Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)

Section 6 as it stands represents a good balance between the interests of employers, employees and their representatives. I assure Senators that no section in this Act took more time, examination or attempts to reach agreement with the various parties. This section seeks a number of fair and equitable balance in terms of the interests of both employers and employees by achieving what is required in the directive and what we want to achieve in the work place in terms of information and consultation.

The definition of "employee representative" in the Bill is an employee elected or appointed for the purposes of the Act. We dealt with that when we discussed definitions and we must bear that in mind. In essence, this means that for the purposes of information and consultation, all employees in the undertaking elect or appoint the relevant number of representatives. I believe this is the most democratic approach to adopt in terms of identifying employees representatives. This was discussed to some extent in the context of definitions at the beginning of the Bill. The concerns then expressed by a number of Senators are addressed in the provisions of section 6.

The Bill recognises the role of trade unions in undertakings where it is the practice of the employer to engage in collective bargaining with them. There is no impediment on trade union representatives or members who are employees of the undertaking from standing for election on an equal basis to other employees. Our approach takes account of the views expressed by ICTU.

Amendment No. 17 is a relatively minor technical Government amendment, which somewhat clarifies the situation. I will briefly deal with each of the amendments in so far as I can. Amendment No. 15 proposed by Senators White, Quinn and Coghlan is superfluous in that the appropriate place to have the reference to section 11 is in section 6(3), which is where it is. That suffices in this instance.

Amendment No. 16, in the name of Senators O'Toole and McDowell, is entirely covered by the provisions of section 6(3), which refers to the fact that employees who are members of a trade union or excepted body that represents 10% or more of the employees in the undertaking shall be entitled to elect or appoint from among their members one or more than one employees' representative. That is a considerable concession and people generally accept that, although some outside the House have difficulties in acknowledging it.

Amendment No. 17 is a Government technical amendment. Amendment No. 18 has been changed and has been replaced by the new amendment No. 21, to which Senator Quinn referred. I understand that the phrase "in that employment" is already covered in the section and is entirely clear from the beginning. Amendment No. 19 reads:

In page 6, lines 26 to 28, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following new subsection:

"(2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (3) and Schedule 2 of this Act, the employer shall arrange for the election of employees representative under this section.".

We might agree that is provided for, both at definition level and in section 6.

We have not dealt with amendment No. 22, in the names of Senators O'Toole and McDowell. Arguments have not been made in favour of amendment No. 22, which states:

In page 6, lines 36 to 39, to delete subsection (4) and substitute the following new subsection:

"(4) A person elected to the position of employee representative shall hold that office for a period of no longer than three years.".

I cannot pretend I am well disposed to it, but I am interested in hearing the arguments in its favour.