INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SCHERING-PLOUGH (BRINNY) CO
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Mr McGee
Employer Member: Mr Murphy
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Union recognition.
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the pharmaceutical Company Schering Plough and SIPTU in relation to union recognition at the Company's Brinny plant at Innishannon, Co.Cork.
The Union is claiming negotiating rights on behalf of Section leaders in the Company to deal with grievance and disciplinary matters, the performance appraisal system and redundancy negotiations should they arise.
The Company rejects the claim.
On the 31st of May, 2005, the Union referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th of October, 2005.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
3. 1. The dispute centres around previous discussions held at the Labour Relations Commission in relation to a commitment given by the Company to involve the Union in matters of grievance and discipline, to allow for more transparency in the performance appraisal scheme and to acknowledge members' rights with regard to future redundancies in the Company. The Company failed to honour its commitment in this case.
2. Management had previously accepted the need for representation but had changed its position by proposing a management nominee to fulfil this role. This was rejected by staff members who instead opted to join the Union.
4. 1. The internal procedures of the Company with regard to the matters in dispute provide each worker with fair employment conditions. All issues can be discussed directly with the Company.
2. The performance appraisal system has proven to be more beneficial to the workforce than wage increases under National Wage Agreements. The Company reserves the right to maintain the system which best suits its operational needs.
3. Concession of the claim would result in an increase in costs for the Company both directly and indirectly.
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court recommends that the Company recognises the Union's right to represent those employees in its membership, both individually and collectively.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
8th November, 2005______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.