LCR22303

1.Claim for compensation for alleged breach of a Collective Agreement

BACKGROUND:

2.UNION’S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The Unionclaim that the Company breached the 2011 Collective Agreement, which resulted in compulsory redundancy for its members

2.The Union claims to have put forward a number of proposals including seeking redeployment options for its members.

3. The Union is seeking the removal of the cap on the redundancy payments due to the Company’s breach of the 2011 Collective Agreement.


EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1.The Company denied that it was in breach of the 2011 Collective Agreement.

2.The Company contends that Claimants have refused to consider applying for any alternative vacant roles within the business,despite a total of 28 alternative roles being notified to them.

3.The Company maintains that a generous redundancy package had previously been agreed with the Union.

RECOMMENDATION:

The matter before the Court concerns a claim by the Union that the Company breached the 2011 Collective Agreement, which it alleged resulted in the compulsory redundancy of all its members in the Lead Process Technician group. The Union sought compensation for the alleged breach.

Under the 2011 Collective Agreement, due to a change in its business requirements, (ceasing its sterile manufacturing business and moving to vaccines and biopharma), it was agreed that the Lead Process Technician grade would be a “sunset grade” which would cease by natural attrition or redundancy. There were 19 Lead Process Technicians at the time. In 2019/2020, a separate group of production operatives, Process Operator Technicians were in dispute with the Company and threatened industrial action. They were seeking to be appointed to shift positions ahead of the LPT group. In an effort to resolve that dispute, management agreed to proposals made by the Process Operator Technicians which the Union stated had a negative impact on the Lead Process Technicians as they were in breach of the 2011 Collective Agreement and resulted in two Lead Process Technicians being moved from their workstations.

On 26th May 2020 the Company informed the Union that it intended to make the Lead Process Technicians redundant, stating that the requirements of the business to carry out the LPT work had diminished or effectively ceased due to the closure of two operations and the focus on its new products. It also stated that the LPT role was no longer part of a flexible, multi-skilled team. The Union put forward a number of proposals including seeking redeployment options for its members however, the Company stated that they would have to compete for new positions through a recruitment process.

Following extensive consultation, negotiation and conciliation, the Union submitted a claim before the Court for the removal of the cap on the redundancy payments due to the Company’s breach of the 2011 Collective Agreement.

The Company denied that it was in breach of the 2011 Collective Agreement. It stated that the Sterile operation is scheduled to close at the end of 2020 and as a result the role of the LPT is no longer required, as provided for in the 2011 Collective Agreement. This followed a review of options and a consultation process which began in May 2020. It held that alternatives to redundancies had been explored but were rejected. The Company stated that alternative roles at a higher grade were available, which the LPT’s could compete for, as provided for in the Company/Union agreement. Other options submitted by the Union were not viable as no vacancies existed in the roles identified. It submitted that to date, not one of the LPT group applied for alternative roles within the business, despite a total of 28 alternative roles being notified to them.

The Company contended that to achieve an uplift in redundancy terms in circumstances where the Claimants have refused to consider applying for any alternative vacant roles within the business is inconsistent with good IR practice. It already has a generous redundancy package which has been agreed with the Union.

Having considered the submissions of both parties, the Court notes that the 2011 Collective Agreement envisaged that the members of the LPT group would not be replaced and provided that the role of LPT would cease by either natural attrition or redundancy. However, the Agreement envisaged upskilling and re-deployment to the new business which is no longer available to the LPT group, unless they accept regrading to the lower POT group on a lower rate of pay. Otherwise the alternative employment positions require the LPT’s to compete for higher position or to accept temporary roles. It appears to the Court, therefore, that the option of natural attrition is no longer available and the redundancies which have now arisen are compulsory in nature contrary to the Claimants’ expectations. On that basis the Court is of the view that the circumstances envisaged under the terms of the 2011 Collective Agreement have changed. Therefore, the Court recommends on a once off basis, and applicable in these circumstances only, that the terms of the ex-gratia redundancy payments should be amended by the following:-

• •Capped at 104 weeks (Note: employees with more than 17.3 years’ service that have reached the cap of 104 weeks of ex-gratia payment will receive an extra 10 weeks,and those with more than 30 years’ service will receive an additional 10 weeks).

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
DC	______________________
December 2020	Caroline Jenkinson