LCR23234

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Referral Under Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act. 1990.

BACKGROUND:

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 26 January 2026 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 27 February 2026. 

RECOMMENDATION:

Background to the Dispute

The Workers in respect of whom the within matter has been referred to the Court under section 26 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 comprise approximately 382 General Operatives each of whom has relatively long service with Bausch & Lomb (‘the Company’) at its Waterford plant.

It is accepted that the Workers are within scope of a long-standing collective agreement with respect to their shift arrangements. The relevant arrangement is confirmed in a letter dated 4 July 2016 from the Company’s then Human Resources Director to SIPTU. In material part, that letter states:

“It is not the intention of the company to retrofit a 4-cycle shift pattern into the current processes. No employee who is currently working days, 3-cycle or weekends will be forced to work 4-cycle.”

The Union’s Submission

The Union submits that the Company, notwithstanding the aforementioned collective agreement, is seeking to compel approximately 34 of the Workers to transition from a 3-cycle to a 4-cycle shift arrangement in order to meet production requirements for new products that have come on stream. The Union told the Court that the Parties have engaged in relation to the issue from April 2025 to date.

In the course of their engagement, the Union says that it has made a number of proposals to obviate the need to unilaterally move its members to the 4-shift pattern including:

• Moving the Workers concerned to an area where 3-shift and 4-shift operators work side by side;
• Introduction of job-sharing on 4-cycle shifts; and
• Moving the Workers concerned to another area on site where they could continue to work 3-cycle shifts.

The Company’s Submission

The Company submits that it has received significant capital investment in recent years via its parent company predicated on the Company’s capacity to support 24/7 production supported by a 4-cycle shift cycle. The latter work pattern is essential to it in order to obtain the necessary return on investment.

It is the Company’s submission that it had carefully considered each of the proposals made by the Union but determined that they were unworkable and would not assist it in reaching the levels of production output that are necessary to meet demand for its newer products. The Company also told the Court that it had made a number of proposals to the Union in the course of their engagement. These included an Early Retirement Programme (‘ERP’) – currently closed to applications  – and an incentive payment of €2,500 by way of compensation to individuals involuntarily transferred to 4-cycle working.

Recommendation

The Court recommends that the Parties should re-engage at local level in relation to the quantum that could be offered to Workers in return for their voluntary agreement to transition from 3-cycle to 4-cycle working.

Furthermore, the Court recommends that the Company should re-open its EPR offering to the Workers concerned.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
AL	______________________
09/03/2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be in writing and addressed to Ms Amy Leonard, Court Secretary.