SIPTU members in Eli Lilly's Cork branch secure Labour Court recommendation on union representation
SIPTU sector organiser Andrea Cleere said that Eli Lilly, based in Kinsale, was denying members of the union the right to be supported by SIPTU.
"Our members are demanding the right to collectively bargain with their employer on matters inclusive of pay and conditions.
"However, this employer was even denying SIPTU members the right to be supported by the Union in individual workplace issues, which is contrary to Statutory Instrument 146 of 2000."
The trade union presented its case to the Labour Court at a hearing in late May, with the Court now issuing a recommendation stating that the Employer "recognise the Union as the representative of those operatives who are in membership of the Union and should engage with it in dealing with the issues which are subject of this claim."
The SIPTU organiser said Eli Lilly management did not attend the hearing, which "illustrates the weakness of the voluntarist industrial relations system operated in Ireland when it comes to securing workers' fundamental rights."
"SIPTU has written to the company regarding the provisions outlined by the Court, to date it has made no response which indicates a blatant disregard for the State's industrial relations bodies," Ms Cleere added.
SIPTU Manufacturing Divisional Organiser, Neil McGowan, said: 'Last month, the SIPTU Eli Lilly Committee made a submission to the Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment, Peter Burke, as part of the public consultation process on Ireland's action plan to promote collective bargaining.
"The EU Directive of Adequate Minimum Wages calls on the governments of EU Member States to draw up an action plan to increase collective bargaining coverage in their economies to over 80%, in Ireland it is estimated to currently be under 35%.'
In a statement to the Irish Examiner, Eli Lilly said: "Lilly does not comment on specific employee relations matters.
"Our direct employee engagement model promotes open communication and teamwork, creating an inclusive work environment where all voices are heard. We prioritise transparency and mutual respect, empowering our employees to contribute to our mission."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Independent
2 hours ago
- Irish Independent
Explainer: Are we any clearer on the EU-US trade deal agreed at the weekend, and what happens next?
A. They are. The White House and the European Commission have each published a 'fact sheet' setting out more details in the framework deal. The most important point from an Irish point of view is confirmation that the tariff on exports of pharmaceutical products from Europe to the US will be 15pc. The multinationals based here, such as Pfizer and Eli Lilly, export about €40bn of pharma to the US each year.
Irish Times
11 hours ago
- Irish Times
White House confirms 15% tariff rate will include pharma and semiconductors
The White House has confirmed the tariff rate of 15 per cent in the trade deal struck with the European Union on Sunday will include pharmaceuticals and semiconductors. The two sectors are key to Irish exports, accounting for the bulk of the €72 billion of goods shipped to the US last year. The Government and the European Commission both said on Monday it was their 'clear understanding' there would be a tariff ceiling of 15 per cent in those sectors. Senior figures in the commission said its negotiating team had been given commitments by US president Donald Trump's administration on this point, but there remained some lingering concern owing to the unpredictable nature of Mr Trump. READ MORE However, a 'fact sheet' published by the White House contains a line stating the tariff rate of 15 per cent will apply to pharmaceuticals and semiconductors, albeit couched in terms that suggest the tariffs will be paid by the EU when in fact they will be borne by US companies or consumers. [ How the EU's 'lopsided' US trade deal was done Opens in new window ] 'As part of president Trump's strategy to establish balanced trade, the European Union will pay the United States a tariff rate of 15 per cent, including on autos and auto parts, pharmaceuticals, and semiconductors,' the White House said. EU Commission trade spokesman Olof Gill noted that the framework agreement was in effect a 'political commitment' rather than a legally binding document. He said Europe and the White House were now working on a joint statement, which will be treated as 'an agreement in principle' that will give the bloc a 'political road map to where we take it from here'. 'Both sides are working very hard now to get the details of that signed up,' he said on RTÉ Radio One. 'We're hoping to do that before the deadline of August 1st set by the US.' At that stage, he said, the EU would be in a position to say 'very clearly' what the next stages are, and will use the joint statement as 'a platform to look at other areas where we can reduce tariffs'. 'This is how it's going to work,' he said. 'Fifteen per cent is across the board. That's going to cover all sectors. It's going to cover pharma. It is going to cover digital. 'What we're talking about here are political commitments. This joint statement I mentioned isn't a legally binding document. These are commitments.' Separately, it has emerged Irish butter entering the US will return to the tariff level in place before Mr Trump came to office, which was around 16 per cent. In a briefing to members this week, business lobby Ibec pointed out that butter had been subject to a tariff based on the weight of the product, rather than a percentage figure which is more common. This worked out at about 16 per cent of the value of the product. Under the finer details of the deal, products which had been tariffed on this basis are to return to their original level rather than the 15 per cent which will apply more generally. This returns Kerrygold, sold by Ornua, to a tariff level at which it has managed to grow its market share in recent years. Since Mr Trump imposed his additional 10 per cent tariff in April, Irish butter imported to the US has faced a punitive tariff of around 26 per cent. Meanwhile, the trade deal has been described by an academic from University College Cork as 'a capitulation' by Europe that will cause 'long-term negative results'. Dr John O'Brien, an academic on financial markets and investments, who was previously an investment manager in London, said the EU had projected 'weakness'. 'The EU commission, and Ursula von der Leyen in particular, has capitulated in the US trade deal with the US,' he said. 'The deal will negatively affect growth. In the short term, this is a better outcome than a trade war. 'However, the projection of weakness by the EU, surrendering to economic threats and accepting a one-sided deal will be noted globally with long-term negative results. China and Russia will be particularly interested in this weakness. 'The financial markets reacted by selling the euro, signalling an expectation of lower growth across the EU. This view was repeated as stock exchanges across the EU also fell.' Dr O'Brien said the 'supposed benefit' of certainty was 'overstated', and, echoing the comments of Mr Gill, noted that the current deal was just a 'political agreement'. 'There are many failure points before a deal is signed,' he said. 'Having conceded once to Trump there is no guarantee that he will not come back for more having sensed weakness. Business planning on the basis of 15 per cent and done may be surprised before the end of the year.' Matthew Ryan, head of market strategy at global financial services firm Ebury, said estimates of about a 0.3-0.5 per cent hit to the bloc's GDP in the next three to five years was 'moderate, but not enough to fuel recession concerns'.
Irish Times
a day ago
- Irish Times
EU-US trade deal: Ursula von der Leyen stooped to conquer
The trade deal agreed between the United States and the European Union on Sunday is on its face a humiliation for Europe and a triumph for Donald Trump 's strong-arm tariff diplomacy . But in acknowledging Europe's strategic weakness and giving Trump a public victory, Ursula von der Leyen may have stooped to conquer. The terms of the deal could hardly be more one-sided, with European exports to the US facing a 15 per cent tariff while American goods enter the EU with no tariff at all. The EU also agreed to spend $750 billion (€644 billion) on US energy products like liquefied natural gas (LNG) over the next three years, to invest $600 billion (€515 billion) in the US and to buy hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of American weapons. READ MORE The EU fumbled the negotiations from the start, dithering over retaliatory measures after Trump announced his 'reciprocal tariffs' in April. China was more defiant, matching Trump's tariffs and using as leverage its chokehold on rare earth minerals that many US manufacturers need. China and the EU were never likely to work together against the US, but both trading giants resisting Trump at the same time would have had more impact than either acting alone. Negotiations between China and the US, which continue in Stockholm this week, and the 15 per cent tariff deal with Japan this month left the EU at risk of being the last major trading partner without an agreement. A 15 per cent tariff will make European goods more expensive for American importers but the fact that it is in line with that of other major exporters should limit its impact on their competitiveness. Keir Starmer secured a slightly lower tariff of 10 per cent, but while Britain is a major exporter of services, it is no longer a leading goods exporter. [ EU and US reach deal on 15% tariffs, averting potential trade war Opens in new window ] The tariff, which will be paid by American importers, is high enough to raise significant revenue for the US government, but it is probably too low to persuade many manufacturers to move their operations from Europe to the US. And there may be less to von der Leyen's other promises than immediately meets the eye. She said that the EU would seek to spend $250 billion (€215 billion) a year over the next three years on US energy products, but inadequate infrastructure to turn LNG back into gas could limit such imports. And the $600 billion in new European investment in the US is less a promise than an aspiration, because it will be for businesses rather than the European Commission to make those decisions. Von der Leyen's deal doubles down on Europe's security dependency on the US. Photograph: Tierney L. Cross/ The New York Times [ Ireland 'no doubt' in challenging position over tariffs, says Minister Opens in new window ] The deal's most important function is that it averts a trade war with the US in which the EU could never have prevailed. Some Europeans talked tough about using the EU's Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI) to target US services and intellectual property rights, but the threat was always an empty one. This is because the US can meet any such dramatic escalation by the EU with its own ultimate and unanswerable threat: the withdrawal of the transatlantic security guarantee. Such a move would have been unthinkable under previous US presidents, but Trump has shown clearly that he has no ideological or emotional affinity with the idea of the transatlantic alliance. Von der Leyen's pledge to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars to buy more US weapons is, in one view, almost cartoonish in its illustration of Europe's vassalage. But it may also serve to bind Washington more closely to European security interests by offering the kind of incentive Trump responds to, a financial one. He has already made clear to Japan and South Korea that he sees the security guarantee the US offers them as a kind of protection racket and that the price is going up. His agreement to continue supplying weapons to Ukraine if the Europeans pay for them reflects the same approach to America's alliances. Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskiy understood this when he agreed a deal with Trump earlier this year to give the US a stake in the exploitation of the country's minerals. The idea was that, if the US has an economic interest in Ukraine's mines, Washington will be more likely to resist a Russian attempt to seize them. Von der Leyen's deal doubles down on Europe's security dependency on the US, potentially undermining any drive towards strategic autonomy. But after years of talking, that has so far amounted to little more than a commitment to reorientate much of Europe's industry towards defence, funded by debt. [ How EU and US news front pages see the tariffs deal Opens in new window ] Von der Leyen's deal with Trump reflects the primacy of Europe's current interest in maintaining and securing its partnership with the US. Photograph: Brendan Smialowski/ AFP via Getty Images What Europe needs is a candid debate about its strategic future that goes beyond how to become a more self-reliant subaltern to the US. Fifty years after the Helsinki Accords, it will require imaginative but clear-sighted thinking about how to share the Eurasian land mass with Russia. The EU needs to look again at its relationship with China and whether its identification of Beijing as a partner for co-operation, an economic competitor and systemic rival remains the most useful one. The EU is now closer to China than the US on a growing number of policy areas, including climate change, the rules-based trading system and development aid. A strategic review would also examine the EU's relationship with the Global South and particularly how its influence is diminishing in Africa at a time when that continent's economic potential is becoming more evident. And the emerging reality of a multipolar world demands a new relationship with middle powers like those in the Brics based on mutual respect, rather than Europe's increasingly implausible sense of moral superiority. There is little sign of such fresh strategic thinking at the top of the EU, least of all by von der Leyen. In the meantime, her deal with Trump reflects the primacy of Europe's current interest in maintaining and securing its partnership with the US, unequal and undignified as it may be.
