Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 10 May 1988

Vol. 380 No. 4

Private Members' Business. - Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Bill, 1988 [ Seanad ]: Second Stage.

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

This Bill will help give effect to the Government commitment in the Programme for National Recovery to bring forward legislation to facilitate the development of worker participation at sub-board levels in State enterprises. The Bill also provides for the election of worker directors to two more State boards, Aer Rianta and the National Rehabilitation Board. In addition, the Bill provides for a number of amendments to the scheme of the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act, 1977.

The case for wider employee involvement has been advocated in different quarters for many years. There has been a longstanding consensus among political parties in this country in favour of extending what the European Commission termed the "democratic imperative" to representative arrangements in the workplace.

My party collegue, Gene Fitzgerald, MEP, when he was Minister for Labour published a Government discussion paper in 1980 on the subject of worker involvement. The Bill now before the House brings a long process of debate, trial and compromise an important stage further.

This Bill is also significant because it confirms this Government's endorsement of the usefulness of mechanisms of consensus in improving our industrial relations climate. It is possible to use legislation as a catalyst for a change. It can set a headline and help to encourage more concerted efforts on the part of management and employees at enterprise level. There has been a tendency on the part of those enterprises, both in the public and the private sector, who have pioneered new forms of employee involvement to keep their experience very much to themselves. I have spoken before of the need to shed more light on the new forms of work organisation and of co-operation which have been developed in this country. The promotion of this Bill has already been widely welcomed as a spur to such developments.

The Bill will support the development of worker involvement below the level of the board in a total of 39 State enterprises. A few of these have longstanding worker participation arrangements. Others have only recently taken the first steps to develop either new structures or consultative arrangements. I was pleased to be associated with the recent launch by two major State organisations, Aer Rianta and Telecom Éireann, of initiatives in this area which they have now publicly endorsed as part of their corporate philosophy. Other State enterprises have yet to consider joint consultation. This Bill should help them to take the first steps in the participative process.

The Bill gives employees the opportunity to initiate discussion on the implementation of worker participation in their organisation. Once a majority of employees or the unions which represent them request participation, it is up to the enterprise and to employee interests to devise between them mutually acceptable arrangements. The terms of the resulting arrangement will be contined in an agreement signed by both parties. While the Bill gives employees the right to initiate the participative process, this provision in no way interferes with the existing role of management. They remain free to bring forward their own proposals or to approach employee representatives about the development of a joint approach to participation at sub-board levels.

Flexibility in the adoption of new initiatives at company level is a key feature of the sub-board provisions in the Bill. Each enterprise and its employees will have the opportunity to develop a unique participative agreement which will reflect the interests and concerns they have in common. The Bill does not prescribe any particular type of vehicle for consultation or participation at company level. The enterprise and its employees can decide among themselves the type of arrangements to suit their situation.

I am hopeful that this flexibility will stimulate more innovative developments. We are familiar with participation councils in a number of bodies, but I would expect joint working parties on particular areas and other types of consultative machinery to be developed where this is preferred.

The Bill does not set out to limit the range of issues for consideration in each enterprise. The agenda will be decided jointly by the enterprise and its employees. In that way, the subject areas which are appropriate for participation in each particular enterprise can be identified at local level.

In a number of State enterprises the widespread use of consultative councils should enable a broad participative agenda to operate from the outset. In others, it may be that a more gradual build-up of subject areas can be expected. As confidence and trust develop between both sides, a broader range of areas may suggest themselves for inclusion in the participative process. Although flexibility is the keynote, some critical elements are essential to the evolution of participation and these are set out in section 6 of the Bill. Whatever kind of vehicle is used for sub-board participation, it should ensure the maximum appropriate disclosure of information about plans, performance and change.

Section 6 of the Bill requires the exchange of views as well as the exchange of clear and reliable information between the enterprise and its employees; the communication in good time to employees of information likely to have a significant effect on their interests; and the distribution to all employees of views and information arising from the participative process. These are the basic requirements. There are, of course, many issues on which management and unions could make progress for mutual benefit, by sharing information and joint discussion, leading to better decisions for all concerned.

Apart from sub-board participation, the Bill will extend and amend earlier worker participation legislation. The Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act, 1977, provided board level representation for workers in seven State enterprises. They are Aer Lingus, Bord na Móna, B & I, CIE, ESB, Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann and NET. This Bill will designate two more State enterprises — Aer Rianta and the National Rehabilitation Board — for worker director arrangements.

Arising from a Committee Stage amendment which I tabled in the Seanad, this Bill incorporates the provisions for workers director elections in An Post and Bord Telecom Éireann, which were originally contained in the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act, 1983, in a single code. The consolidation of the statutory arrangements affecting these bodies follows upon requests from and consultations with the interests concerned.

More significant for the future development of board level participation in our State enterprises is a new general provision contained in section 24(2) of the Bill. This will allow the Minister for Labour to extend worker director elections to further State enterprises without recourse to primary legislation. Under the provision, the Minister may by affirmative order designate additional State enterprises for board level participation after consultation with other interested Ministers. This will get over the problem which required special legislative provisions to be made in the case of the establishment of An Post and Telecom Éireann.

The original seven State enterprises designated in the 1977 Act were all commercial enterprises. The formula adopted in that Act gave one-third of all positions on the board to elected worker directors and was specifically devised to cater for commercial boards. As this Bill designates a non-commercial enterprise — the National Rehabilitation Board — for worker director elections, some adjustment to the original formula is required.

What is needed above all is an approach which is responsive to the requirements of the type of board which operates in the non-commercial sphere. Worker directors are only one of a variety of representational appointments which may be required to be accommodated on such boards. In appointing worker directors in the non-commercial enterprise sector, it is important not to upset the essential balance which should obtain among the diversity of interests usually represented on these boards. The optimum number of board members will also be a practical consideration if a cohesive and effective board is to be maintained.

The relative importance of considerations such as these will vary from enterprise to enterprise and no one formula for board level participation will be suitable in all instances. Accordingly, section 21 of the Bill permits the Minister for Labour to vary, by order, the number of worker directors below the one-third provision. The Bill requires, however, that at least two worker directors should be appointed to any board.

These are the main features of the Bill. There are also a number of other amendments to the 1977 Act which I will mention briefly. Indeed, some of these points were highlighted in the Seanad debate. Section 9 of the Bill empowers the Minister for Labour to extend the vote in worker director elections to employees in the subsidiaries of State enterprises. The provision allows for extension of the franchise by ministerial order after consultation with other Ministers concerned.

The mechanism for initiating action by the Minister for Labour provided at section 9 (3) of the Bill is the result of an amendment which I introduced on Committee Stage in the Seanad. The amendment takes account of concerns, particularly in relation to the position of overseas subsidiaries, expressed to me both outside that House and in the course of the Second State debate. I am satisfied that the text now before the House deals in an effective way with the difficulties which were raised.

The new text gives representatives of employees an equal say with the State enterprise in initiating any proposal for extending the vote to subsidiaries. The original text had left the enterprise with an exclusive right of application to the Minister and required only that the views of employee representatives in the State enterprise should accompany that application.

A number of Senators expressed concern about the definition of employee proposed in the Bill. Under the original Act, only whole-time workers could participate in worker director elections. The Bill broadens the definition to include employees working a minimum of 18 hours per week. This is a catching up exercise and brings the definition of employee, for the purposes of worker participation, into line with that provided in other legislation.

It has been represented to me, both in the Seanad and by trade union interests, that this definition does not take account of concerns relating to part-time employees on low hours of work. I have recently received a detailed submission from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions which is seeking the implementation of a package of measures relating to the position of part-time workers. Should the Government be persuaded of the need to make such changes, then the position with regard to the status of part-time workers under a number of Acts would have to be addressed by amending legislation. I do not consider that the matter is appropriate for resolutions in the context of this Bill.

I am extending the terms of office of worker directors from three to four years. This increase in the term of office is the result of requests from both the worker directors themselves and from the boards of some designated State enterprises.

The Bill also requires that worker directors who relinquish their employment will at the same time cease to hold board membership. This provision will ensure that employees are represented at board level by one of their number. It does away with the possibility of a worker director who retires, resigns, or perhaps takes up employment with a competitor, continuing to represent the workers at board level in his or her previous employment. The extension of the term of office of worker directors to four years also points to the need for a provision of this kind.

I am heartened by the level of interest shown in this Bill. There is a new momentum behind the promotion of employee involvement. There is a growing sense of common purpose on the part of the enterprise and its employees. There is a shared interest in keeping the business open, in maintaining or increasing the demand for services or product and in developing the business so that it continues to meet the market demands.

In today's competitive environment, organisational effectiveness is not easily achieved. The task of running a successful State enterprise requires the joint effort of both management and employees. This involves sharing information about the enterprise and engaging in meaningful consultation about the options for increased efficiency in the future.

Participation will not do away with unpalatable decisions but it should, through information and consultation, allow a wider range of options to be considered before decisions are taken. It is also to be expected that a decision taken on that basis is less likely to encounter the opposition and resentment which employees feel about a bolt from the blue.

This legislation gives strong support to the development of worker participation in our State enterprises. I am confident that all concerned will have the foresight to implement arrangements for the good of both employees and the enterprise and, ultimately, the consumers of the services and products of our public enterprises.

I commend the Bill to the House.

I welcome this Bill in broad terms in so far as it goes. I congratulate the Minister on its introduction and wish him well with its speedy progress through the House. I hope that by the time the Bill is completed it will carry with it certain amendments to which I shall refer as I go along. I notice that the Minister referred to the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act, 1983. I am not too sure that some of the amendments which the Minister has made tighten up the Bill sufficiently.

First, I am disappointed that the Bill is a State enterprise Bill and not a worker participation Bill. It is time that worker participation was not confined simply to State enterprise. We constantly tell ourselves in this House that State enterprise should have the same terms of reference and opportunities as in the private sector, yet we do not compel the private sector to meet the same requirements as State enterprise. There is no valid reason for that, except that the State happens to own the enterprise concerned and, presumably, we feel that we have a special authority to make a decision on its behalf. We also have the duty and right to legislate for the public interest. It is without doubt within the powers of this House to amend the necessary legislation, including the Companies Acts, to compel other private sector enterprises to ensure adequate participation for their employees. This legislation has not been addressed by the House since 1977. Coming back to it 11 years later, it has worked pretty well in the public sector. I do not see why we are not looking at the whole question of worker participation in the private sector also and I am sorry that the Bill does not address that. I hope that the Minister will return to that at another stage with a later Bill.

I am not suggesting that every company have the need to have worker participation. In the case of the vast majority of companies here there is already worker participation since the workers are usually the people who own the company. There are two or three companies where the directors are also the workers. However, where there is a significant number of workers and they do not know what is going on although their whole future is tied up in that enterprise, democratisation in 1988 requires that they should have a role and be consulted. Not only should they have some sort of authority and an input into how the business is run, but some sort of responsibility as to how it is run.

Many of the strikes which take place here are contributed to by the fact that there is an attitude of apartheid towards workers, particularly those who happen to get a bit of dirt under their fingernails. There is an attitude that manual workers are, somehow, a lesser breed and society in general has a stand point that, somehow, the white or blue collar worker or professional is to be taken in preference to the tradesman or the man who works on the ground.

We are living in an era of communications in which the media play a very big role and people are aware of the problems which face society and face those in business. Workers should be involved in a more trusting way in the enterprise for which they work and to which in many cases they have committed their life's vocation. It is not just a case of asking workers to have a say. It is a case of asking workers to have a say and to take responsibility. I do not believe that you can have authority without responsibility. That has been one of our great failures in the past.

I want to dwell for a few moments on the question of manual workers. Blue and white collar workers are equally as important and should have representation and it seems that, first, all workers need a greater involvement in the way in which the enterprise for which they work is run and in the way decisions affecting that enterprise are reached. At least, the white collar workers are involved in day to day matters with the management and have some closer knowledge of the situation, but the doer, the man on the ground, the man out delivering or manufacturing, the man who is giving his sweat and toil in many cases, not only has no say but has no association with those who run the enterprise. This is a particularly Irish failing.

In many cases the people doing the manual jobs are the people on whom the whole enterprise relies for success. Without the manufacturing employees a company can have all the sales and marketing managers and accountants it likes but the enterprises will fail. Whether an enterprise is public or private there should be a change of attitude, particularly to manual workers. Manual workers' workers' interests should be promoted and they should have a greater say in how an enterprise is run. That applies to all workers but I am making a point for a sector who are often overlooked and then are the dubious beneficiaries of patronising attitudes from people who think that manual skills suggest that there are no brain skills involved. It is time this attitude was changed.

Some people think there are stake holders and non-stake holders in enterprise. There is no such thing as a stake holder or a non-stake holder. We all have a stake in how enterprises are run whether they be private or public. The growth of the worker involvement in companies is to be welcomed in principle, but certain sections of this Bill could be strengthened to bring about greater democracy and a more enterprising spirit in the enterprises referred to by the Minister in this Bill.

The Minister in his speech said:

Arising from a Committee Stage amendment which I tabled in the Seanad, this Bill incorporates the provisions for worker director elections in An Post and Bord Telecom Éireann which were originally contained in the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act, 1983, in a single code.

There are still weaknesses in that regard. At present nine semi-State companies have worker directors on their boards. Of these, seven have worker directors elected under the 1977 Act and Telecom Éireann and An Post have worker directors elected under the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act, 1983. This Bill deals directly with the 1977 Act but does not apply at present to the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act. 1983 to the extent it should despite the fact that the Minister mentions it in his speech.

I understand that Telecom Éireann and An Post are covered in that sub-board participation arrangements are provided for in Part III of the First Schedule of the new legislation. However, Telecom Éireann and An Post at present have worker directors, so why not include them in either Part I or Part II of this schedule? The Minister should address this, as it is anomalous. The Worker Director State Enterprises Group located in Cork have put forward quite reasonable views along these lines. It seems that the new legislation will leave a number of anomalies between the worker directors elected under the 1977 Act and those elected under the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act, 1983. The Bill will increase the term of office of the worker directors to four years. This apparently will not apply to Telecom Éireann and An Post. Perhaps the Minister will address that when replying to the debate. The Bill will also enable the returning officer to fix the nomination day in the second and subsequent years. The Explanatory Memorandum says on section 10:

Section 10 increases to four years the term of office of worker directors/members. It replaces the provision for a three year term of office in the Principal Act. The section also assigns to the returning officer the responsibility for setting the nomination day in election years. It requires him to set a nomination day within a specified time. If he does not, any employee of the enterprise concerned may ask the Minister for Labour to arrange for the setting of a nomination day. The section prescribes subsequent procedures including, where necessary, the setting of the nomination day by the Minister. In the Principal Act, the setting of nomination days had been the direct responsibility of the Minister for Labour.

In Telecom Éireann and An Post, under the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act the returning officer sets the nomination day but employees in both these companies cannot apply to the Minister if the nomination day is not set. This anomaly should be addressed.

The Bill will enable subsidiaries to be enfranchised by ministerial order. This does not apply to Telecom Éireann and An Post. The Bill will allow for a receipt of nominations over a seven-day period and will allow for receipt of postal ballots over a 30-day period. As far as these provisions are concerned, in Telecom Éireann and An Post elections shall be held in accordance with arrangements made by the returning officer. That seems to be another anomaly. The new legislation should apply to all worker directors whether elected under the 1977 Act or the 1983 Act. I hope the Minister will address this question on Committee Stage. Directors in Telecom Éireann or in An Post should not be treated differently from anybody else.

The Bill provides that the Minister for Labour can provide for worker representation of less than one-third of board size in certain State enterprises, subject to a minimum of two workers. Will the Minister consider the question of the appointment of female directors particularly where females make up a substantial part of the workforce or make up specialised sections of the workforce. From recent public statistics it is obvious that women do very badly in being appointed to boards of State enterprises. The Minister should consider putting in a provision that where there is a substantial number of female employees, at least one of the worker directors should be female. That is something worth the consideration of the House.

With regard to the question of broadening the definition of employee and excluding people who have left the enterprise, that is a worthy suggestion. If somebody leaves the enterprise he should not continue on the board representing the workers in that enterprise, but there is one difficulty with that broad principle and that relates to retired employees. As an example, CIE pensioners got a very good increase in their pensions under the last Government — a good increase on a very small pension. These pensioners did not have representation on the board of CIE which could influence the pension funds which affected their entitlement. That is anomalous. If it is not possible to have a retired person on the board of a large State enterprise like CIE, there should be somebody among the workers elected to the board charged with the responsibility of ensuring that retired members of the workforce are taken into account. It seems to me that retired workers are constantly ignored. Nobody is interested in their plight. For a long time in CIE their interests were not at the centre of things in such a way as to bring about the changes to which they were entitled and which they got to some extent although certainly not to the full extent they should have.

Finally, I would like to refer back to the submission made by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in which they sought the implementation of a package of measures relating to the position of part-time workers. I note that the Minister stated that should the Government be persuaded of the need to make such changes then the position with regard to the status of part-time workers under a number of Acts would have to be addressed by amending legislation. I ask the Minister to consider this given the large number of unemployed, particularly young people, who are taking on part-time work as it is the only work they can find. In firms such as McDonalds a large amount of the employees would not be considered full-time employees in the sense of what we perceive as full-time pay and pensionable employment. I am aware that this Bill does not relate to firms such as McDonalds but I think it should, both private and public.

A very strong case could be made for democratisation in enterprises over a certains size — what one might call non-closed companies — so that workers would have greater involvement and a greater say in how the business is run as well as greater responsibility. When democratisation was introduced in Europe it was frowned upon and I read in a review of a recent publication where the threat of papal authority was used in an effort to put people off democratisation. We have been through several industrial revolutions, in fact industrial revolutions are constantly taking place. It is time we made industry more democratic and gave those who have put their blood, sweat and tears into an industry a say in how that industry is run and on how their conditions of employment are determined. On Committee Stage the Fine Gael Party will return to certain of the matters I have mentioned here and I hope the Minister will address some of these.

While regretting the long delay in bringing forward this legislation I would like to congratulate the Minister for bringing the Bill before the House. The Progressive Democrats welcome the extension of the 1977 Worker Participation Act. It has been generally agreed by both the FUE and the ICTU for some years, particularly since the late sixties, that greater industrial democracy leads to higher productivity and industrial peace.

I am particularly pleased that this Bill provides for the election of worker directors to two further State enterprises, namely, Aer Rianta and the National Rehabilitation Board. I welcome the extension of the term of office of a worker director from three to four years and I further welcome that the definition of employee would include part-time staff working a minimum of 18 hours a week. In the past those who worked part-time had very few rights and guarantees and to some extent within the workforce generally they were regarded as second class citizens. This Bill will continue in a very beneficial way to improve industrial relations in this country and I believe it will lead to greater job satisfaction, improved productivity and greater efficiency in the work place and will enable companies to employment more of our unemployed.

How many man days have been lost due to unofficial and official strikes? How many companies have gone into liquidation as a result of these very same strikes? Good industrial relations mean less man days lost due to strikes. Efficiency in industry can continue to improve the lot of all concerned, both employee and employer, if they are prepared to sit down and talk and share their views and differences.

Of particular importance is the provision concerning the sub-board participative arrangements contained in section 2 and 8 of the Bill. We are particularly pleased to note that detailed arrangements for the exchange of views and information on management and on the views and ideas of employees and for the dissemination of information are to be implemented in companies as diverse as Bord na Móna and the VHI. The list of companies set out in Parts I and III of the First Schedule to the Bill is impressive and one hopes that these arrangements if they do not already exist in the companies listed in Part II of the Schedule, including Aer Lingus, An Post, B & I and Nitrigen Éireann and so on will be put in place in the near future.

Under the old 1977 Act Córas Iompair Éireann were one of the designated bodies which had worker directors. As the Minister is aware, Córas Iompair Éireann have been divided into three separate bodies, namely, Iarnrod Éireann, Bus Éireann and Bus Átha Cliath, and I would like the Minister to consider that instead of providing sub-board status for these three bodies, he provide worker director status for them. Córas Iompair Éireann had their fair share of industrial problems. Since their inception Bus Átha Cliath have had their problems and to a lesser extent Iarnrod Éireann and Bus Éireann. I believe that giving full board status to these bodies would certainly do a lot for industrial relations within them.

It is now well established, particularly among smaller enterprises, that the distinction between management and the rest of the workers in a company is out of date. We all applaud this. In order to ensure the efficient and successful management of any company in the late eighties it has been necessary to adopt the principle that prosperity in a company can only be gained through shared effort and shared reward. Thus, it should be the concerned of the Government, not only in the public but also in the private sector, that the economy be sustained by companies which are not likely to end up with serious industrial disputes at every turn due to out of the date management structures which are to be found in some companies today.

Most of the disputes in the past did not result from disagreement over wages or the conditions of employees but because of a general lack of communication and information on the future direction of a company. This led workers to ally themselves through their unions in an attitude of opposition and hostility towards the directors and management of companies. By allowing a free flow of information which is the subject of an EC directive this climate of confrontation and antagonism can be largely overcome in industry. We would, therefore, like to see a mechanism if not an actual Bill instituted by the State which would facilitate smaller developments in the private sector. I hope that managements involved at all levels will have the necessary foresight and responsibility to see that these initiatives are as much to their advantage as to the advantage of the workers themselves. Dual communication is vital in order to have the fullest understanding among the workforce and to underline the importance of full understanding of company objectives and worker objectives.

The Irish workforce have changed considerably during the years. Today we have a young, highly intelligent and well educated population. Educationally the vast majority of our population will stand shoulder to shoulder with members of a board of directors and have qualifications that will match or indeed be greater than those held by members of a board of directors. We should all be quick to learn from the experience of Aer Rianta and Telecom Éireann in order to see how greater employee participation as part of a corporate management philosophy leads to higher productivity and the achievement of financial targets. One also hopes that people would realise that many changes have occurred in the workplace since the late seventies. Men and women alike have equal aspirations and the workforce have had to accommodate the greater level of female participation. Likewise, over 30,000 Irish workers now own shares in their companies due to the change made in the Finance Act, 1982.

These developments must be perceived in the broader context of the concept of employee involvement in employment, whereby employment holds out the prospect of fulfilment and satisfaction. In the face of a continuously changing society, I hope changing patterns of work will remove the caution, tradition and fear which have in the past blinkered and served to inhibit progress and development. I hope all workers in the various State enterprises will recognise that this Bill offers opportunities to allow them to become involved in the decision-making process of the enterprises in which they work.

Detailed comment on other sections of the Bill can be left more appropriately to Committee Stage. In conclusion, I think we all need to be realistic about what worker participation can achieve. Worker participation on its own is not a solution to job security or low productivity. Progress requires patience, time and much discussion. It is a matter of urgency, however, in the difficult economic environment in which enterprise operates today for management and workers to identify common ground as opposed to areas of confrontation. Worker participation with the emphasis on co-operation should help to bring about a climate of trust which, if achieved, should make a significant contribution to the solution of the depressing problems facing the State enterprises, which are referred to in this Bill. Genuine participation by workers and management, working together and co-operating with one another to achieve greater productivity and prosperity will not alone improve the individual worker's life but will go a long way towards helping to improve the overall economy of the country.

The Minister can be assured of my support and indeed my party's support. Again, I congratulate him on introducing this measure.

I am pleased to see a Bill of this nature before the Houses of the Oireachtas. Although I will be raising a number of points regarding the limitations of the Bill, none the less I am in agreement with other Deputies that an extension of worker democracy is welcome.

I am indeed, particularly, heartened by the reaction of Deputy Wyse of the Progressive Democrats and Deputy G. Mitchell of Fine Gael. From what they have said tonight there seems to be a basis whereby a Private Members' motion could be tabled and the extension of worker democracy could be introduced into the private sector. I thought for a moment that my case had been taken up by Deputy Mitchell and that he had adopted the classic Labour Party position and I was beginning to become a little concerned that my position had been usurped by the Deputy. I am sorry he is not present so that I could extend my sincere thanks to him for his commitment to the extension of industrial democracy and worker participation to the private sector.

The concept of worker participation was initiated by the Labour Party in Government in 1977 and the present legislation is yet a further development of that. Indeed, Deputy Quinn as Minister for Labour in 1985, established an advisory committee on worker participation and it is to the credit of that committee that they produced a very valuable study, which gave the background to the Coalition Bill on worker participation in 1986. Regrettably, that legislation fell when the Labour Party withdrew from Government, but the groundwork had been done, and the Labour Party are pleased to have the Bill before the House at last.

The principle of worker involvement at board level in State enterprises is a progressive and useful one. There are now no less than seven State enterprises which benefit from worker participation at board level. Their smooth running is possibly still a bit of a surprise to some of the cynics of 1976, who condemned the Bill and who raised deep reservations about the ability of ordinary workers to sit on boards of State companies, participate in the success of the enterprise and act as a worthwhile liaison between workers and management — particularly when difficult decisions had to be made.

A little of this cynicism appeared during the Seanad debate when a small number of Senators referred to the difficulties which the worker directors would encounter when elected to State boards. As one Senator said on Second Stage on 3 February 1988:

Not only do they in effect have to cross into new work terrain which would have been strange and maybe even hostile to them in the past, but they are also required to master aspects of a strange agenda, which they may not have the ready skills or background to cope with, such as financial statements, or planning, or economic analysis

Statements such as this show that the cynics are still among us. Perhaps they should look over their shoulders at some of the operations which had no worker directors at board level and which needed no help in running into colossal financial difficulties, namely ICI or Irish Shipping. Indeed, perhaps if such agencies had worker representatives on the boards, the alarm might have been sounded in good time to save the Exchequer millions of pounds.

The point was made by Senator Joe O'Toole during the Seanad debate, that workers have a real interest in ensuring the survival of a company. Their watchfulness is based on the need to protect their own and their colleagues jobs. In addition, usually they bring to management boards long-term work experience with the company. They will be acutely aware of trends in the market for the commodity or service; aware of activities of competitors, through their contact with workers in other companies and they will have a commitment to the enterprise which goes beyond the one-sided commitment to profit. These are invaluable services to any board and no institutional education could match them.

In proposing worker participation legislation in the mid-seventies the Labour Party envisaged a broadening of the involvement of workers throughout the public sector and into the private sector. That is why I am so glad Deputy Mitchell agreed to this extension. I hope the Minister will bear this in mind, while he is still in that particular Ministry.

We anticipated greater participation at below board level and it is a disappointment that this did not happen to a greater degree. However, I welcome the initiative in this Bill to extend the scope of the legislation in making provision for participation at sub-board level. In extending the provision of the legislation to such a large number of enterprises, many more workers will inevitably go forward to sub-committees and this be in a better position to contribute to the planning and development of the agencies.

Activity at sub-board level would I think, accelerate the move to principal board level and, therefore, I am particularly sorry that the Minister excluded the financial State companies from the sub-board provisions. Perhaps the Minister could refer to this in his response and let the House know why he denied workers this facility. The financial State sector is the most high powered and politically significant sector and the Minister must have some very deliberate reason for excluding workers from these bodies. I wonder whether it has anything to do with the suggestion that Irish Life be privatised? Perhaps their exclusion could be an indication that the Government's intention is to privatise these companies, but I sincerely hope not. Yet, if I might refer back to the debacle of ICI and Irish Shipping, they are surely the most pressing reasons for having workers' representatives on such boards.

I will move on to specific sections of the Bill. The Labour Party attempted to amend section 6 of the Bill in order to copperfasten the need to provide information in adequate time for workers. Paragraph (b) refers to the provision of relevant information "in good time". I realise the Minister dealt with this point on Second Stage in the Seanad but I would like to refer to it again because his explanation for retaining the phrase was not very helpful. "In good time" is a loose use of words and could be interpreted loosely in a situation of tension and animosity. The Minister must be aware of this and perhaps he could give some further consideration to tidying up the section to ensure that there can be no abuse of the term when there is a call to produce difficult and hard-hitting information about a particular enterprise. I have no doubt whatsoever that the Minister means well but I think the wording is rather loose. How do you measure good time as distinct from bad time? What yardstick do you use to measure good time? Is it not possible for the draftsman to come up with some alternative wording for this section?

I welcome the acceptance of the amendments during the Seanad debate on section 9 of the Bill because I accept that this diffuses anxiety with regard to subsidiaries in foreign countries, particularly with regard to one State enterprise. Trade unionists within that enterprise expressed concern that in that company there were far more people employed outside the State than there were employed within it who could have undue influence on decisions of the board. The main provision of the Bill is to extend worker participation to Aer Rianta and the National Rehabilitation Board. This is welcomed by the Labour Party. Since the Bill is passing through the House 11 years after its initiation, I ask the Minister to consider extending its scope.

While in Government the Labour Party tried to push for worker directors on the National Rehabilitation Board, in VHI, Irish Steel, Board Gáis Éireann and IIRS. Would the Minister consider an extension of his legislation to include these State agencies? They are all enterprises which have been marked for worker directors, as has RTE, and there can be no argument that these bodies are not ready yet. The Minister might also refer to the newly established bodies, such as Eolas and Teagasc and indicate what the situation will be with regard to worker directors in these specific enterprises.

Another aspect of the Bill which concerns me is that section which empowers the Minister for labour, with the agreement of the relevant Minister, to extend worker participation legislation to additional State enterprises. Within the current climate this aspiration appears quite reasonable, but it is our duty as legislators to try foresee future problems and I am concerned about the possibility of obstruction to worker participation if the climate changes. During the Seanad debate the Minister was quite dismissive of any suggestion that, at a future date, there might not be such willingness to encourage worker participation. The Minister in his reply to the Second Stage debate assured Senators that his Department were wholly positive to the idea and he could not envisage any future situation in which this might change. There could be a change of Minister. I have not doubt that the present Minister has proved to be quite receptive to date, but some successor in the future may not be as receptive or as accommodating.

While I agree with the Minister that the current feeling appears to be positive towards the notion of worker involvement, I cannot be so confident that this will always be the position. For example, despite the involvement for four worker directors in NET, once the financial climate changed these worker directors were isolated on the board of NET and all the major financial decisions with regard to that company were taken by the holding company which had been given an injection of State finance. This is but one recent example of a situation where workers, having fought for worker participation and won, were then relegated to a board which, ineffect, had very little power. This was overtly in opposition to the spirit of the legislation of 1977 and yet it was quite legal. We cannot be so overtly confident that, once we get acceptance for worker participation on boards, we have nothing to do but sit back and wait for the concept to take on in other enterprises. Clearly, history has shown that this will not happen.

Therefore, I believe that the Minister needs to include in the Bill whatever developments he would like to see in the future. For example, if there are State bodies which are ready for worker participation, I do not see why the Minister does not include them in the legislation at this point instead of waiting for a ministerial order in the future. After all, if the legislation is to be extended to other State enterprises in the future, there will have to be agreement, first, between the Minister for Labour and the Minister for the relevant Department and, secondly, agreement in both Houses that the extension is in order. This agreement may be more difficult to get in the future and I suggest to the Minister that we should deal with it now, including the enterprises I have already referred to, and get the matter cleared at this point when the climate is so positive to the notion of worker participation.

Another important point which I would like to raise with the Minister and which was referred to at length in the Seanad debate is the 18 hour work week for qualification for participation in election of worker directors. The Minister was urged to drop this qualification in favour of a more practical clause such as "permanent worker". The point was made to the Minister that a clause such as the one in section 13 of the Bill discriminates against workers with less than the 18 hours. In the Seanad debate, my colleagues suggested that the Minister should amend the legislation to read "any person employed". The Minister refused this amendment but I urge him to reconsider his position because of the discriminatory nature of the section.

I would also remind the Minister that the working week of more and more people is falling to 18 hours and less. In fact, at the moment we have a situation of conflict in RTE because of the proposed casualisation of telephonists. Here we have a perfect example of a semi-State body which has ranked as one of the enterprises to be brought into sub-board worker participation and where the drift towards casualisation of jobs would inevitably result in many workers being prohibited from the election process because they do not work the required hours, even though they may be on the staff for years and may be directly affected by decisions at board level.

One final concern which I would like to refer to is the power which the Bill gives to the Minister to limit the number of worker directors in some establishments. This clause is undemocratic and unnecessary. The legislation is to further the principle of worker participation. It proposes to extend democracy within the workplace and acknowledges the benefit that this would be to the State and that this would be to the State and the workers. In view of this I do not understand the need for the "escape clause" which empowers the Minister to roll back on this democracy if he is unhappy with the power of worker directors in the future. I ask the Minister to reconsider his amendment to the Principal Act which is proposed in section 21.

In conclusion, as I have said, I am pleased to see this legislation before the House. I would like to compliment the Minister on pursuing the matter over the past year and getting the legislation advanced so speedily. However, I am genuinely concerned about the sections which I have referred to and I ask the Minister to reconsider the attitude which he adopted in the Seanad. It is 11 years since the first Worker Participation Bill was discussed in this House and it may be a lot longer before we have an opportunity to discuss this issue again. I ask the Minister to take some of my suggestions into consideration in order to eliminate the possibility of problems with the legislation in the future and to ensure a genuinely progressive approach to worker participation.

The Workers' Party generally welcome the Bill and particularly those provisions which allow for the establishment of sub-board consultative councils in the various State companies and organisations, but we are very disappointed that the Minister has not taken the opportunity presented by this Bill to extend the concept of worker directors to such State companies as RTE, Bord Gáis, Irish Steel, the VHI and the many others which do not yet have worker directors.

Most people in the State companies are satisfied that the introduction of some limited element of industrial democracy, in the form of electing worker directors, has been a very worthwhile development. It has given workers in those companies who elect worker directors a greater sense of involvement in the affairs of the company; it has probably ensured that they have a greater appreciation of the difficulties the companies sometime face, and it has helped to ease industrial relations problems.

The Advisory Committee on Worker Participation, which included representatives from the trade unions, the semi-State companies and the private sector, in their report said:

All members of the committee share the conviction that increased employee participation is desirable both for the personal development of the workers and for the benefit of the enterprise,

The report went on to note:

All are agreed that effective employee participation generally requires communication of information, consultation and some involvement in the decision making process. The problem is to some degree, one of mutual trust, and the development of a habit of mutual trust is, necessarily, a lengthy process. Trust can only be developed by doing.

It is important to emphasise that the election of worker directors should not be considered as something to replace the union structures in the semi-State companies, or as an alternative to the free collective bargaining system. The election of worker directors is not an alternative to normal employer employee relationships in these firms, but it complements it. Most of those who have been elected as worker directors are people with a long record of involvement in the trade union movement and are only too well aware of the dangers of any attempt by the Government or management to undermine the role of the unions in semi-State firms.

The election of worker directors has also brought to the boards of semi-State companies a degree of practical experience of work on the ground which was previously missing. Most of those on the boards of semi-State companies are either representatives of the management or appointees from outside who may have some knowledge of the general principles of management. Too often, unfortunately, those appointed to boards by Ministers in various Governments have been appointed more for the political allegiance than for any particular expertise. At least now we have lorry drivers as well as accountants, labourers as well as management consultants, clerks as well as businessmen, on the boards of our semi-State companies.

If the election of worker directors has been such a successful development in the limited number of State companies to which existing legislation applies, is it not very strange that the Government have failed to take the opportunity of this Bill to extend the concept, especially to some of the larger companies not already covered? Why is it right to have worker directors in Bord na Móna but not in important institutions like RTE? Why is it all right to have worker directors in an important energy provider like the ESB, but not in the increasingly important Bord Gáis Éireann? There is a strong argument for the extension of the concept of worker directors to other important State companies, such as RTE, Bord Gáis Éireann Irish Steel, the VHI and others, and we will be tabling amendments to this effect for the Committee Stage.

The provision in the Bill allowing for the establishment of sub-board consultative councils is a welcome development and a broadening of the concept of industrial democracy. It should also contribute to a greater sense of commitment and involvement, the earlier identification of potential difficulties, and generally improved industrial relations. Most of the semi-State companies and bodies are included in the Bill for the establishment of sub-board consultative councils, but there is one area that is notable for its absence. All of the State financial institutions have been excluded — the Central Bank, Industrial Credit Corporation, Agricultural Credit Corporation, Irish Life and Fóir Teoranta. I understand that the official explanation for their exclusion is the Government's desire to safeguard the confidential character of their operation. This is a disgraceful slur on the employees of those companies. There is a clear implication in this attitude that the employees of these companies cannot be trusted to respect the confidentiality of discussions within the company. But most of these employees have access, by the very nature of their work, to confidential information each day, yet there have been no complaints about unauthorised disclosure of information.

How can the Government claim that the establishment of sub-board level consultative councils would be a threat to confidentiality? There is no basis for this claim and the Bill should be amended to have ensure that these are allowed to have consultative councils. Indeed, given the importance of these companies, there is a strong argument that they have full worker democracy, including the worker directors on the boards. Why is it acceptable to have stockbrokers, bankers and all sorts of doubtful financial speculators on the boards of these companies but not workers who may have given years and years of loyal service to the firm?

Although it is not covered in this Bill, there is a need to look at how we can further extend the concept of industrial democracy not just in other areas of the public service, but also into the private sector. The only ones benefiting at present from industrial democracy are the present employees of State companies. Has any thought been given as to how this could be extended to other areas in the public service — Civil Service Departments for instance?

The Advisory Committee on Worker Participation also considered the question of worker directors in the private sector and recommended the introduction of enabling legislation for all organisations employing more than 100 people. The boards of many companies in the private sector have treated their workers with contempt. They were glad to take the profits created by workers when times were good, but quick to close up and liquidate, without any concern for the workers when times got bad, or simply when they thought they could make more money by investing elsewhere. The election of worker directors in the private sector would be an important advance, and I would ask the Minister to outline his reaction to the recommendations of the advisory committee in this regard.

Like any other development, to be successful industrial democracy requires the application of effort by all concerned, but it also requires the allocation of proper resources. Many of the existing worker directors face great difficulties in meeting their commitments as workers and as directors and in some cases the workers of certain semi-State companies have been deliberately obstructed by management.

If I may will mention one case. I had a letter from a worker director on the board of IFI. He showed me a warrant of appointment and told me that in order to carry out his business as a worker director he had no option but to take annual leave. He claimed that the Irish Fertiliser Industry were in breach of paragraph (b) of the warrant of appointment and he wanted that point noted.

We had a number of concerned about sections of this Bill as it was originally printed and I note that some amendments were made to it as it passed through the Seanad. We are pleased that An Post and Telecom Éireann have now been included with the other companies who elect worker directors. We are also concerned about the provisions of section 24 of the Bill which appears to allow the Minister the power to arbitrarily take away from certain State companies the right either to have worker directors or indeed sub-board consultative councils. We will also be seeking to have this amended on Committee Stage.

As a former industrial worker in the State area I am particularly happy at the Minister's commitment to worker participation. Worker participation constitutes a logical step forward and is essential if we are to keep up with the remainder of Europe in the industrial field.

To date this type of legislation has not received much attention, which may reflect the fact that few Members are ex-industrial workers. The present Minister seems to have the happy knak of being able to cater for the various needs within industry, on which I congratulate him.

There are a number of logical step forwards being taken by way of the provisions of this Bill, for examples, the extension of the term of office of a director from three to four years. It is my opinion that people need that extra year to realise their full potential. I welcome also the extension of the definition of "employee". I know people are now arguing about the number of working hours necessary to qualify. However, the Minister has recognised the place of the part time employee with which I am happy.

A few Members in this House and in the Seanad had worries about a director who must relinquish his or her post. I agree with the relevant provision because a silly anomally could be created if such a director relinquished his post after, say, 12 months and came back as a director having no attachment to the industry or, in the case of a worker director, walked away leaving employees unrepresented. The real meat of the provisions of this Bill is contained in section 6, which is what the agreement referred to in that section is about, the remainder of the section merely identifying who should be involved and for what length of time

The provisions relating to the exchange of views and reliable information, the giving in good time of any information about decisions which would significantly affect employees' interests should be there as of right in every industry. It is criminal that to date some people have worked in industries for up to 40 years, in which decisions have been taken and they have been told only on the day a company is about to close. Employees always have had a lot to offer, very often much more than a serving director on the board.

I was fascinated to hear Deputy Mitchell expound the idea of moving into the State area. I welcome his contribution because I should like to see an extension into that area. However, I fully appreciate the difficulties that could be encountered in that respect. After all, it should be remembered that in the market place we are vying with others to attract companies here. If we were to tell a company that they may have a number of directors imposed on them in addition to the other restrictions obtaining here — despite the fact that we have fairly good trade union law — we could lose an industry. I should like to see this done by way of encouragement and consensus.

I would say to Deputy Mitchell that some of the more successful industries in the private sector have been those maintaining an open door with regard to information, who keep their employees au fait with what is happening in the company at all levels. There is no question of their worrying about confidentiality. Very often they have profit-sharing schemes in operation. These are the types of companies where strikes do not take place. There will be no confrontation in such companies because everybody feels they are a stakeholder. They are stakeholders but it is important that they fully realise that fact. The irony of the whole thing is that, by definition, employees in the semi-State sector are total stakeholders: being taxpayers they are paying for it and will eventually own it but there is need for such employees to be involved in the company's activities.

This Bill is being introduced in the proper manner. Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan was worried about the bad guys who might appear in the future. There has been too much suspicion that something might happen in, say, ten years time, that we would revert to the bad old days and so on We need to adopt the approach being taken by the Minister, that is, to have a consensus, not imposing a partnership on one side or the other depending on what type of Minister might hold office at any given time, who might favour the employees' side by way of union legislation or the employers on the other.

Much of our legislation is based on rules dating back 70 and 80 years. That is probably an indictment of previous Governments and Ministers. We must change very rapidly. As Deputy Wyse said, there are massive changes taking place and industrial relations must travel apace. There has to be greater involvement on the part of employees. The Minister is taking a broad look at this, working in the area of training of directors, managers, employees. He is also working on the question of industrial safety and now, by way of legislation, to have people participating in full. That is very important.

At times I worry that there is a fear in the minds of some members of the public that every employee is endeavouring to disrupt a company, waiting inside the door with a placard advocating a strike. That notion is crazy because the average employee completes his working life of 35 to 40 years without ever having been involved in a strike, a picket or anything else, and is anxious to participate. If we look at the voluntary field we see proof of the fact that it is not merely the financial incentive that encourages people, it is the feeling of belonging, of participating in decision-making, of knowing and understanding why one is doing something. It should be remembered that such people work for no financial reward. That proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that people will work harder, with greater commitment, when they fully understand their role.

It would be criminal were employees to be unaware of information that might affect their future but there are other issues to be considered also. To date there have been many working groups, usually called works councils. Almost invariably there is a list of issues posted to them showing what matters may not be discussed. That is ludicrous, eliminating all of the important issues, which means such people end up discussing the condition of toilets, canteens or whatever, which are not of any great importance; there are others to look after such matters.

The avoidance of conflict is so important we need to think long and hard and concentrate our minds on it. In that respect Deputy Sherlock mentioned companies or areas that had been omitted from the provisions of this Bill. There are, after all, 39 companies included which constitutes a massive step forward which should be welcomed. We can examine other areas in the future but there should not be any confrontation about this. We should welcome this provision unreservedly and move forward.

The Minister has recognised the role played by the trade unions — it is critical that he should do so — and not in any patronising fashion. Rather, he has recognised that they have a job to do, that they are constructive and committed to their members, that they have a difficult task. The Minister has recognised that fact and has earned respect for so doing. Likewise, he has recognised the role of the the employer, whether it happens to be the chief executive of a State company or a person putting in cash directly. That impartial approach was needed and I am very happy at the Minister's approach in this respect.

I was lucky in that I worked for a good company, Irish Steel Limited, a company that felt its employees should always be involved. However, I know there are other companies in which employees feel themselves to be just a number on a payroll, very often working at half their full potential, because they are not allowed to become involved in decision-making and the like. However, I do appreciate that not everybody can be in the directors boardroom but once one feels there is somebody to speak for one, to offer advice based on experience bought very dearly over one's working life that constitutes some assurance, which is to be welcomed.

There remain weaknesses at all levels on which we must work. That is now being taken in hand. I would encourage the Minister to continue his efforts in this regard. With the changes effected he has shown himself to be willing to listen to people in other areas. Obviously he listened carefuly to what Members of the Seanad had to say and has gone along with many of the changes they felt could be effected. I would encourage him to keep up that good work.

Deputy O'Sullivan dealt with a number of technical points which I do not want to go into because I am sure the Minister will deal with them. Like me, Deputy O'Sullivan is a Cork Deputy and I do not know whether it is coincidence that the three Deputies who have spoken tonight are from the Cork area, Deputy Wyse, Deputy O'Sullivan and myself. We will have to get rid of the suspicious approach in industry and have a bit of trust and confidence. I do not know who will be the next Minister but I am sure the Minister who follows the present Minister will be equally successful. I make a strong case to the Minister to look at whatever avenues are open to him in encouraging the extension of this Bill into the private sector because there is a lot to be done there.

I want to emphasise again — and I can draw on my own experience in this regard — that all workers in State, semi-State or private companies, if treated properly and respectfully, want to play their full part in industry. I know people who have gone way beyond the call of duty because they were treated in a proper fashion. This Bill is an opportunity for them to get involved at sub-board level and that is what is needed.

As a fairly new Deputy in the House, I congratulate the Minister on his approach and willingness to listen to amendments and put them in where he feels they can be fitted in. I strongly support the adoption of the Bill and ask those people with any feelings of aggression or conflict not to worry too much about the Bill, to accept it and move forward with it.

Entirely for the record, Deputy, I am sure that when people will read it they will understand that in respect of your not referring to Deputy Joe Sherlock, it is not a case of the city looking down on the county.

Definitely not.

I should like to thank Deputy Mitchell, Deputy Wyse, Deputy O'Sullivan, Deputy Sherlock, Deputy Dennehy and all the Deputies who stayed back tonight to make their comments on this Bill. While there are matters on which Deputies wish to have clarification and some valid points which we can debate further on Committee stage I am heartened, as I was in the Seanad, by the general agreement on this legislation. Many of the points which were made were raised in the Seanad and some new points have also been raised. I will try to cover the general points raised by each Deputy in as much detail as I can.

With regard to private and public enterprises I think we were all glad to hear Deputy Mitchell's view though it is probably not a view on which there was agreement in the advisory committee which was set up by a previous Minister some years ago. In drafting this Bill, the whole ethos has been on a voluntary and flexible approach in encouraging people into worker participation. One would defeat the whole purpose if one spoke about compulsion and driving people into worker participation. I think Deputy Wyse pointed out that we should adopt a voluntary approach and encourage people, whether they are management or employees, to participate and build up a new co-operation with the workforce. Deputy Mitchell's view about forcing the private sector is not in keeping with the spirit of this legislation. I will encourage the private sector to involve themselves in participation. I do not believe — and I cannot see it within my remit — that it is open to me to force the private sector into worker participation but I will — as I have done on a number of occasions in the past at seminars which have been arranged on a nationwide basis — with the officials in my Department who have been involved in this for a number of years, try to encourage people to participate and get involved in worker participation. That is what has been said here this evening.

Some comment was made with regard to the inclusion of women on State boards and the need to increase the number of women directors in State enterprises. Worker-director elections have already provided an opportunity for the first women to take their seats at board level in some State bodies. As the Taoiseach informed the Dáil on 7 April, he has instructed Members of the Government to advance the status of women in all aspects of responsibility. This includes the appointment of suitably qualified women to State boards and bodies. I should also like to see a balanced representation as between men and women among the persons nominated by trade unions and staff associations standing in worker-director elections. This is a matter for consideration by nominating bodies. We discussed it last week during Question Time. It is also a matter for the electorate who vote directors on to boards. If these electorates are largely comprised of women workers surely it is a reflection on them for failing to put forward one of their own sex for election. All we can do is encourage people to consider equal representation.

With regard to worker directors in An Post and Telecom Éireann and the sub-board arrangements, I think that most Deputies have picked up the point that they are now fully within the scope of the legislation by means of an amendment to the First Schedule to the Bill.

Deputy Mitchell also spoke about the need to represent the interests of retired workers. Workers play their role while they are within the work force but I cannot see how they could be involved afterwards in the position of worker directors. Everybody will retire some day and the worker directors who are there take this into account. In the case the Deputy mentioned in CIE, it was the worker directors who came into this House and put forward the views on behalf of the retired members on several occasions during my time here and they continued to do that for several years until they got some of the programmes mentioned by the Deputy.

Deputy Wyse asked a question about CIE. I confirm that the Bill provides for worker director elections to the board of CIE, which is included in Part I of the First Schedule This allows, when read together with the Transport (Re-organisation of CIE) Act, for all employees in the three companies to participate in the elections to the main CIE board. In addition the Transport Act allows for the appointment of worker directors to each of the subsidiary boards and, as I understand it, the subsidiary boards can have two worker directors from among the four who sit on the main board. That Act covers the point the Deputy was concerned with.

Deputy O'Sullivan mentioned a number of extra bodies that are to get worker directors. The recommendation to reduce from six to three the number of enterprises designated for worker director arrangements was made by previous Ministers and there has, for a number of years, been some difficulty in getting agreement to extend it to two boards but the Bill provides for worker director arrangements in two of the enterprises proposed, Aer Rianta and the National Rehabilitation Board. The third enterprise, An Foras Forbartha, has since been changed in status. The other two will remain as in the previous Minister's proposals.

It should be noted that the Bill allows for the addition of further State enterprises by order of the Minister. I would like to stress that point because until now, in the 11 years of operation of the 1977 Act, if there is agreement, workers can have full board status. One of the criticisms I have about the 1977 Act, and some of these difficulties are now resolved, is that in every other country and every properly organised firm, it is possible to have worker participation below the level of the board so that people obtain the experience of how to deal with industrial relations and various other issues within the company etc., and are then allowed on to the board as full members. When I met the worker directors, one of the points they made was that there should be below-board representation where people can gain the experience and then be admitted to full status on the board, and that this allows the Minister of the day, without having to go through the long procedure of new legislation, to make that amendment in conjunction with the Minister for Finance and the parent Minister. That is a major step forward. It also gives the incentive to people to prove that worker participation at sub-board level is effective and successful. Then I do not believe there would be a difficulty. This is highlighted by the fact that Deputy Quinn was convinced by these two companies, as I am. That is why the Act has been amended accordingly.

I would ask Deputies to read section 24 (2) in that light. It empowers the Minister, after consultation with the Minister for Labour, with the Minister for Finance and the Minister responsible for the enterprise concerned, to give full board status. The Department of Labour is the Department trying to get worker participation moving, particularly in State enterprises and in private enterprises, and as such would be only too glad to give that status. But there is no agreement in some of the boards mentioned here tonight. I do not wish to go through all the arguments. I have spoken to the workers concerned both formally and informally and they are happy with the position.

Deputy O'Sullivan referred to the phrase "in good time". There was much debate about that. In the Seanad I said that section 6 (2) provides that one of the features of participative arrangements at sub-board level would be the disclosure of relevant information by management to employees in good time. There was some concern expressed in the Seanad that this is too loosely worded, and that has been expressed here again this evening, although some of those who raised the matter acknowledged the difficulty of finding a more precise wording and we had a long debate about that. The phrase "in good time" was settled upon after consultation with the parliamentary draftsman. It allows management and staff representatives in the State enterprises concerned to make their own provisions in this area which will take into account the particular circumstances of the enterprise, and it would not be tied into legislation one way or another, because a day may be sufficient for one organisation but a month or several weeks may not be sufficient in the case of another organisation. To attempt to impose a uniform length of notice would be too inflexible. In the end in the Seanad we all came to that conclusion. The people best placed to determine the meaning of "in good time" in each instance are the management and staff representatives of the enterprise. I am purposely not trying the hands of an enterprise. The legislation is geared for people working in co-operation. I am endeavouring not to put hard and fast regulations into legislation which would require an Act at some future date to change. It is designed to be purposely flexible and loose and to be used accordingly by management and employees in the future, not something vague that works against them.

Deputy Sherlock raised the same point about the number of bodies for worker director arrangements. I have answered that in dealing with Deputy O'Sullivan's point.

A number of Deputies raised the question of the definition of employees in the Bill. The amendment in the Bill is merely a catching-up exercise. It broadens the definition of employees in the 1977 Act from whole time employees to those working not less than 18 hours per week. This issue was the subject of some debate in the Seanad when several Senators queried the merits of the 18 hour threshold. However, the question of part time workers is a much broader issue which is not appropriate for a resolution in the context of this Bill. The whole issue of part time workers is now a major one. I acknowledge that readily and have been in discussion with the Congress of Trade Unions on the issue and they are making a number of recommendations. The policy group within the Department of Labour will look at this area. There is a requirement to tighten it up and look at the whole question of the 18 hours in the context of all our legislation. The 18 hours is standardising what is in all the other Acts.

I want to put on the record that the question of part time workers is now in discussion and we are making some progress. It has created a number of difficulties in social welfare and labour legislation and with the Congress of Trade Unions, and their proposals which we have started to look at are extremely interesting. In the Programme for National Recovery we spoke about this issue as well. It will be looked at and will be the subject of further discussions, but it is not the purpose of this Bill to increase or reduce the threshold. In this Act we are bringing the 18 hours down to what has been inserted in legislation over the last number of years.

Deputy Sherlock referred to the exclusion of the financial institutions, the Central Bank, the Industrial Credit Corporation, the Agricultural Credit Corporation. Irish Life and Fóir Teoranta have been omitted from the First Schedule which lists the bodies designated for sub-board participation. I agree with Deputy Sherlock that it is not because these people who hold confidential information on a daily basis will start running around the country giving information about something that happened. There is an acknowledgment in the financial institutions of the importance of their business and both sides recognise that. If information in any form is discussed in the State area it can create major difficulties. Some of those points have been well made by Senators in the Seanad. It is correct to say that they have not now been included in the sub-board legislation. I do not believe that will create a difficulty for the financial institutions because of their very nature they have their own confidential arrangements for dealing with the information. It would not be in the interests of management or employees to get into a position of talking about the confidential information which they have to discuss from day-to-day. While information which is discussed can damage other organisations but for financial organisations the repercussions are immense. I should like to inform Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan that it has nothing to do with the privatisation or selling off of Irish Life. That is a separate issue and it has nothing to do with what we are talking about in this Bill.

Deputy Sherlock referred to a letter he had received from a worker director on the board of the IFI. The question of the facilities to be afforded to worker directors on a day-to-day basis in pursuing issues related to board membership is, and must remain, a matter for the enterprise concerned. The facilities available to worker directors vary from enterprise to enterprise. In the case of NET it is understood that the facilities were particularly good prior to the joint venture agreement. The Department of Industry and Commerce have indicated that in the year 1986-87 the time spent by the four directors was fairly considerable.

I made it clear in the Seanad that I would be totally against any particular enterprise affecting the worker directors relationships or their working methods. It had built up over 1977 and it was obvious that some enterprises would do better than others. The worker directors became more involved in the day-to-day staff activities than others. In the case of NET there is a tightening of those regulations. As I spelled out clearly, if it was a matter affecting how they carried out their work I would be extremely concerned. The intention is that worker directors can fulfil their role and their duties properly and not be interfered with. I had discussions with the worker directors of NET some months ago regarding their particular problems. It is a matter for the Minister if there are any difficulties. It is an issue we will keep in touch with.

Lest somebody believes that worker directors are being interfered with and that their roles are being immersed by the chairmen of boards, that is not the position. There was a particular problem with NET who had better conditions and we will continue to monitor that as it was necessary to keep control of it.

Deputy Sherlock referred to the power of the Minister under section 24 to delete bodies from the legislation. The Minister may add or delete the enterprises, as I have already said, from Part I and Part II of the First Schedule and of the Second Schedule only after he has consulted with the Minister for Finance and the Minister responsible for the State enterprise concerned. After such consultation takes place, the deletion of the body would be the subject of an affirmative order requiring debate in both Houses of the Oireachtas. The addition or deletion of bodies from Part III of the First Schedule is subject to an order laid before the Oireachtas for 21 sitting days, the order remaining valid unless a resolution annulling the order is passed by either House. The provision for deletion must be seen in the broad context of section 24. The section allows for the future extension of worker participation in the State sector without recourse to primary legislation. It makes provision for unseen future circumstances, such as the requirements of new enterprises, for initial work and involvement arrangements and that of existing enterprises for more comprehensive participative processes. If the flexibility provided by the section is to be effective, it must also take account of future amalgamation, abolition or other circumstances which would entail the deletion of the bodies concerned from the Schedules.

In many circumstances, deletion of a body from one part of the Schedule will be with a view to its addition in another part of the same Schedule. For example, any enterprise may be deleted from Part III from the sub-board arrangements of the First Schedule only for the purpose of adding it to Part I or II of the Schedule, thus designating it for worker director arrangements as well as for sub-board participation. These powers are intended to avoid any difficulties in the future and not for any sinister reasons.

I thank Deputies for the constructive contributions they have made. I also thank my Cork colleagues among whom the worker participation legislation has generated much interest. I know that a number of the worker directors elected are from that area. The issue concerning manual workers was raised by Deputy Mitchell. Worker directors can come from whatever category. There is no discrimination and I do not believe some of the arguments which Deputy Mitchell put forward about technical workers, white collar and blue collar workers. I have endeavoured to stop categorising anybody as I do not think it is helpful to do so. Many of those arguments are arguments of the past. The technical people who work with their hands in any industry are involved in technology and bio-technology and are often far more important than white collar workers. Many of those arguments are arguments of the fifties and not of recent times. I do not want to say anymore about them.

It remains for me to thank the Deputies from all sides and from all parties for contributing on the Second Stage of this debate. Other points which perhaps I have not referred to, I will undertake to look at them again and the arguments which were put forward before we take the Committee and remaining Stages.

Question put and agreed to.

When is it proposed to take committee Stage?

This day fortnight subject to the agreement of the Whips.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 24 May 1988.
Top
Share