Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am pleased to introduce the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2015 for the consideration of the House. For several years there have been gaps in the statutory framework as regards workers who seek to better their terms and conditions either through collective bargaining or by means of registered employment agreements, REAs. These gaps arose after the Supreme Court struck down the old REA framework on constitutional grounds, having at an earlier stage found serious fault with the collective bargaining legislation. The Bill is a direct response to these rulings. It represents delivery on two key commitments and it is a Bill I am very proud to have progressed. I entered public life 16 years ago to improve people's living and working conditions. I believe this new legislation can help to do exactly that.

The legislation has two purposes. It will provide for the reintroduction of the registration of employment agreements between employers and trade unions in individual enterprises and for a new framework to replace the former sectoral registered employment agreements. The Bill will also put in place the legislative amendments required to give effect to the programme for Government commitment to reform the Industrial Relations Acts 2001 and 2004 dealing with collective bargaining.

Before moving to detail the various sections of the Bill, I would like to give Members an overview of what the Bill achieves. Part 2 of the Bill provides for the registration of employment agreements between employers and trade unions governing remuneration and conditions of employment in individual enterprises. The content of these agreements will be a matter for the contracting parties and they will be legally binding on those parties. Part 2 also provides for the making of a new type of ministerial order, namely, a sectoral employment order, SEO. The Labour Court will be entitled to initiate a review of the pay, pension and sick pay entitlements of workers of a particular class, type or group in a particular sector and then make a recommendation to the Minister. Such a review can be initiated at the request, separately or jointly, of organisations that are substantially representative of employers or workers. Where the Minister is satisfied that the process provided for in the new legislation has been complied with by the Labour Court, he or she shall make the order. Where such an order is made, it will be binding as regards all members of the class, type or group of workers in the sector to which it relates, and it will be fully enforceable.

There is broad acceptance that the reintroduction of REAs and a sectoral pay and conditions framework in a constitutionally robust manner will benefit workers and their employers. From a worker and employer perspective, these agreements and orders will provide certainty around pay and conditions. They will also provide the very real pay-off of industrial peace. These are critical considerations for workers planning their future and for employers when tendering for and working through contracts. They will also maintain skill standards and help avoid a race to the bottom, which, in the end, is of no lasting benefit to either employers or workers.

In this regard, we all note the considerable importance that employees in Aer Lingus have attached to securing a new and comprehensive set of registered employment agreements to underpin their continued employment under new owners. I am pleased to have played a role in securing a meeting of minds between workers and management on the way forward for employment at Aer Lingus, and, of course, I hope the Bill can be expedited through the Houses in sufficient time to enable its provisions to be made use of by those parties. While there can be no REA at Aer Lingus unless and until the legislation is passed, there is, of course, nothing to prevent management and unions from starting negotiations on a new employment agreement now with a view to having it registered as soon as the Bill becomes law. In due course I imagine Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann may well become engaged in a similar process.

In all these cases, I stress, however, that while Government policy is to support enterprise level agreements and to provide the framework for them, believing they are mutually beneficial and that they safeguard the interests of employer and workers, they are in essence voluntary agreements negotiated between a business and its workforce through their unions. The content has to be settled between the parties themselves and is not imposed by Government.

Part 3 of the Bill fulfils a significant commitment in the programme for Government to ensure Irish law is consistent with recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. It will provide a clear and balanced mechanism by which the fairness of the employment conditions of workers in their totality can be assessed where there is no collective bargaining in the workplace. It will ensure that workers, aided by a trade union, can advance claims about remuneration and conditions of employment and can have these decided by the Labour Court based on comparisons with similar companies. This part of the Bill provides guidelines to help the Labour Court identify the genuine independence of internal bargaining bodies and sets out policies and principles for the Labour Court to follow when assessing the comparability of the remuneration and conditions in dispute. I know that workers may feel exposed when seeking to improve their terms and conditions. Simply making themselves known may have unwanted and unwarranted consequences. The legislation will therefore provide significant protection against such consequences. This will be available by way of interim relief in the Circuit Court to a worker who challenges a dismissal on the basis that he or she was victimised as a result of invoking the process under the Act.

I conclude this short overview by acknowledging that both trade unions and employer organisations played a critical role in assisting to develop this clear and workable framework and that representatives of both sides of industry made a major contribution.

In summary, the re-introduction of REAs in a constitutionally robust manner will provide certainty around what pay and conditions will be into the future. In addition, I have no doubt that REAs and SEOs will assist in resolving industrial disputes or potential disputes and will promote industrial peace. A balanced mechanism for determining terms and conditions where there is no collective bargaining provides a statutory remedy against workplace exploitation.

This Bill is described in its Long Title as "An Act to make further and better provision for promoting harmonious relations between workers and employers". Industrial relations harmony is one of the principal objectives of our industrial relations legislation. I have made repeated statements about the ongoing dispute in Dunnes Stores. I have said I am disappointed that the company decided against attending Labour Court hearings, contrary to good industrial relations practice, and I have called on both sides to engage and to use the professional expertise of our workplace relations institutions to assist them in resolving the dispute. I call again on the company to engage in a meaningful fashion with the Mandate trade union. If there is no willingness to do so now, it may well be that passage of this legislation will sufficiently alter the circumstances to persuade the company of the merits of doing so in the very near future. In my view, the experience and expertise of the Labour Court offer the most appropriate and effective avenue for resolving the issues at stake in that dispute.

Taken together with the national minimum wage (low pay commission) Bill that is at present before the Seanad, I believe that the next few weeks represent a unique opportunity for the Oireachtas to bring about the most significant shift in the industrial relations landscape seen in many years. I will now outline in detail the provisions of the Bill. Part 1 of the Bill deals with the Short Title, citation and interpretation provisions and commencement date. It also provides for standard provisions on expenses incurred in the administration of the Act.

Part 2 deals with registered employment agreements and sectoral employment orders. Chapter 1 deals with the definitions for this part, while Chapter 2 deals with REAs at individual enterprise level. Section 5 defines key terms to be used throughout Chapter 2 including "parties to the agreement", "employment agreement" and "trade dispute". Section 6 provides for a register of employment agreements to be maintained by the Labour Court. It requires the details of REA registration, cancellation and variation to be published on the Internet.

Section 7 provides that, where an application is made to register an employment agreement, the court shall register it only where satisfied that there is all-party agreement that it should be registered, and where it is satisfied that it is desirable or expedient to have a separate agreement for the class, type or group of workers covered by the agreement. Similarly, the court shall only register the agreement where it is satisfied that the trade union or trade unions is or are substantially representative of the workers. To be registered, every agreement must also provide that, if a trade dispute occurs between the relevant workers and their employer, there shall be neither industrial action nor lock-out until the dispute has been submitted for settlement by negotiation, in the manner specified in the agreement. In addition, the court shall not register an agreement unless it is satisfied that registration is likely to promote harmonious relations between workers and their employer and the avoidance of industrial unrest. Importantly, an REA may not prejudice any rights as to rates of remuneration or conditions of employment conferred on any worker by or under this or any other Act.

Section 8 provides for the variation of REAs. This may arise where all parties so agree, or where one party wishes to vary the agreement but the other does not. In the latter case the court, after the exhaustion of the agreed dispute provisions, may refuse or grant an appropriate variation. Provision is made for a party to withdraw from an agreement following variation, where the agreement provides for a party to do so.

Section 9 provides that the court may cancel the registration of an employment agreement at the request of all parties, or on the application of any party where the registration of an employment agreement has continued after the finishing date, and consented to by all parties. It may also cancel the registration where it is satisfied that a trade union is no longer substantially representative of the workers concerned. Section 10 provides for the terms of an REA in respect of remuneration and conditions of employment to be incorporated into a worker's contract of employment.

Section 11 provides that the Labour Court may, where asked, decide a question as to the interpretation of an REA or its application. In addition, a court of law, in determining any question arising in proceedings before it on this point shall have regard to any decision of the court on the agreement or may, if it thinks proper, refer the question to the Labour Court for its decision.

Chapter 3 deals with the new mechanism for sectoral employment orders. These will encompass remuneration, pension schemes and sick pay schemes, or a combination of any or all three. Section 13 provides that a trade union or an organisation of employers which is substantially representative of workers or employers of a particular class, type or group in a particular economic sector may, separately or jointly, request the Labour Court to examine the terms and conditions relating to remuneration, or sick pay, or pensions and may request the court to make a recommendation to the Minister. The court may not consider a request where the Minister has made an employment order for the same workers in that sector in the previous 12 months, unless there are exceptional and compelling reasons.

Section 14 provides that the Labour Court shall not undertake an examination unless it is satisfied that the trade union or organisation of employers is substantially representative. In so satisfying itself, the court will take into account the number of workers represented by the trade union and the number of workers employed in the sector by employers represented by the organisation concerned. Section 14 also provides that the court will have to be satisfied that it is normal and desirable practice to have separate rates of remuneration and sick pay and-or pension provisions for the class, type or group of worker concerned and that any recommendation is likely to promote harmonious relations.

Section 15 provides guidance to the Labour Court on the principles and policies that it must take into account before making a recommendation to the Minister. These include the requirement to ensure that the recommendation would promote harmonious relations, promote and preserve high standards of training and qualifications and ensure fair and sustainable rates of remuneration in the sector. Section 15 also provides that the recommendation by the court may provide for a minimum hourly rate of pay in excess of the national minimum wage; not more than two higher hourly rates of basic pay, based on length of service in the sector or enterprise concerned or the attainment of recognised standards or skills in the sector concerned; and minimum rates of pay in respect of young workers as provided for, and in accordance with, the relevant percentages set out in the National Minimum Wage Act.

The recommendation may also include a minimum rate of remuneration for apprentices, and for pay in excess of basic pay in respect of shift work, piece work, overtime, unsocial hours, Sundays and travelling time. Recommendations in this respect are at the discretion of the court. A recommendation will include procedures to apply in case of a dispute concerning the terms of a sectoral employment order.

Section 16 provides for the submission by the Labour Court to, and consideration by, the Minister of the Labour Court recommendation. The Minister must refuse to make an order if not satisfied that the process has been complied with. Otherwise, the Minister must make the order. Standard provisions dealing with the laying of orders before the Oireachtas are proposed. However, I am considering whether this should be amended to a positive resolution and will come back to this matter on Committee Stage.

Section 17 provides that if an order has not been amended or revoked within three years, the Minister may request the court to undertake a review of the terms and conditions of the previous order. Section 18 provides that an SEO shall apply to all workers of the class, type or group in the relevant sector, regardless of whether the worker and his or her employer were party to the request to the Labour Court, and provides for the incorporation of the terms of any SEO in a worker's contract of employment.

Section 19 provides for anti-penalisation measures to protect a worker who invokes any right conferred on him or her by the Act or who takes other specified actions under the Act. Section 20 provides a mechanism to allow an employer experiencing financial difficulties to apply to the Labour Court for a temporary derogation from the requirement to pay the remuneration stipulated by an order.

I move on to Part 3, which addresses the Government's commitment on collective bargaining. Section 23 amends the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2001 - the "Principal Act" - by inserting definitions in relation to "collective bargaining" and "excepted body". Section 24 amends the principal Act to remove the right of access of what are called "excepted bodies" to these procedures. I should explain that "excepted body" is the term used in the trade union Acts to describe a body such as an in-house works committee or the like that is not a registered trade union and that conducts negotiations on pay and conditions only for the staff of one employer. Since the decision of the Supreme Court in larnród Éireann v. Holbrooke, it is now clear that a body cannot be an excepted body within the meaning of the Trade Union Act 1941 unless it actually conducts consensual negotiations with an employer so if there is a genuine excepted body in operation, that means that there is genuine collective bargaining going on.

Since this legislation is only about providing a remedy where there is no collective bargaining, a fundamental prerequisite for invoking this Act must be the absence of collective bargaining negotiations. That prerequisite cannot be satisfied where there is a genuinely functioning excepted body.

Section 24 also amends the principal Act to provide additional matters that the court must consider in determining, before embarking on a full investigation, whether an employer engages in collective bargaining with his or her workers. I recognise that the procedures under this legislation would not be appropriate to disputes involving an insignificant number of workers. Therefore, new provisions are added to the principal Act which balance the need to avoid the possible creation of artificial grades, groups or categories to subvert the intention of the Act, with the need to avoid erecting barriers to access for all reasonable cases. To achieve this, the principal Act now provides that the court shall decline to conduct an investigation of a trade dispute where it is satisfied that the number of workers party to the dispute is such as to be insignificant in relation to the grade, group or category of workers concerned, or any larger related grade, group or category of workers, unless there are exceptional and compelling reasons that justify an investigation.

Section 24 also amends the principal Act to ensure that the same or a different trade union cannot repeat the process if the court has made a recommendation or determination for particular workers in the previous 18 months. The section inserts a new subsection into the principal Act to give practical effect to the principle of the independence of an excepted body. It gives guidance to the Labour Court as to the criteria it should take into account in determining whether an excepted body is engaged in collective bargaining and is genuinely independent of the employer. The section amends the principal Act by providing that where an employer asserts to the Labour Court that it is his or her practice to engage in collective bargaining with an excepted body in respect of the workers concerned, it will be for the employer to satisfy the Labour Court on this.

Section 25 inserts a new section into the principal Act to provide for supplemental matters relating to members of the trade union employed by the employer. The Government has decided, as a matter of policy and principle, that it would be preferable for the workers involved in a dispute under this Act not to be required to make themselves known to their employer early in the process if possible, so as to avoid any potential for victimisation. The new section provides that a statutory declaration made by the chief officer of the trade union concerned setting out the number of its members who are party to the trade dispute and the period of membership in the grade, group, or category to which the trade dispute refers shall be admissible in evidence without further proof unless the contrary is shown. However, where the employer asks that the matters specified in the declaration be examined, the Labour Court shall satisfy itself that these are indeed correct.

Section 26 amends the principal Act to substitute the term "terms and conditions of employment" with "the totality of remuneration and conditions of employment". This is required to ensure that the totality of pay and conditions is examined by the Labour Court. The section also makes provision in the principal Act to the effect that the Labour Court shall not make a recommendation unless it is satisfied that the totality of remuneration and conditions of employment of the workers concerned provides a lesser benefit to those workers than the totality of remuneration and conditions of employment of comparable workers employed in similar employments. This provision is required because the principal Act, as it stands, provides no guidance to the Labour Court on the factors that should be taken into account in formulating a recommendation or determination under the Act.

Section 26 also provides new guidance to the Labour Court, in considering whether to make a recommendation, as to the procedures to follow in its assessment. The court is required to have regard to the totality of the remuneration and conditions of employment of comparable workers employed in similar employments - whether those comparable workers are represented by a trade union or not - and the comparability of skills, responsibilities and physical and mental effort required to perform the work in which the workers are engaged. In this respect, the court may have regard to similar employments of an associated employer outside the State.

In addition, the amendment provides that where collective agreements concerning the relevant worker are commonplace in similar employments, the court shall, in addition to other evidence presented by the parties, have due regard to the terms of such agreements for the time being in force. Where collective agreements concerning the relevant workers are not commonplace in similar employments, the court shall have due regard to all evidence presented by the parties, whether by way of collective agreements or established by other means.

Finally, the amendment provides that the court shall, for the purpose of making a recommendation, have regard to the effect a recommendation may have on the maintenance of employment and the sustainability of the business in the long-term.

Section 30 amends the principal Act by inserting a new section to provide interim relief pending the determination of a claim for unfair dismissal arising from the provision by a member of a trade union of evidence, information or assistance under the Act. The appropriate amendment to section 6 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 is provided in section 35 by adding an additional ground on which a dismissal is deemed an unfair dismissal. The terms "worker" and "employee" are given the same meaning to ensure consistency between the two Acts.

The remainder of the Bill is concerned with what are essentially consequential amendments, which are detailed in the explanatory memorandum.

I look forward to the contributions from all sections of the House on this Bill and I hope to respond in detail to the views expressed. I believe the Bill in its totality represents a significant step forward for workers and employers. It provides a clear, workable and constitutionally robust framework within which workers' remuneration and conditions of employment can be discussed and determined. I am confident that this framework will fit Ireland's constitutional, social and economic traditions and its international obligations and, very importantly, will ensure continued success in creating jobs and attracting investment into the economy. I commend the Bill to the House.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the publication of this Bill and its arrival into the House after a few false dawns. In 2011, when the Government was appointed, I made the point that the lack of appointment of a Minister for labour affairs to the Department would result in a setback to workers' rights and various pieces of legislation such as this. I was dismissed at the time. I was told it would not be. However, my concerns proved to be correct. The present Minister of State, Deputy Nash, was appointed to the role in July 2012 and suddenly these things started to move, because there was somebody within the Department who was driving them forward and whose job it was to see them progress. This is why we are here. It is why we have this legislation and the minimum wage legislation.

I welcome much of the Bill. There will be little disagreement on many aspects of it. However, the climate of employment has changed in many respects over the past four years. It is important to recognise that the vast majority of employers are not Dunnes Stores or some other operations that have gone to court to suppress workers' rights. They are decent, fair employers that work for the interests of their enterprise and employees and that want to get on with their business in as fair a way as possible without being choked by administration. That was one of the difficulties with the old REA system. I hope that the changes being brought in do not choke businesses with administration and do not leave them exposed for lack of administration procedures, as opposed to a commitment to the spirit and the intent of the legislation. That is what we will be looking at on Committee and Report Stage to ensure this is as administration-friendly as possible. Unless it is, people will not get the benefit of the legislation. They will lose out on the benefit of the legislation, which was a feature of the old system.

I also welcome the provision allowing for review every three years, because under the old system, some of the REAs have been in place since the 1940s, and things have changed in most areas in this country since then. It was a feature of that legislation. It was not fit for purpose and it was not a major surprise that it was struck down. At least now we have that provision with regard to registration.

There are a couple of gaps. One glaring gap is the omission of any kind of provision for representation of pensioners of companies. That must be given consideration. We have seen, and will continue to see, so many examples of people who gave their lives to particular companies - especially large companies, some of which the Minister of State mentioned in his remarks - but find their pension entitlements are being changed and that they have very few rights in terms of contesting those changes to their daily income. If they were still workers within the company they would have all the rights and protections proposed in this legislation. However, because they have gone out on a pension, they have lost many of those rights and that role in the decision-making process of the company. There is no respect for their role in the company and the fact that they are still on the payroll, albeit in a different way. That needs to be dealt with. There are so many examples of companies that are completely changing defined benefit schemes, leaving pensioners who have no ability to earn any other income high and dry without representation.

Surely this represents an opportunity to address the issue.

I agree with the Minister of State's remarks about Dunnes Stores. It does not listen to what happens in this House and it could not care less. That said, however, we need to ensure that we keep using this House to call on Dunnes Stores to support its workers, who are an essential part of its enterprise. It is quite extraordinary that companies in that sector which are headquartered outside the country are leading the way in terms of protection for their workers and involving them in their enterprises, yet the company that is headquartered in this jurisdiction seems determined not to do anything and to move as far away as possible from such a partnership arrangement. I would say to those big organisations and companies that are protesting and complaining about the introduction of this legislation that they should lift the phone and call the Dunnes Stores of this world and other companies that have shown such scant regard for workers' rights that it has proved necessary to reinforce and re-launch this legislation.

There is a proportionate balance in the intent of the legislation between increased collective bargaining rights and anti-victimisation provisions in particular, while maintaining a voluntarist approach. I note that considerable work has been under way in the Department to ensure consultation across the various employer organisations, but in particular with those that represent our foreign direct investment, FDI, sector. People have ideological issues with them, but we should remember that they employ nearly 300,000 people and they have a stake and a role in this.

The legislation is progressive. It has the capacity to significantly improve the rights of workers who are seeking to negotiate collectively. The litmus test for it will come very quickly: will it be able to assist in the resolution of the dispute in Dunnes Stores and will it be able to assist in the resolution of other disputes that may be coming down the tracks, such as those in the transport companies that the Minister of State mentioned? It will not be long before this legislation get its full test. The Minister of State should include a commitment in his reply to the debate to review the legislation in the autumn if it seems to have failed or not assisted in the resolution of those disputes. Otherwise, it will be left as it is for many years in a flawed state.

I welcome section 8 among other sections. Section 8 is important because it allows for some element of variation in situations in which there is a difficulty around an agreement, particularly where parties agree to the variation or where one party agrees to it. We must ensure that is done fairly and that access to that provision is given in a cohesive and consistent manner. A difficulty with the old system was that what happened under one registered employment agreement, REA, differed from what happened under another. The rules around them were different. That led to a certain lack of equality and transparency in the running of the entire programme, which needs to be addressed. In particular, section 8, while it allows for flexibility, needs to be applied in a fair and a transparent manner.

In terms of examining a difficulty in the context of section 13, one of the claims made about the old system was that it was a closed shop. We can consider organisations that were in existence in the 20th century that do not reflect new types of organisation, be that within the union movement or the employer movement. Small businesses in particular will say that they do not have a role in this regard under the new regime. Their input needs to be recognised because many small businesses want to engage and involve themselves in this area but it is one that is a minefield for them. They often do not realise that they are committing an offence under labour legislation until that is found to be the case at an inspection. We need to ensure that the information given to them is comprehensive. We need also to ensure that the organisations that represent them have a role in the management of this process. I hope that will also be allowed under section 13.

The issues in regard to the resourcing of this legislation are hugely important. The Minister of State must ensure that when we are giving all this new responsibility and new flexibility to the Labour Court, it is properly resourced. The passing of the Workplace Relations Bill and its implementation this week are significant, but the delays that were allowed to happen at the Employment Appeals Tribunal, the Labour Court and the various points of access for the apparatus that is envisaged under this legislation were unacceptable. Many of them were because of the delay in reform and because of the negotiations that took place, but there is no sense in introducing such robust legislation unless the Labour Court and, more importantly, the implementation of the Workplace Relations Act are resourced. The workplace relations agency, through the old National Employment Rights Authority, will be the body charged with implementing and enforcing the REAs, and unless they are resourced to carry out proper inspections, set up proper helplines and have proper administrative support, this legislation will fall at the first hurdle. The Minister of State needs to ensure that employers have the information that is needed to ensure they comply with this legislation. I emphasise that the majority of employers will want to comply with it and their failure to do so is usually due to ignorance of the legislation, which needs to be resolved.

In terms of the administration of the provisions of the legislation, I would point to the inconsistencies under the old REA system and the inconsistencies within the same organisation, with different REAs applying to different companies depending on the business or trade in which they were engaged and whether they expanded or did their business in a different way while operating under the same roof, whereby they found themselves exposed under a number of new regulations. We have to ensure that the protections contained in this legislation are as administratively friendly as possible and that private employment law firms will not make a fortune out of this Bill. It should be the case that employers who want to comply can easily do so. If we can do that, many of the frustrations experienced with old REA system will be removed.

The aim of the Bill, as the Minister of State set out, is to improve the communications and atmosphere between employers and employees, and this will be more than achieved, but the legislation is only one part of that. The Minister must ensure, in the context of the implementation of the legislation, that resources are provided, together with an understanding of the consequences of the new provisions, if he is to fully achieve the stated aim of the legislation.

Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputies Richard Boyd Barrett, Joan Collins, Thomas Pringle, Clare Daly and Paul Murphy are sharing the Technical Group slot and will have six minutes each.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chair. This Bill seeks to address two central areas. I welcome the decision to replace the registered employment agreements that were struck down as a result of a court ruling. Similarly, the provisions in the Bill that seek to address the whole issue of collective bargaining are long overdue. Obviously, the context for this legislation is the fact that we have the second highest level of low pay in the OECD, which is a pretty dire situation, and the existence of the phenomenon of the working poor, which is linked to the fact that 16% of those who are living in poverty are working. The Government has been central in pursuing an agenda that involves the introduction of so-called labour activation schemes like JobBridge and Gateway. To my mind and the minds of many others, such schemes are exploitative because they essentially use cheap labour instead of employing people on a properly paid basis to do real jobs that need to be done by local authorities. In the case of JobBridge schemes, private sector employers are essentially able to avail of free labour. Like many people, I would certainly say that such schemes have been used as a mechanism to massage the unemployment figures, encourage a push to the bottom in terms of wages and conditions and further the low pay economy.

It has been mentioned already that the phenomenon known as bogus self-contracting is another important dimension to the context in which we are debating this legislation. The abuse of the relevant contract tax system was particularly highlighted at the time of the Rhatigan dispute. Construction workers will certainly say that the absolutely flagrant, widespread and massive abuse of that system is absolutely endemic across the construction sector. Developers and big contractors use the relevant contract tax system as a means of exploiting workers in the most appalling way. In the Rhatigan case, workers discovered after six weeks that they were getting €5 an hour, in effect. They were forced to go out on strike. It was just appalling. It is worth remembering that the workers were fully vindicated when they finally went to the courts, which found that the abuses they claimed were happening were happening, that they were being exploited and that this system was being abused. It has been clear ever since when I have been talking to those workers and others concerned with this area that the Government needs to take urgent action to address this whole scheme.

It does not seem that Revenue is making a serious effort to address this issue. One allegation made by workers concerned about it is that there is a massive loss to Revenue. The massive number of people employed under the relevant contract tax system is disproportionate. Of course there are real subcontractors out there. If they are examined carefully, it is clear that many of these people do not fit any serious criteria of being a subcontractor. The tenders they put in, often for public jobs, are a joke. Any serious examination of them would show that these people are putting in tenders that they could not fulfil without brutally exploiting the people who work for them. These subcontractors often use laughable addresses. I have a document showing the address of a contractor involved in a public contract for a development at St. Patrick's College in Drumcondra. The address of the contractor who was employing people to do a job at that college turned out to be an undertakers on the Lisburn Road. There is too much to go into there. This is a very serious abuse. These things have to be looked into.

On the Bill itself, obviously the re-establishment of the registered employment agreements is a positive development. We will have to examine the details of this measure on Committee Stage to make sure it is fully robust.

Whether a group is substantially representative is the key issue we need to consider to ensure that there are not too many hoops for workers to jump through in order to avail of these employment agreements to ensure decent conditions at a sectoral level or in the registered employment agreements.

On Committee Stage we will need to scrutinise the Government’s claim that we cannot, for constitutional or legal reasons, establish union recognition where the employer is obliged to recognise a trade union. The Government will no doubt argue we cannot do that and this is the best way to get around it. There is, however, a substantial difference between proper trade union recognition and an employer’s being required to recognise a trade union, which should be a basic right for workers, and what this legislation proposes which is also potentially open to abuse by the employers.

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Bill, the re-establishment of the registered employment agreements and the introduction of the employment orders for rights already won and struck down. While these are welcome, the only organisations that will properly ensure compliance with these orders and agreements are the trade unions and active trade unionists. The real weakness of this legislation is that it will not fundamentally provide the legal right for collective bargaining compelling employers to recognise trade unions where a majority of employees wish their union to negotiate on their behalf.

I recognise that requires constitutional change but the 1937 Constitution is not fit for purpose. This is demonstrated by the fact that we have one or two referendums a year to attempt to bring our Constitution up to date. Among other things it over-emphasises the right of private property. We need a completely new constitution based on economic, cultural and social rights to reflect the real values of the democratic republic we wish we had today.

I welcome the measures to protect workers from victimisation by their employers for trade union activity. The recent Dunnes Stores strike demonstrated disgraceful examples of the victimisation of workers through demotions, reductions in hours and in some cases sackings. In my constituency, in the Dunnes Stores at the Ashleaf Shopping Centre workers were intimidated into participating in a company ballot to not go on strike again. The action by employers such as Dunnes, Aldi and Lidl in the retail and grocery trade and others in areas, such as construction, shows the need for strong legislation to protect workers. We have become a low wage economy, second only to the United States in the number of jobs classified as low paid. A total of 16% of workers are working poor and the share of national income spent on wages is now lower than that in the 1940s. That is a terrible indication of what Irish workers have gone through in the past decade or so. The State is in many cases supplementing profitable employers through family income supplement and other welfare payments while many workers are so paid so little they do not pay tax. This impacts on the State’s ability to provide decent health and child care services, the services society needs to fulfil many people’s aspirations and hopes and essential human rights.

I urge all workers to use this legislation, make sure it is fit for purpose, that it is robust enough, join a union if they are not already in one, become active in their union and join with their workmates to stand up to their employers because in the long run the only solution to low pay, bad working conditions, bogus self-employment contracts, zero-hour and low-hour contracts and precarious employment is strong, democratic, militant trade unions. I, and others, will move amendments in regard to trade unions access in the workplace and for collective bargaining rights and for workers to be able to meet their colleagues and distribute information, etc.

The Minister of State should also provide negotiating rights for former workers, that is, pensioners. The ESB pensioners have contacted me to say this should be included in this legislation and must be provided for. These people are part of society but are not represented in any shape or form to vindicate their rights. There should be a mechanism in the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2015 to do so.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Like most, I welcome this Bill, with a few reservations. While it is a positive attempt to foster better relations between employers, employees and their representatives, this Bill contains a number of shortcomings. Fundamentally, it does not increase the obligation on the employer to recognise the role of trade unions in dispute settlements. While we are told this is due to a Supreme Court ruling in the Ryanair v. IALPA decision in 2005, which deemed it was unconstitutional to force an employer to recognise a trade union, I wonder is that really what this case turned on. We are constantly told we cannot introduce any form of rent control in this State because of a Supreme Court decision on an Act from the 1960s but a detailed reading shows that is not why the Act was ruled unconstitutional. It is very limited. Is the Government really willing to engage with this issue?

There are other ways to normalise employer recognition of representative bodies representing the interests of their employees. In the United Kingdom, the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 includes a duty to bargain in good faith and obliges the employer to disclose certain information to trade union or worker representatives. Even without forcing the employer to deal directly with trade unions, it is very possible to foster a more co-operative environment, which would, in turn, lead to more resolutions.

I deal with many non-unionised workers in my constituency. Seasonal work is a large source of employment in Donegal and for many the only source of employment, especially among farmers and fishermen. Often they are on call, have zero-hour contracts, low-hour contracts or are engaged in casual contracts. They might be reliant on social welfare payments for the other half of the year to supplement their income, or they might return to other seasonal work, such as farming. Budgetary cuts introduced by this Government in recent years have left the seasonal workers in an even more precarious situation. Due to the lack of work and hours available to them they are unable to maintain their social welfare entitlements. They are now dubbed the "precariat", due to the precarious nature of finding work. They find themselves in a unique situation compared with most other employees across the country and in other sectors and they are vulnerable to exploitative work practices in the industry in which they work.

Some seasonal workers work on call shifts and employers are obliged, in theory at least, to compensate workers who are required to be on call but are not used for work. Under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, workers must be paid for 25% of the hours when they were on stand-by or paid for 15 hours, whichever is less. However, this is not always the case and many workers find they are not given what is due to them. Furthermore, these compensatory measures do not extend to casual work contracts. How will this Bill increase protection for those in precarious work and what is the level of enforcement allocated to ensure compliance by employers?

The Bill sets out mechanisms for employers, employees and trade unions to engage on terms and conditions and where employer engagement is non-existent, the trade union can make a request to the Labour Court to investigate the dispute but there is little focus on the non-unionised workers. The Bill addresses excepted bodies, which are non-unionised and have a representative who puts forward the issues of the workers employed within the same company. The Bill outlines the factors the Labour Courts must take into account to determine whether a body is independent, elements such as election of representatives, voting, financing, number of meetings, etc. and the employer will have to prove that it does not have control over the negotiating body. My concern, however, is that the legislation does not apply where the number of workers party to the trade dispute is insignificant having regard to the total number of workers employed by the employer unless exceptional and compelling circumstances exist. If collective bargaining is a right, those workers who are a minority in their workplace are not entitled to this right. I know from personal experience that many small groups of workers within a single employment have changed conditions for their colleagues because they were willing to step forward and take cases to tribunals and fight for their rights but they are left in a very vulnerable position and have to represent themselves.

This is where the issue of victimisation is relevant because behind the scenes in workplaces there are many different types of intimidation and ways to discourage the organisation of workers.

In the fishing sector, in particular, workers may be silently black-listed and prevented from working in the industry if they are known to have tried to organise workers, join a trade union or resolve an issue. Such practices are not dissimilar to those that prevailed at the time of the 1913 Lock-out.

It has been claimed the Bill strengthens the employees' protection from victimisation by employers, for example, through the provision of interim relief in the case of dismissal and the enhancement of protection of workers who believe they are being victimised. While it is fine to introduce legislation to try to strengthen the rights of workers, the key issue is one of enforcement. Notwithstanding the compensation provided for in the Bill, the enforcement of labour laws will be another issue.

It is positive that the Bill provides that any determination by the Labour Court may also be enforced by the Circuit Court should an employer refuse to engage. However, it is a matter for workers who may be in a vulnerable position to come together, in the first instance, and take a case to the Labour Court to secure a recommendation that will be enforced. The Circuit Court is not available to such workers because they do not have funds to take a case. In County Donegal, an employment tribunal ruled in favour of workers in a case involving redundancy payments but the case was lost when the employer took the matter to the Circuit Court because the employees could not afford to be represented in the court.

Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Trade unions must take the case.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Non-unionised workers who are not represented by a trade union cannot take a case to the Circuit Court.

Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Only the trade unions have access to the Labour Court.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Trade union membership is declining and many workers in rural areas are not represented by unions, which have been slow to attempt to organise among these workers. I do not believe the unions have been up for the fight.

Legislation alone will not tackle the culture of exploitation evident in some workplaces or the vulnerability of some workers to exploitative practices. Enforcement needs to be part of the solution. Unfortunately, I do not have much faith in the enforcement aspect of the legislation.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I strongly concur with Deputy Pringle's concluding remarks. While all Deputies will welcome the Bill up to a point, it is long overdue and pretty underwhelming in the context of the challenges that arise in this area. The Bill has been packaged as progress but it simply reinstates the position that obtained in 2007. That is not good enough on the part of the Labour Party, which claims the legacy of James Connolly.

The background to the Bill is the Ryanair v. the Labour Court and IMPACT case, which encapsulated the voluntarist tradition of collective bargaining in place here. This case has had a chilling effect across industry in the intervening years, including the four years since the Government took office. During this period, the Labour Court has been used much less to rule on industrial relations disputes. The programme for Government included a promise to reform the current law on the right of employees to engage in collective bargaining to ensure compliance by the State with recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. While it is good that we have finally had sight of the Bill four years after the programme for Government was published, it is not exactly great for workers at Dunnes Stores who have been victims of some of the practices the legislation belatedly attempts to address. People are being victimised for their participation in trade disputes. For example, 20 workers at Dunnes Stores have been sacked and a brutal regime of intimidation is being directed daily at workers who remained in the company on the basis that they engaged in industrial action.

Deputies will be familiar with last year's bitter dispute at the Greyhound company where workers were locked out of their employment in Dublin for 14 weeks. It is good that the Bill provides that employers will not be able to lock out workers who are covered by a registered employment agreement, REA. As previous speakers stated, however, it is not the case that a registered employment agreement is a panacea to the problems.

While Deputies will welcome the decision to implement some of the measures provided for in the Bill, they are being introduced a little late. It is an insult that the Government was able to ram through the sale of Aer Lingus in one and a half days, without notice, yet it has dragged its heels for four and a half years on this legislation. As part of the debate on the sale of the State's shareholding in Aer Lingus, Government speakers placed great stock on registered employment agreements, portraying them as a get out of jail for free card or guarantee against all eventualities. This is not the case because REAs only cover terms and conditions and will not protect Aer Lingus employees against outsourcing, job losses and so forth. Democratic trade unions that are willing to fight are the only way to provide such protection.

Ryanair, the company whose action gave rise to the legislation, still does not recognise trade unions. Its staff are placed on airport stand-by, which requires them to hang around an airport for eight hours in case another staff member does not show up. While at the airport, they are required to sell rail and bus tickets, for which they receive a sum of €30 which equates to a payment of approximately €3.75 per hour. They may work for 12 hours without a break, the company does not respect rest periods and sick pay requirements and wages are based on flight time, even though staff are subject to mandatory hanging around periods. Sales targets are linked to pay, which means staff on a flight to Manchester must start selling products on board, even as the aircraft is climbing, which is in contravention of safety regulations.

There is no doubt that the Government's failure to act quicker on this vital legislation has had a chilling effect during its years in office. In that four-year period, wages across the economy have declined by 2%. One could ask whether this was a deliberate policy. The Government, in ostensibly reforming the joint labour committee, JLC, system, effectively gutted it. The most vulnerable workers in sectors such as retail, accommodation and catering have not been protected.

Deputies have spoken about collective bargaining but does the Bill really amount to collective bargaining? While the legislation is welcome, the most glaringly omission is the absence of a requirement on employers to recognise and engage with trade unions. The greatest fault in the legislation is that it maintains Ireland's voluntarist system of industrial relations which IBEC argues is vital. As such, the Government is dancing to IBEC's tune.

The definition of the term "collective bargaining" is weak and does not offer sufficient protection to workers. The Bill refers to voluntary engagement between employers and trade unions or accepted bodies. We do not know what constitutes "engagement" and I am certain lawyers in the Labour Court will exploit this vagueness to the detriment of workers. Neither the Labour Court recommendation nor international collective bargaining legislation contains the phrase "voluntary engagement". What does this term mean?

A number of other issues also need to be addressed. Previous speakers made critical points about pensioners who are denied a pathway into the industrial relations machinery on the basis that they are not deemed to be employees, despite valid issues arising that relate to their previous employment and affect their material well-being. This issue needs to be addressed.

While the Bill does something to improve the lot of workers, restoring the position that obtained in 2007 is inadequate and it needs to be drastically changed.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Any measure that enhances the rights and conditions of workers is welcome. This Bill, we are told, will restore the system of registered employment agreements that was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in three sectors, namely, construction, forestry and meat processing. The Bill establishes a system for sectoral orders that can define pay and conditions in areas of the economy where an employer's refusal to recognise unions prevents voluntary registered employment agreements from being applied.

I will focus primarily on addressing concerns that have been raised with me by trade union and worker activists, particularly in the construction industry, on the basis that the measures will not alter the position for many workers because of practices that have become more entrenched on the employer side in recent years. I refer specifically, as previous speakers have done, to bogus self-employment arrangements on building sites that have become rife. A person who enters a building site supposedly as a self-employed person as opposed to an employee will automatically lose the protections offered in the Bill. This matter will only be remedied if a serious approach is taken by Revenue, which is forgoing millions of euro by permitting this practice to flourish, all Departments involved in tendering out major construction projects, and the trade union movement, which has serious work on its hands if it is to re-organise in the construction sector.

Take as a case study the JJ Rhatigan strike last year which spanned some six months. Workers organised by UNITE rightly opposed bogus self-employment practices on a Department of Education and Skills funded project which meant bricklayers working for the equivalent of €5 per hour. The very tendering processes for construction projects funded by the State should be enough to alert the Government that these practices are taking place when major construction companies tender on the basis of a price per block that can only be achieved at less than a registered employment agreement rate or even the minimum wage.

I have an advertisement from CLS Recruitment which offers to locate workers for construction firms or their sub-contractors by means of what are, in effect, bogus self-employment arrangements. The advertisement refers to the advantages of using the company which include no PRSI to pay, no holiday pay, no pension to pay, no bank holidays to pay, no sick leave to pay, no redundancy payments to make, no disputes with employees or unfair dismissals actions, and the ability to hire and off-hire staff at one hour's notice throughout the country. Here one sees written down in graphic terms what many companies do not write down. There it is in evidence. The company is offering bogus self-employment for people and a charter for total exploitation that robs construction workers of decent pay and conditions and Revenue of significant PAYE contributions which then have to be made up elsewhere. Interestingly, one provision of the Lansdowne Road agreement which partially restores pay for public sector workers is that when certain work is being considered for outsourcing, the pay levels private firms offer will no longer be criteria that can be factored in. Can this principle not apply on State-funded construction contracts? Can the Government not insist on REA rates and direct employment practices when bids come in for school building projects and the like?

The issue of who is representative of workers in a sector or workplace as provided for in the Bill is potentially problematic. The trade union movement operates in a hostile environment, particularly in the private sector. The jobs recovery touted by the Government and large sections of the media is built to a large degree on precarity. The reality of trade union organising is that significant resources have to go into some sectors and it can require painstaking work to build and then maintain a certain union density. The admirable efforts of Mandate in recruiting Dunnes workers over the years, for example, led to it achieving 60% density on the eve of the strike action. One has to deal with staff turnover and concerted anti-union campaigns by employers which under the terms of the Bill as drafted could result in unions being no longer regarded as substantially representative.

Finally, I make a more general point on the model of industrial relations we have. The explanatory memorandum accompanying the Bill refers on a number of occasions to the objective of achieving a system of harmonious industrial relations. Such an objective denies the reality of the opposing interests of the boss or employer class on the one hand and, on the other, of working class people. The boss class is broadly speaking hostile to trade unions. Some are willing to go all the way to the Supreme Court so as not to have to deal with trade unions for a reason. The initiative for achieving and maintaining decent pay and conditions fundamentally lies with workers themselves organising to take from the boss what he or she wants to keep as profits for himself or herself and his or her shareholders. Active organisation in democratic, fighting trade unions is the best mechanism available to workers to protect their interests and to fight for improvements in their conditions. Therefore, I will oppose and seek to amend and improve various measures provided for in the legislation that serve to curb the ability of workers and the unions to take effective and timely action to defend pay and conditions in response, for example, to future rises in the cost of living.

Colm Keaveney (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to share time with Deputy John Browne.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Colm Keaveney (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge the dedication, commitment and, above all, action of the Minister of State, Deputy Gerald Nash, in filling an incredibly complex gap that existed in the economy. It has been challenging for many people as vividly described by many Deputies in the House today. I appeal to people in the Chamber to support the legislation on the basis that within the context of the constitutional challenges, achieving the utopian aspirations of some was never going to happen with Fine Gael in government. That is the reality. Deputy Catherine Murphy described the conflict between the worker and the employer. It is in the Constitution, in fact. The relationship is that of master and servant. There is a lot of rooting out of the Constitution to address the imbalances that have been described, but there is no justification in my view not to take the Bill as a positive.

The economy has been damaged significantly over the course of 2011 to 2015. It is in that context that we must welcome the Bill to give people an opportunity to start to engage with the shares of a recovery. That will require some method of engagement to ensure that there is a fair and equal distribution of the wealth from the economy. My criticism is that in the recent past we had a referendum which involved reducing the presidential age. What was the chance of ever looking at constitutionally progressing the imbalances in the relationship between the employer and employee, the master and the servant? It was a wasted opportunity as the Government made little or no effort with respect to the presidential age. That was born out of the Constitutional Convention. If there is to be a Constitutional Convention under a future Government, it is critical that the difficulties and hurdles to the utopian view of collective bargaining are first addressed in a referendum to decide what the balance of the relationship between an employee and an employer should be.

I have no doubt that if there had not been a change of leadership within the Labour Party, we would not be speaking here today on collective bargaining. I am concerned, however, about the consequences of the delay. Where one has seen investment in the economy and jobs, a significant advantage has been given to enterprise with respect to competing and bottom-feeding at the bottom end of the economy. The result is that significant time has been created for some enterprises to circumvent the principles set out in the legislation. Where there is non-unionised employment, I have witnessed the construct of a staff representative council. How are we going to test how meaningful the substance of negotiations in an enterprise where the non-unionised structure of a staff representative council could end up negotiating whether it is to be fig rolls or Mikado biscuits or the content of the Christmas hamper? How do we establish what is meaningful in the context of pay and conditions in non-unionised employment? A significant opportunity has been afforded. It is a huge concession that was given by the Labour Party to the economy and the masters in government, Fine Gael.

I have no doubt that if the Minister of State, Deputy Nash, had not been appointed, we would not have this Bill in the House today. I have no doubt that Fine Gael has reluctantly given him what was Fianna Fáil legislation. Fianna Fáil legislation has been dusted down and copper-fastened by the Minister of State in relation to the three court challenges. The politics of this appears to be that a week ago, the Labour Party was hopped into selling Aer Lingus and needed a vivid demonstration for the backbenchers of Fine Gael of the justification for a registered employment agreement. That was the silver lining of the argument that justified the consensus on the sale of a State asset. If that is what it takes, the Minister of State must reflect on the people he is in government with. The Government sold the State share in Aer Lingus for €320 million. It was only last Thursday that the Taoiseach was describing the Opposition as hysterical with respect to the raising of issues around discounts of €1 billion for top companies which have, again, had an opportunity to bottom-feed.

The Government has come out worse politically on this, but that does not detract from the Minister of State's own role in getting it to this juncture. We are all entitled in this House to have an opinion and to make an analysis, but this should not distract us from what is good about this legislation. I am convinced that if the leadership of the Labour Party had not changed the Minister of State would not be sitting here today, but that is the end of the Labour Party in government; it is over. That is the last commitment the party had in the programme for Government and it took them four and a half years to get to this juncture. It has resulted, in my view, in significant concessions. I refer to that virtuous blind eye by which Labour has turned its back on things when it was needed most. This legislation was needed four years ago. That is the criticism I have.

I refer to the consequences of the delay in accelerating critical legislation. When one looks at the composition, the structure and the procedures in the legislation, one can see that this is Fianna Fáil legislation which has been dusted down and copperfastened with respect to the role of the Attorney General and the three challenges to the constitutionality of the previous legislation, including Aer Lingus and the fast food industry. That is a pretty poor legacy after four and a half years, and the consequences for the workplace have been significant. It would be wrong to reject the legislation because of the politics of the situation. It would be short-sighted of people in this House not to accept it as a stepping stone towards normality and harmonious relationships in the workplace. We anticipate that there will be some recovery in the economy, which will be a real recovery. In those circumstances we need to see a formal mechanism by which workers, trade unions and staff representative councils - preferably unions - could have an opportunity for meaningful engagement. However, the vacuum created for four and a half years is an issue of legacy politics because much of the investment that has taken place has been on the basis of circumventing the legislation, hand-picking a staff representative council and a negotiating team and deciding the agenda. I want assurances from the Minister of State that there will be a real test with respect to non-unionised employments with regard to efforts to provide for a staff representative council. There has to be some element of testing the real gains that are made by non-unionised staff representative councils, as opposed to the proxy organisation of a union in unionised employment, where terms and conditions of employment are less than in the unionised employment. That is the test - whether the terms and conditions in, for example, a non-unionised hotel are less favourable than in a unionised hotel. What is the mechanism to ensure that a staff representative council is meaningful in terms of pay, conditions, pension provisions and health and safety regulations and that people are not acting in bad faith to superficially comply with the spirit of the legislation? I do not see that copperfastened in the legislation, but it would be wrong of people to ideologically kick the Government on this.

The legislation is as good as it can be because the groundwork was done prior to this point. My only reservation is that it is four and a half years late. I am pretty confident it would not have happened if the Minister of State were not there, but these are the benefits of getting rid of the last leader of the Labour Party.

John Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill and to welcome the long-promised Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2015. The proposals are broadly welcome, as the legislation strikes a balance between increased collective bargaining rights and anti-victimisation provisions for workers while maintaining the volunteer approach to collective bargaining supported by employers. As Deputy Keaveney said, the Bill might not have come before the House were it not for the courageous stand taken by the Dunnes Stores workers. Their stand certainly pushed the Fine Gael and Labour Party Government to bring forward this legislation and to prioritise it. I hope it will pass all Stages as quickly as possible.

The new legislation aims to provide an improved framework for workers who seek to enhance their terms and conditions of employment where collective bargaining is not recognised by their employers, as well as to provide a replacement structure for the REA system.

In recent years I have noted that workers' rights have been seriously eroded, with some employers offering poor working conditions, low pay and low health and safety standards. It may be due to the recession or because people find it very difficult to get work and they are often very glad to take any kind of work. This seems to be the norm with some employers. I hope this Bill will deal with some of the issues in this area. Sometimes I wonder about the role of the unions nowadays in that they seem to accept too easily rogue employers and employers operating in the black economy who are not treating their workers to the correct standards.

In my county we have a lot of seasonal workers who work as strawberry pickers, meat processing workers and forestry workers, as well as in seasonal farming and fishing work. What rights will these workers have under this Bill? As seasonal workers, many of them are on low wages, and if they were forced to go beyond bargaining with their employer - if they had to take it a step further into the legal arena - they would not be in a position to do so if they had to hire solicitors or go to court. Some employers are very good at looking after their seasonal workers, many of whom come from Poland and other countries. However, at the end of the seasonal period I have noted that people come to my office saying they are unable to get their P60 or P45 documents or their holiday pay or overtime pay from the employers. It is necessary to battle with some employers to ensure that the rights of their workers are respected and, more important, that the documents they require for claiming social welfare or holiday pay are provided. Because they are seasonal workers, many of them are not in a position to get social welfare payments, and they certainly are not in a position to get contributory benefits. They may be entitled to jobseeker's benefit eventually, after being put through the wringer by the local social welfare office. If they earn any kind of income from the seasonal work, more often than not they are ruled out for jobseeker's benefit. They are forced to appeal the decision, and it can take six or nine months before any entitlements are awarded.

I refer to the situation of Dunnes Stores in Gorey, which was shocking. Dunnes Stores closed its store overnight. Workers were called in and told that the store was to close as and from that evening. There was no explanation offered and there was no discussion or dialogue as to when it might reopen. We accept that legal problems arose over an entrance door, but instead of reverting to the original entrance, the Dunnes Stores management decided to close the store without any explanation to its 70 or 80 workers, who have families and mortgages.

They were left high and dry for the best part of a week before being told that the store would re-open. This is no way to treat workers and is certainly no way to treat regular customers who were locked out for the week. How will the Bill protect workers in similar situations in the future?

The most galling of all was that many politicians in Wexford made contact with senior management in Dunnes Stores in Dublin by phone and e-mail and yet we were all ignored. It is the management's right to ignore politicians but at the same time, we were representing people and had been contacted by the workers. We did not even get the courtesy of an acknowledgement of our e-mails and phone calls asking when and whether the store would re-open. The same thing has happened with zero-hour contracts in Dunnes Stores; it is very difficult to get any explanation from the company as to why and how it operates them. We are talking about people who have worked in Dunnes Stores for many years. All they are looking for is the same contracts and conditions as are offered by Tesco, SuperValu and other supermarkets in order to give them a level of security in their hours and earnings. It is an issue that will continue for quite some time unless the Bill helps bring about dialogue between management and workers.

We met the Dunnes Stores workers who are looking for decent hours and earnings, job security, fair pay and representation and the right to dignity at work. I do not think that is too much to ask in this day and age. I was a union representative for many years back in the 1970s and at that time, the unions fought to improve the conditions of workers. Collective bargaining was introduced, which was helpful. For some reason, companies now want to make huge amounts of money on the backs of workers, putting them on the lowest possible pay and hours while creaming off the profits. That should not be allowed to continue.

I am sure that if legislation such as the Bill before us had been in place, it would have compelled Dunnes to go to the Labour Court or to the Labour Relations Commission. The legislation aims to address most of the deficits exposed by the 2007 Supreme Court ruling which, as we all know, involved Ryanair. It provides an avenue for workers, through their trade unions, to secure improvements in pay and conditions when an employer refuses to engage in collective bargaining. In these cases, the proposed legislation allows for the Labour Court to make a determination in a dispute which can then be enforced by way of a Circuit Court order. Perhaps the Minister of State would clarify who will foot the bill for the Circuit Court order. Many of the people I know who are working seasonally or for 16 or 17 hours a week in supermarkets will certainly not be in a financial position to go to the courts. Will there be some support in that area?

Will the Minister of State look seriously at the plight of the ESB retired workers? We all got letters in the last couple of days from the ESB Retired Staff Association. Its members want to be included and the letter states that:

The right to engage meaningfully with an employer and the trustees of an associated pension scheme is the very essence of pensioner grievance. Pensioner representatives, as of right, should be affording meaningful equality of esteem by having formal input to any or all discussions or negotiations that may effect their pension entitlements - entitlements that flow from the collectively agreed industrial relations employment contract that bound us throughout our working careers and continues to collectively bind us in retirement.

The right of trade unions to represent their members in negotiations with employers on industrial relations issues is an inherent part of the industrial relations process in Ireland and therefore we, as pensioners, should be included in any negotiations for the future.

Marcella Corcoran Kennedy (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important Bill, which is a combination of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill and the Industrial Relations (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill. This Bill is a fulfilment of the programme for Government's commitment to reform the current law on employees' rights to engage in collective bargaining. Indeed, it is also a fulfilment of the statement of priorities agreed by the Taoiseach and Tánaiste last year. Despite the claims of Deputy Keaveney and others, this plan was in place as far back as the programme for Government.

The aim of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2014 is to put in place a new mechanism for a revised framework for the setting of pay, pension and sick pay entitlements of workers in a particular sector. It will also provide for the registration of employment agreements which are binding only on the parties to the agreement - the employer and the trade unions.

The decision to prepare the legislation was made as a result of the 2013 judgment by the Supreme Court in the McGowan case which held that Part III of the Industrial Relations Act 1946 was invalid having regard to Article 15.2.1 of the Constitution. The effect of this was to invalidate the registration of employment agreements previously registered under that Act.

The Bill forms part of a suite of employment legislation currently being enacted by the Government to counteract perceived weaknesses in the framework for employment legislation in Ireland at present. It is critical that this matter be addressed when one looks at the increases in industrial disputes from quarter one 2014 to quarter one 2015. In 2014 just two disputes were ongoing, involving 178 workers with 310 days lost. Just one year later this has increased to disputes involving 27,588 workers and 24,056 days lost. In light of these figures, I fully support the Government's position that this legislation be provided in the interest of legal clarity, harmonious industrial relations and establishing a more constitutionally robust regulatory framework. This will have a significant impact on employers and their employees in respect of rates of pay and tendering for contracts. It is vital that industrial peace be maintained, especially in the construction sector. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the Bord na Móna workers, many of whom live in my constituency, who are in the Labour Relations Court at present.

I welcome the fact this Bill will provide a process of registering employment agreements on an individual enterprise basis and on a sectoral basis. It will also introduce reforms in the right to engage in collective bargaining and amend the procedure under which trade disputes are brought before the Labour Court in circumstances where collective bargaining is not practiced. In fact, it is the first time that collective bargaining is defined in Irish law. Anti-victimisation measures are also an important part of the Bill, which I fully support.

Last September, the Minister of State, Deputy Nash provided a copy of the general scheme of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2014 to the Joint Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and requested that the committee undertake pre-legislative scrutiny, which the committee considered and agreed to the next day. Engagement with stakeholders is an important element of this process and so the committee sought submissions by way of notice on the Houses of the Oireachtas website. Submissions were received from IBEC and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU. The committee also held a series of stakeholder meetings, commencing with a meeting with the Minister of State, Deputy Nash, and officials of the Department. Subsequent meetings were held with representatives of the following organisations: the Labour Relations Commission; the Construction Industry Federation; the Association of Electrical Contractors of Ireland; National Electrical Contractors Ireland; the Technical Electrical and Engineering Union; and the Construction Workers Alliance, with a view to scrutinising the provisions of the General Scheme. The final report was agreed by the committee on 16 December and forwarded to the Minister of State for his consideration.

Nine of the conclusions to which the committee came were contained in the report. I do not have time to go through them all but will refer to some of them.

6 o’clock

For example, conclusion 4 has had an impact on the Bill, which is to be welcomed. We highlighted the stakeholder concerns that parties would be bound to a revised REA to which they did not agree. I welcome the fact the Bill provides that a party may withdraw from an agreement where the Labour Court makes an order varying an agreement in the absence of agreement by both parties.

I would also like to refer to conclusion 9, which refers to enforcement and compliance especially in regard to cross-Border competition. Stakeholders highlighted the necessity for the existence of an enforcement body with appropriate authority and powers to ensure that no unfair competitive advantage could be gained by employers coming from other jurisdictions. The Minister of State might consider having conclusion 9 specifically addressed in the Bill as this is not provided for at present. He might also review some of the other conclusions which we put into the report.

Before I conclude, I would like to welcome the establishment of the Low Pay Commission, which is chaired by Dr. Donal de Buitléir. I acknowledge his welcome appearance at the Oireachtas committee. I wish him and the other members well and I look forward to their first report, which is due next month. Although this might sound a little philosophical, I believe the relationship between the employer and the employees is symbiotic and every effort to enhance that relationship is most welcome. This legislation will go a long way towards achieving that.

Áine Collins (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this very important Bill. I compliment the Minister on his work on it and on bringing it before the House.

I would like to respond to Deputy Keaveney, who claimed that after four and a half years, the legacy of this Government was to bring this Bill to the House very late. I remind him that the legacy of this Government, of which both Fine Gael and Labour are part, is economic stability, reducing unemployment and giving opportunity and hope to people, as well as providing security, which was lost under the last Government. I would also remind him that he joined Fianna Fáil, which was the party that sold us out, with the result that the troika had to be brought into this country. I am sure we would all like to move on from that point because the Irish people do not want to hear about it for too long more.

Research has suggested that industrial conflict may be more rather than less likely when unions are weakened and unable to assist in ordering industrial relations systems. In particular, current economic and social policy in Ireland relies on unions being able to enforce agreements made with employers and the State. It is clear that the conduct of pay determination and industrial relations, especially in the public sector, is now a significant influence on a country’s credit rating and, hence, on the cost of borrowing and the resulting scale of public debt. It is very important we have a system whereby workers and employers can work through various issues that appear from time to time.

From listening to the Opposition, I know there has been a lot of talk about employees, which is very important, but we must also recognise the role employers play in this country, given they are the people who take all the risk. The majority of employers are small businesses which must deal with a huge amount of legislation. I welcome the fact the Minister of State intends to simplify much of this legislation because there is a lot of it that must be muddled through. This is a huge issue, especially for the small employers who, as I said, employ most workers in this country.

While I welcome this new legislation, there are some issues and concerns around it, in particular from the point of view of the unionising of organisations that may not want to be unionised. It is important that we keep ourselves competitive. Changing pay can have an effect on that, which can then have an effect on the economy and particularly on encouraging people to become employers and perhaps attract investment into this country. Nonetheless, I welcome the legislation.

I want to quote an employer from my constituency who wrote to me as follows:

How is it acceptable for one private organisation, a union, to be allowed to dictate to another private organisation how it conducts its affairs? This is effectively what this legislation will allow happen.

The union is a private company who is in the business of securing members and all this legislation is going to do is allow unions agitate workers in private organisations, which will make the union look good and therefore increase their membership. In addition, there is surely a constitutional issue where you have legislation allowing and encouraging a private organisation to interfere in the running of another private organisation. It would not be tolerated in the everyday life of an individual and maybe should not be tolerated in a private company. It could be argued that this legislation is not required and if employees are unhappy with pay or conditions, they may move elsewhere.

I welcome the measures on collective bargaining, although I have some concerns. My biggest concern is what is to be considered "a significant number" of employees. I ask the Minister of State to consider inserting a figure in the Bill that would bring clarity in order to prevent future issues arising down the road.

What everybody wants in regard to collective bargaining is that, where there is a genuine dispute, people have an opportunity to speak and workers and employers have an opportunity to represent themselves. Reference was made to seasonal employment, which is a complicated issue. Not every employer is a big employer and many, particularly in recent years, have been just trying to keep the payroll running and do what they can. Much of the time, they are doing that at a huge cost to themselves and to the people who are working for them. The majority of employers are decent, hard working people. They do their best and get up in the morning with the intention of looking after their employees and they take that very seriously.

As always, our job as policy makers is to ensure that is done in a fair and safe way. It is important to do that while, at the same time, ensuring we are conscious that the majority of employers in this country are small employers who must deal with a lot of legislation in their everyday lives. I would welcome the opportunity to simplify that further but it is important that we also try to make it fair. In that context, I again ask the Minister of State to consider inserting a percentage figure for the number of employees who can take a case in regard to collective bargaining.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State. I know he has a considerable interest in this area and he has certainly put a lot of work into the Bill, for which I commend him.

The Bill will reinstate the system of registering collective agreements and will provide for a new system of registering employment agreements in certain sectors. It also contains measures to put in place collective bargaining rights. As a member of the Oireachtas Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, and as a Deputy for Galway West and Mayo South, I have engaged with businesses, particularly small to medium sized enterprises but also with larger companies, employers and workers. It is clear that a balance needs to be struck on the issue of registered agreements.

Our recovery is strengthening, employment is increasing and State revenues are up, but the recovery is fragile and we cannot put in place inflexible arrangements that would endanger job retention and job creation. However, it is also clear from a number of high-profile cases that we need to ensure this legislation helps contribute towards a sense of security and certainty for workers - certainty in pay, in working hours and in working conditions.

Making work pay is a key policy of Fine Gael and gainful employment in sustainable jobs is vital. Work should always pay more than welfare. I view this legislation in that light as part of the number of measures underway to encourage job creation that is sustainable and through which a person can support himself or herself and his or her family. Other measures include the establishment of the Low Pay Commission, the reform of the State's workplace relations organisations and the introduction of the back to work family dividend in the last budget, which was particularly welcome.

This Bill is another example of a reform introduced by this Government which unfortunately has been often overlooked, namely, reform of the pre-legislative stage. This is very welcome because it provides for scrutiny and a process of engagement with interested parties, and it has really opened up the legislative process.

Last autumn, at the Oireachtas committee, we engaged with stakeholders on this issue, specifically the general scheme of the Bill. I have been encouraged by the Government's motivation to provide clarity and harmonious industrial relations and to establish a more constitutionally robust regulatory framework. Following stakeholder hearings with a range of groups, including IBEC, ICTU, the Labour Relations Commission, the Construction Workers Alliance and others, our committee compiled a report and submitted this to Government. The Department then considered a number of the issues raised in the report.

Some sections of the Bill stand out. Section 7 concerns registered employment agreements and instructs the Labour Court to register agreements only where there is all-party agreement and where the court is satisfied that a trade union is substantially representative of workers in an organisation.