overtime and other initiatives introduced to increase the plant's output. As a consequence it has no option but to move to 24/7 shift operations.
3. The Company needs to demonstrate its capacity to respond to marked demand in order to enable it to secure future capital investment for the site and secure and expand the employment levels within the plant.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the extensive written and oral submissions of both parties to this dispute. In that context the Court recommends that the Company amend its offer of 23rdFebruary 2018 in line with the terms outlined below and that the Union accept the amended offer and operate the revised shift arrangements with effect from 1stSeptember 2018.
Recommended Amendments:
- 1.Sign-On/Lead-in Bonus
- The Court recommends an increase from €500 to €1000 payable to all affected members of staff on acceptance of the new arrangements and a further €2000 to each member of staff when called upon to operate the new 24/7 shift.
- The Court recommends that the arrangements agreed in 2009 for 24/5 shift working should continue to apply on the introduction of the 24/7 shift.
- 3.Self-Certification
- The Court recommends that the arrangements agreed in 2009 for 24/5 shift working should continue to apply on the introduction of the 24/7 shift.
- The Court recommends that the Company proposals in this regard should apply as per clause 13.4 of the Company’s proposal of 23rdFebruary 2018.
- 5.Sunday afternoon working
- The Court does not recommend concession of the Union’s claim in regard to treating Sunday afternoon working as rostered overtime.
- The Court recommends that the Company agree to introduce a scheme of subsidised health insurance in the lifetime of the next pay agreement. The details of the scheme to be agreed between the parties in the context of the upcoming pay round talks.
- The Court recommends that the parties engage in further discussions to customise the Company’s proposed food service arrangements to the needs of both individuals and the various shifts affected. In that context the Court recommends that the Union accept the Company’s offer as amended by the outcome of those customisation talks.
- The Court recommends that the terms of the 2009 Agreement (letter dated 12thOctober 2009) on compensation for the loss of overtime, as operated in practice, continue to apply to losses of overtime that arise following the introduction of the 24/7 shift.
- 9.Optout from Weekend Working
The Court recommends that the staff members who take up the facility to opt out of working one weekend in a calendar month be replaced on the relevant shift on a non-cost increasing basis.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
CR______________________
12 June, 2018Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.