LCR15491

FULL RECOMMENDATION CD/96/620 RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR15491 (CC96/571) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GLAXO WELLCOME (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr Brennan Worker Member: Mr Rorke

SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for pay parity on behalf of 4 workers and an increase in pay on behalf of 7 workers.


BACKGROUND:

2. The dispute concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of 11 workers for the harmonisation of terms and conditions of employment following the merger of the Glaxo and Wellcome Companies in July, 1995. The Union is claiming parity of pay with ex-Wellcome employees for 4 workers in the Warehouse, and increases in pay for workers in the General Service, Warehouse Office, Computer and Administrative Department. Retrospection is sought to 1st July, 1995. The claims were rejected by the Company. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and conciliation conferences were held in June and October, 1996. Agreement was not possible and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 22nd November, 1996. A Court hearing was held on the 26th March, 1997.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. There is a significant difference between the wage rates of Glaxo (£258 per week) and ex - Wellcome (£326 per week) employees, yet the workload of the employees concerned has increased substantially since the merger.

2. At conciliation the Company offered to pay a 4% increase to 2 workers in the General Service and 4% to four workers in the Warehouse on condition that the claims for the other 5 workers were dropped.







3. The Company accepted the need for increased payments when they offered harmonisation in order to deal with extra duties and responsibilities introduced as a result of the merger.

4. The Company maintains that the claims are precluded under the P.C.W., yet all are self- financing.

5. It is essential that the Company put into operation a mechanism, including, if necessary, an outside agency, to deal with these self-financing claims, and that the parity claims be conceded immediately.


COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The claim is cost-increasing and, therefore, is precluded under the terms of the P.C.W. during which time it was submitted.

2. The Company rejects any claim that work loads have increased above and beyond workers' abilities. The rates of pay in the Company are in line with industry norms and are competitive. They are increased in line with the terms of the National Agreements.

3. During negotiations a proposal was put to workers in the General Service and the Warehouse for a self-financing pay increase. This concerned taking on additional duties and a staggered hours rota. It was rejected and was subsequently withdrawn.

4. All workers in the Company enjoy security of employment and extremely competitive rates of pay. To award an increase in pay to a number of named workers does not contribute to good industrial relations apart from the fact that it is without foundation.



RECOMMENDATION:

Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court recommends that the Company increase its offer to the six claimants in the Warehouse and General Service area, from 4% to 6% on the self-financing basis outlined in the submission, with effect from 16th October, 1996. The Court does not recommend concession of the claim in respect of the 5 other claimants.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Evelyn Owens
2nd April, 1997______________________
T.O'D./S.G.Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.