FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SK BIOTEK (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - 89 GENERAL OPERATIVES (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION AND CONNECT TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Survival plan affecting the entire facility.
BACKGROUND:
2. 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 18 December 2019, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14 February 2020.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The employer proposed a survival plan for the business incorporating a range of elements including the implementation of a four-cycle shift.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Trade Union indicated a willingness to engage on the survival plan put forward by the company but rejected a proposal for a four-cycle shift and proposed amendments to five-cycle shift arrangements as an alternative.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court is set out as a dispute involving a survival plan affecting the entire facility which employs 375 people. Having regard to the gravity of the matter in dispute, the Court engaged extensively with both parties in its efforts to develop a full understanding of the positions of the parties.
The Court has heard submissions ranging across a diverse range of matters. It is clear to the Court that many of these matters require effective engagement between the parties in order to advance the possibility of agreement being achieved. The Court has concluded, without prejudice to the efforts of the parties, that effective engagement on these matters has not taken place to date. The Court has also concluded that the principal reason for the lack of progress on all other elements of the survival plan has been the failure of the parties to agree arrangements for the implementation of four-cycle shift working on the site.
The Court takes particular account of the grave implications of the employer’s clearly articulated assertion that no survival plan can be agreed for this site in the absence of an acceptance of four-cycle shift working. The meaning of this assertion is that the site will not survive in the absence of an agreed implementation of four-cycle shift working.
The Court also takes note of the employer’s offer on pay for 2019 and 2020.
In all of the circumstances the Court, without prejudice to the position of either party on any other matter, recommends as follows:
•That the parties should agree to the implementation of four-cycle shift working.•That the employer should apply pay increases of 2.5% with effect from 1stJanuary 2019 and a further 2.5% with effect from 1stJanuary 2020.
Having agreed these matters, the parties should then engage on all other matters proposed as part of the survival plan. Those matters will include the finalisation of the parties’ dispute as regards financial and any other aspects, including implementation date, associated with the introduction of a four-cycle shift and resolution of any outstanding aspect of the parties’ dispute regarding pay. In addition, the parties’ engagement should address redundancy issues and any other dispute arising from the survival plan proposals.
The parties should engage on these matters, with the assistance of the WRC if necessary, such that any outstanding matters at the end of eight weeks following the date of this recommendation, can be referred back to the Court for definitive recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
H.M.______________________
27 February 2020Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Heather Murray, Court Secretary.