FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MSD,BRINNY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - 33 PROCESS OPERATIVE TECHNICIANS (POTS) (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Difficulties regarding the application of the 2011 Site Collective Agreement
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 2 May 2019 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 26 June 2019.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union states the Employer is trying to alter the original proposal in redeploying Process Operative Technicians (POTs) to Vaccines.
2. The Union states this is a displacement of the Process Operative Technicians contrary to the 2011 Site Collective Agreement.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer states that there is no process to displace the Process Operative Technicians from shift work contrary to the 2011 agreement.
2. The Employer states the Union Members' interpretation of the 2011 agreement is inconsistent with the wording of Clause 5 and Clause 11 of the overall Company Union Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Dispute
Schering Plough Ireland Limited (commonly known as MSD Brinny) (‘the Company’) is owned by Merck Incorporated. SIPTU (‘the Union’) separately represents two distinct groups of technicians at the MSD Brinny site in Innishannon, Co. Cork: Process Operative Technicians (POTS) and Lead Process Technicians (LPTS). The latter group is a ‘sunset grade’. It is common case that the individuals in the group are red-circled and those who leave that group -through promotion or otherwise -are not being replaced. Nine LPTS remain in the business at present. The Union has 160 members in the POTS group. LPTS are remunerated at a higher rate than POTS although there is now no difference between the nature of the work they respectively perform.
Each group of technicians is represented by a different Union official. Traditionally, they were associated with different branches of the Union. Hence, two site collective agreements were negotiated between the Company and the Union in 2011. Both collective agreements are in near identical terms: one pertains to the POTS group and the second to the LPTS group. The within dispute has been referred to the Court on behalf of the POTS group only. That group are of the view that the Company is in breach of its 2011 Agreement with them arising from the manner in which technicians have been selected for deployment in its new vaccine business at the Brinny site in the context of the transition of the business from traditional sterile pharmaceutical manufacturing to a new biologics and vaccines manufacturing process (modern biopharma).
The Union referred the Court to an October 2018 document entitled “Vaccine IPT Overview” which proposed the redeployment of 33 POTS to Vaccines. In a subsequent communication, management made an amendment to the original proposal and identified that 31 POTS and 2 LPTS would redeploy to Vaccines. In the Union’s submission, this change on management’s part amounts to a breach of the following provision in the 2011 Agreement:
- “No Process Operative Technician will be displaced from an area or shift by another grade as a result of this agreement.”
The Company, on the other hand, submits that there has been no breach of the 2011 Agreement as it predates the advent of the new Vaccines and Biologics developments. The new building – Building 21 – didn’t exist when that Agreement was entered into. Furthermore, according to the Company, Building 8 has been in operation for a number of years and both groups of technicians have worked alongside each other there, making product, for many years, without issue. In the Company’s submission, therefore, there is an established precedent on site for POTS and LPTS to work alongside each other in a variety of processes.
The Company gave the Court a detailed overview of the change-management process that has been worked through and agreed to facilitate the changeover from Sterile to Biologics and Vaccines. The former (3-shift) is scheduled to close at the end of 2020 when remaining operators will be transferred to the new production areas. Previously, Sterile had 2x3-shift operations i.e. 6 different teams, each working a 3-cycle shift. During the wind-down of Sterile, the operation has been scaled back to a single 3-shift operation (3 teams) as capacity has reduced.
Meanwhile, Vaccines and Biologics has ramped up and many of the 3-cylcle Workers have transferred to the new process but are working days pending further increase in capacity in the new processes. Following agreement with the Trade Unions on site, individual Workers were given a number of options they could choose from: (a) Vaccines (either 4-shift or days); (b) Biologics (currently a small number of Workers on days but due to go on shift in the future); (c) Warehouse; and (d) Stay in Sterile until 2020 and be guaranteed 3 shifts until that date. Selection was based on skillset first, then seniority. An appeals process was provided and all outstanding internal grievances have been processed and closed off.
Recommendation
It is clear to the Court that the provision of the 2011 Agreement invoked by the Union must be understood in a wider context. There is a long-established practice of POTS and LPTS working alongside one another. The LPTS is a sunset grade, the members of which will not be replaced. A detailed change-management process has been agreed between the Company and the Unions to facilitate the orderly transition from traditional sterile manufacturing to modern vaccines and biopharma. That change-management programme is currently being implemented and followed. There has been no breach of the 2011 Agreement in doing so.
The Court, therefore, finds that the Union’s complaints are not well-founded and does not recommend concessions of the claims advanced by the Union in the within dispute.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
TH______________________
22nd July 2019Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.