LCR22247

1. Voluntary Redundancy

BACKGROUND:

2. 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 6 February 2020 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 7 July 2020.

UNION’S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. There was an expectation created by the company, not their members, that three of the group were going to receive the Voluntary Redundancy package.

2. The company knowingly left members of the craft group in the dark as to whether or not they would be exiting the company after an expectation was clearly created by them and never dealt with.

3. The Union’s members are seeking an acknowledgment from the company of their failure to afford their members the same full and fair process afforded others on site.

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. No Voluntary Redundancy programme currently exists.

2. The company’s priority at Upjohn Little Island is to continue to seek new opportunities and maintain and secure jobs for the future.

3 There is no expectation that the role of craft personnel will diminish or cease.

RECOMMENDATION :

Background to the Dispute

This dispute arises from a 2017-18 voluntary redundancy programme at Pfizer Upjohn’s (‘the Company’) plant in Little Island. Expressions of interest for participation were invited from workers in the plant, including from the craft maintenance group. While a total of eleven voluntary redundancies took place amongst production, laboratory and warehousing staff, no craft worker was ultimately permitted to avail themselves of the scheme.

The Union’s complaint is that management had created an expectation in 2017 that three workers in the craft group would exit under the scheme but then subsequently failed to communicate to those workers over a period of eighteen months that this decision had been reversed. The Union submits that its members were therefore treated less favourably throughout the voluntary redundancy process than other groups of workers at the plant.

The Company submits that it was made clear in all communications regarding the voluntary redundancy programme proposed in 2017 that receipt of expressions of interest from workers for participation in the scheme was not to be deemed as an acceptance on the Company’s part. Five craft workers submitted expressions of interest in 2017. However, in early 2018 the long-range production forecast for a number of products manufactured at the site increased. This led to a change of strategy and an increase in resources needed to support the additional production. As a consequence, no expression of interest from amongst the craft group was accepted as no business justification existed for redundancies in the maintenance division. The Company submits that its decision in this regard was communicated to the craft group Shop Stewards. The Company further submits that in each year since 2016, and on request from the Union, there has been additional headcount added to the craft group.

Recommendation

The call for expressions of interest in the voluntary redundancy programme issued by the Company to colleagues at the Little Island site in 2017 included the following:

• “This application is not an acceptance of a Voluntary Redundancy Program. I understand if my expression of interest is accepted, I will then need to formally apply for the Voluntary Redundancy Program.”

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
MK	______________________
26 August 2020	Deputy Chairman