strike action is called for by the union in Teva.

Bduffman

Blaaface wrote: »

I didn't get letters or emails trying to scare me into voting No, thankfully i have my own mind and voted for what i believed in.

Does it matter how either side begged?
By the way what do you believe in? Teva can pull out of Ireland as a result of this. Where does that leave you & what you believe in? They'll go somewhere else to continue makeing profits there. We'll ALL be on the dole. So who wins?

Blaaface wrote: »

So why did Martin King walk away if they were implementing all the recommendations? They were implementing their version it which was wrong and they were told it by the Labour court that they were wrong.

Again, check the LC recommendations on their website, compare to the management proposals & come back to me with some facts. Otherwise you're just bullsh*tting.

Blaaface wrote: »

You're going off on one here.

Thats not an answer - I didn't really think you would have one.

Blaaface wrote: »

243 people will disagree with you there. Unfortuantly 315 will lose their jobs which is happening because of a greedy company but now hopefully some people who need the job that are being left go now have a chance they can keep a job.

There won't be any jobs soon. Do you seriously think the Waterford management have any influence in Israels decisions? They are only small fry to them. The Israelis don't tolerate industrial disputes like this. They will probably close the SD plant with immediate effect, give the 6 weeks & bring forward the transfer of the Inhalations business by several years.

Thanks a lot - you've just lost even more jobs in Waterford just so you can 'stand up for what you believe in'. I hope you're happy.

Bduffman

What was the actual result lads - I'm hoping there was at least a sizeable minority for the deal.

justbored

This post has been deleted.

19.5V

Yes Boss wrote: »

Because the information supplied to the workers was one-sided and biased!!

Can someone from TEVA explain what the Union hopes to achieve from rejecting the offer?? It is clear what is on offer but the alternative looks sketchy!!

What kind of gibirish is that, in a voting situation it is your choice what to vote for, it is up to the voter to educate themselves.

Yes Boss

19.5V wrote: »

What kind of gibirish is that, in a voting situation it is your choice what to vote for, it is up to the voter to educate themselves.

If you are only given the facts relating to one side of the story - you cannot make an objective decision!!

I have asked the question - What are the Unions hoping to achieve other than massaging their own egos!!

19.5V

Yes Boss wrote: »

If you are only given the facts relating to one side of the story - you cannot make an objective decision!!

I have asked the question - What are the Unions hoping to achieve other than massaging their own egos!!

think about this.......

The basis of your argument would still remain if the vote went the other way

Money Tree

The heckling when people who didn't support the union talked today was shameful. We are all adults, everyone should be allowed to speak with out being shouted down!

Im afraid this is par for the course within the unionised group in Teva. Im sure the committee done all in their power to stop the heckling. Im assuming the heckling wasnt coming from the stage

Yes Boss

Money Tree wrote: »

The heckling when people who didn't support the union talked today was shameful. We are all adults, everyone should be allowed to speak with out being shouted down!

Im afraid this is par for the course within the unionised group in Teva. Im sure the committee done all in their power to stop the heckling. Im assuming the heckling wasnt coming from the stage

That's wrong if that happened and compounds my argument!!

Bduffman

justbored wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

260 out of a total workforce of nearly 800 employees. Doesn't seem fair to me.

justbored

This post has been deleted.

Yes Boss

justbored wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's appalling behavior!! Also, the entire workforce should be entitled to vote if it affects their future!!! How backward are the Unions???

d_j

Yes Boss wrote: »

I have asked the question - What are the Unions hoping to achieve other than massaging their own egos!!

A fair deal for EVERYBODY involved i.e. let those who WANT TO GO, go. Let those who WANT TO STAY, stay.

The fundamental principal of the companies whole argument of 'key skills' is incorrect and false (of which they are well aware of but chose to ignore).

For the record, there was only one ego being massaged all along and that is that of the MD.

jay.i.am

They are hoping the company will agree to let people who want to leave in inhalations plant leave that way people who want to stay in solid dose can transfer across in order to minimise compulsory redundancies which was a lrc recommendation.By the way i was there and didnt hear any heckling everyone got a fair chance to speak.

Yes Boss

jay.i.am wrote: »

They are hoping the company will agree to let people who want to leave in inhalations plant leave that way people who want to stay in solid dose can transfer across in order to minimise compulsory redundancies which was a lrc recommendation.By the way i was there and didnt hear any heckling everyone got a fair chance to speak.

Fair enough...once it is not seniority of SD over skilled inhalations operatives.

If people from inhalations want to leave, they should be let go and the people that take their place should be tested for suitability!!

justbored

This post has been deleted.

d_j

I agree with Jay, everyone got a fair chance to speak. I didn't witness any viciousness at all.

justbored

This post has been deleted.

Blaaface

Bduffman wrote: »

Does it matter how either side begged?
By the way what do you believe in? Teva can pull out of Ireland as a result of this. Where does that leave you & what you believe in? They'll go somewhere else to continue makeing profits there. We'll ALL be on the dole. So who wins?

Again, check the LC recommendations on their website, compare to the management proposals & come back to me with some facts. Otherwise you're just bullsh*tting.

Thats not an answer - I didn't really think you would have one.

There won't be any jobs soon. Do you seriously think the Waterford management have any influence in Israels decisions? They are only small fry to them. The Israelis don't tolerate industrial disputes like this. They will probably close the SD plant with immediate effect, give the 6 weeks & bring forward the transfer of the Inhalations business by several years.

Thanks a lot - you've just lost even more jobs in Waterford just so you can 'stand up for what you believe in'. I hope you're happy.

No point in debating with you, i've given you the fact about Martin King and a fact about the company lieing to the temporary workers yet you spit out your dummy and call me a bull****ter.

Blaaface

Yes Boss wrote: »

Fair enough...once it is not seniority of SD over skilled inhalations operatives.

If people from inhalations want to leave, they should be let go and the people that take their place should be tested for suitability!!

The company claim it takes 12 months to train a new worker on a machine in inhalations yet they have no evidence to prove this, the people working in inhalations would tell you it takes about 6 weeks.

jay.i.am

justbored wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Honestly i didnt hear anyone being shouted down.Going back to the skillsets i worked in both plants and at best i got 2 weeks training in inhaltions on days before i was put in on a line.This 12 months training is a lie this could of been sorted if the company had the will to sort it.

Creamsoda

Blaaface wrote: »

The company claim it takes 12 months to train a new worker on a machine in inhalations yet they have no evidence to prove this, the people working in inhalations would tell you it takes about 6 weeks.

well as someone who has worked in almost every part of inhalations I'd have to say those people are lying through their teeth. It may not take 12 months but 6 weeks is just pure and utter bs.

Blaaface

Creamsoda wrote: »

well as someone who has worked in almost every part of inhalations I'd have to say those people are lying through their teeth. It may not take 12 months but 6 weeks is just pure and utter bs.

Fair enough you know better but 6 weeks was mentioned by someone who works in inhalations.

Yes Boss

There seems to be a lot of misinformation and counter arguments. Can anyone set out 1. what was offered, 2. Why the union recommended refusal, 3. why ALL the employees are not allowed to vote on something that impacts ALL their futures and 4. What is the best for the long-term viability of the plant in Waterford?

I fully appreciate it must be a difficult situation for all involved and hope the right decisions are being made.

Creamsoda

Yes Boss wrote: »

There seems to be a lot of misinformation and counter arguments. Can anyone set out 1. what was offered, 2. Why the union recommended refusal, 3. why ALL the employees are not allowed to vote on something that impacts ALL their futures and 4. What is the best for the long-term viability of the plant in Waterford?

I fully appreciate it must be a difficult situation for all involved and hope the right decisions are being made.

We would have gotten 8 weeks pay based on average earning including shift rate, bonus,overtime and a €2500 loyalty payment. 45 people would have been transfered over and some of the people that want to leave in inhalations would have been allowed to leave. The union want it all to be based on seniority. The company said that if its rejected we will get 6 weeks basic pay per year. I cant really say why the union wanted it rejected, they seem to think that the whole business and the remaining jobs are worth putting at risk for the sake seniority. I understand seniority is important but they need draw the line at risking everybodys job for the sake of it. Oh and I must add that a large majority of the union reps are senior staff working in solid dose.

justen

Here is the Labour court ruling.

A lot of people in this post are in favour of industrial action. Can any one of you explain what you have voted for and the risks involved?

How much more money do you want?
How many more transfers would be required?
If 9 months hasn't resolved it do you think a strike will?
What concessions have been made by both sides?
Who is more likely to see it out to the bitter end?
Based on the ruling below who is closer to its requests?
Who negotiated the current deal?

It would be interesting to see if a union member not a committee member would be able to answer all of these questions. In plain english and not idealisms and principals. Using facts and figures what are you guys holding out for because if you all can't confidently answer the above questions. In plain english your f**ked.

This is taken from the labour court ruling

'The Unions also sought an improvement in the Company’s proposed ex-gratia redundancy payment given both the scale and compulsory nature of the redundancies’

With out the compulsory nature of the redundancies no 8 weeks on the table. This was the grounds for such a decent offer.

At this moment in time it looks like you have turned down the biggest package in recent times for what?
I am sure your partners, husbands, wives and children will all be very proud of you for risking it all for so little.
Local and national support will be hard to come by for this one.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990

PARTIES :

TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL IRL

- AND -

SIPTU / AGEMO

DIVISION :

Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Murphy
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu

SUBJECT :

1. Redundancy Selection And Terms


BACKGROUND :

2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and the Unions in relation to redundancy terms and selection criteria. The Company is transferring part of its manufacturing business out of Ireland resulting in redundancies in the Solid Dose area of its business. The Unions' position is that redundancy selection should be based on Last In/First Out (L.I.F.O.) whereas Management contends that to ensure future viability it must focus on skill retention when selecting workers for redundancy. The Unions are also seeking an enhancement of the redundancy terms and the retention of staff in certain areas of the business.

The dispute was not resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 21st October, 2009 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 25th March 2010, the earliest date suitable to the parties.

UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:

3 1 The Unions do not accept the need for compulsory redundancies. Redundancies should be on a voluntary basis in the first instance and if compulsory on the basis of last in first out (L.I.F.O.). In addition, workers are easily transferable between both areas of the business which would facilitate the application of seniority within the organisation.

2 The Unions claim for enhanced redundancy terms is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. In the current economic climate it will be difficult to obtain work elsewhere and the package on offer is both insufficient and out of line with comparable employments within the sector.

COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4 1 The Company must maintain staffing levels within the 'Inhaler' Plant to ensure continued productivity of that area in the future. It cannot transfer workers from the 'Solid Dose' area as the required skill sets of both areas are different. The Company is, therefore, unable to apply general seniority as requested by the Unions.

2 The Company/Union Agreement provides for the retention of key skills in selecting workers for redundancy and also the redundancy terms applicable. The Unions' claim for enhanced redundancy is out of line with the Agreement and unsustainable in the current circumstances.


RECOMMENDATION :

The issue before the Court concerns the selection criteria for redundancy and the ex-gratia redundancy terms. The Solid Dose part of Company’s business will close down with a resulting loss of 315 jobs at the end of 2010.

The Company proposed to select employees for redundancy based on the terms of its 1996 collective agreement with the Unions under which the primary consideration is the protection of employment of as many people as possible. It provides for the retention of those skills necessary to ensure the continued efficient operation of the business (including regulatory compliance) and seniority of service.

The Company outlined to the Court its necessity to maintain skills which are unique to its Inhalations part of the business and accordingly rejected the Unions’ claim for selection based on seniority. The Company stated that to dilute the skills which are unique to Inhalations would be fatal to the Waterford business, as this part of the business is a niche area that combines medication with highly developed delivery devices and is the only one of its kind in Ireland.

The Unions, on the other hand, sought voluntary redundancy with selection criteria based on seniority within specific grades and operated on the LIFO principle which selection criteria would entail the selection of some Inhalations employees and the transfer of some Solid Dose employees to Inhalations. It disputed the Company’s contention that the skills were unique and submitted that there was no significant difference between the skills.

The Unions also sought an improvement in the Company’s proposed ex-gratia redundancy payment given both the scale and compulsory nature of the redundancies.

Having considered the positions of both parties as expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court notes that there may be an opportunity to deal with some of the Unions’ requests for the retention of employees in the following areas:

· minimizing compulsory redundancies by allowing a certain number of voluntary redundancies;
· saving of craft jobs by looking at the various contract roles in the business;
· elimination of temporary jobs; and
· the transfer of a limited number of employees to Inhalations.

The Court recommends that these options should be explored further in an effort to minimize compulsory redundancies as far as possible. This exercise should be conducted immediately and be completed by no later than 14th May 2010. Beyond that exercise, the Court recommends that the 1996 collective agreement’s selection criteria should prevail and the Company’s proposals to retain key skills should be accepted by the Unions concerned.

The Court recommends that in all the particular circumstances of the closure of the Solid Dose part of the business, the Company’s proposed ex-gratia redundancy package should be improved to 8 weeks’ pay per year of service inclusive of statutory redundancy entitlements and a week’s pay should be based on average earnings. All other aspects of the Company’s proposed package should be retained.

The Court so recommends.

jay.i.am

The court recmmends that these options be explored further so that COMPULSORY REDUNDANDCIES BE MINIMISED. The union did an expression of intrest which could have went a long way to solving the problem the company did not want to know.As for the commitee being senior under the REJECTED deal most of them would have had the choice to stay and transfer or go with the 8 weeks yet they sought for a rejecting.Seniority is not some new concept drawn up to suit the solid dose workers its worked the other way down through the years.If it comes to standing outside so be it ill be after standing up for something i believe in.

Creamsoda

jay.i.am wrote: »

The court recmmends that these options be explored further so that COMPULSORY REDUNDANDCIES BE MINIMISED. The union did an expression of intrest which could have went a long way to solving the problem the company did not want to know.As for the commitee being senior under the REJECTED deal most of them would have had the choice to stay and transfer or go with the 8 weeks yet they sought for a rejecting.Seniority is not some new concept drawn up to suit the solid dose workers its worked the other way down through the years.If it comes to standing outside so be it ill be after standing up for something i believe in.

Its all well and good standing up for something you believe but your failing to see the bigger picture here, the company are just gonna pack up shop and we will be seeing another 400 people out of a job in 5 years time if not sooner.

Blaaface

Creamsoda wrote: »

Its all well and good standing up for something you believe but your failing to see the bigger picture here, the company are just gonna pack up shop and we will be seeing another 400 people out of a job in 5 years time if not sooner.

The patent is up in 4 years? they're building an inhalations plant in India which will be ready to take over when that runs out, you can't blame the vote today for that, it's coming anyway.

justen

jay.i.am wrote: »

The court recmmends that these options be explored further so that COMPULSORY REDUNDANDCIES BE MINIMISED. The union did an expression of intrest which could have went a long way to solving the problem the company did not want to know.As for the commitee being senior under the REJECTED deal most of them would have had the choice to stay and transfer or go with the 8 weeks yet they sought for a rejecting.Seniority is not some new concept drawn up to suit the solid dose workers its worked the other way down through the years.If it comes to standing outside so be it ill be after standing up for something i believe in.

The court recmmends that these options be explored further so that COMPULSORY REDUNDANDCIES BE MINIMISED.
AND!!!!!!!!

The union did an expression of intrest which could have went a long way to solving the problem the company did not want to know.
Was this recommended.

As for the commitee being senior under the REJECTED deal most of them would have had the choice to stay and transfer or go with the 8 weeks yet they sought for a rejecting.
Why?

Seniority is not some new concept drawn up to suit the solid dose workers its worked the other way down through the years.
WTF!!!! where did that come from?

If it comes to standing outside so be it ill be after standing up for something i believe in.
Facts and figures would be nicer if you've got them.

I hope you didn't have a vote.

Insane1

Yeaterday you were GUARANTEED 8 weeks and 45 transfers to inhalations.

Today you have been guaranteed what exactly? Let me tell you what:

You have guaranteed the Full Closure of both sites in Waterford much sooner than was planned. On reading the Labour Court Recommendation posted here, the company looks to have complied with it perfectly. The Union Spin Doctors have disregarded its recommendations.

For those of you who voted today to reject the package I feel sorry for you and especially for your families for having you as the 'Responsibe' key decision maker for your family. You have taken a huge gamble for everyone!

Small Mindedness and Narrow Perceptions won the day. Your Managing Director and Head of HR are only middle-men. Puppets merely dancing from an Israeli string.

For the love of God, Hitler tortured, massacred and wiped out almost 6,000,000 of these people but still could not get the better of them... I think the SIPTU Waterford branch are being a tad optimistic, wouldn't you agree?

The trouble with Unions is that they would rather be ruined by praise than saved by criticism...