asked the Minister for Labour if his Department have undertaken a comparative analysis of labour law throughout the European states with a view to bringing Irish labour law into line with labour law in Europe, in advance of 1992.
41.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Labour Law.
19.
asked the Minister for Labour if his attention has been drawn to the fact that workers on mainland Europe have wider protection under labour law than workers in Ireland; and if he has plans to harmonise labour law in Ireland with aspects of labour law in other major European states before 1992.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 19 and 41 together.
As the Deputy will be aware, we have our own code of labour legislation in this country which reflects our own industrial relations and employment environment. In general, our labour legislation lays down minimum standards and has been enacted after consultation with both the FUE and the ICTU. I am reviewing and updating this legislation as appropriate in consultation with both the FUE and ICTU. I would mention specifically industrial relations and trade union law, health and safety, payment of wages, unfair dismissals, employment equality as well as the situation of part-time workers and conditions of employment.
My Department keep in constant touch with labour law developments in other European countries. In my view the complete harmonisation of labour law at European level is not a realistic proposition given the diversity of arrangements in the various countries. A uniform code of labour law does not exist throughout European states as the Deputy's question seems to imply.
So far as the European Community is concerned, directives already exist in various areas such as health and safety and equality of employment, and Ireland of course adheres to the terms of these directives. In the context of 1992, further measures are being proposed by the Commission and these will be examined in the Council of Ministers in the normal way.
I wish to register my disapproval of the manner in which my priority question has been taken as a composite with Question No. 19. If it is deemed to be a priority question it should be treated as such. That was your ruling on a previous occasion when I had some questions down to the Minister for Labour and they were treated in a similar fashion.
If two questions are directly related, as these are and as the questions were on the last day, my understanding is whichever one comes up first is taken. I have no objection whatsoever to taking the priority question if that is the decision but if a question comes up first and is related to a priority question I understand that is the only way I can deal with the questions.
It could be said that most of the questions here today relate to one another in some way or other.
That is so, that is quite clear.
I think the Minister is using poetic licence. Question No. 19 concerns availability of information and the other question is about conditions of employment. The Minister says there is no harmonisation in Europe. We have in Europe the Beretta report which is an attempt by the EC Social Committee to come to grips with harmonisation of labour law. Regarding Question No. 19, in the Minister's Department no information is available whereby somebody can make a comparison between labour law in this country and what applies on mainland Europe. It is not in the trade unions. It is very difficult to obtain from any trade union sources. Likewise, in the various Government Departments and in the EC itself it is difficult to make a comparison of the type of conditions which apply in the various countries. I will accept what the Minister has said in that regard, but I do not think he has taken sufficient steps in this area.
Regarding Question No. 41, there are problems arising from multinational companies operating in this country especially those which are non-European based, whose place of origin is not Europe. They have introduced a contract system which at times is to the disadvantage of the employee. In Europe when it is deemed that a contract is not to the advantage of an employee it is deemed to be null and void. There is a mechanism——
I am sorry to interrupt you. I am anxious to give you quite some latitude, especially having regard to the fact that one of the questions, No. 41, is a priority question, but you will appreciate that we must proceed by way of supplementary question.
Will the Minister say what he intends to do to make information available to enable a comparable study to be carried out?
I take the points the Deputy is making. Some of them are fair points. There is no comparative analysis of labour law throughout the EC and such is not envisaged. In any of the legislation of any EC directives the Department of Labour, or the Department of Industry, as the case may be, are actively involved in these discussions. This very week both Departments are involved in safety, health and welfare legislation and in legislation concerning worker participation at European level. Although we do not have the same legislation in each of the member states we keep up to line with whatever directives are best suited to us. We work with the European employer organisations and the trade unions' inter-European organisation in any of these directives. The Employment Committee which the Minister for Labour attends, deals with these as does the Social Affairs Council. There are a number of Acts that cover this. The traditional conditions of employment legislation which we are reviewing, part-time workers, occupational safety and health, the impact on legislation and the burden of proof in the area of equal pay and equal treatment, are all being discussed in Europe and they affect the issue the Deputy raised. Others which President Delors has raised are also being discussed. The right to leave for training, worker participation, contracts of employment and parental leave are at various stages in Europe. However, to get a comparative analysis you would have to take the good with the bad. A great deal of legislation which would not be to the benefit of workers and employers is floating around in various committees in Europe at the moment. The system in this country works very well. We are involved in any discussions on directives which we have to implement and we keep in touch with any other progressive clauses that are there and build them into our legislation as we review them one by one.
Is the Minister aware that we have had problems with multinationals in particular regarding various definitions as to what is shift work and what is not shift work and various practices regarding a four shift rota and a five shift rota? These have presented problems to trade unionists employed in these firms. The non-European ones in particular have scant regard to what applies in Europe and have demonstrated this in the past much to the detriment of working conditions which already apply here. We cannot apply these conditions because there is no clear definition.
I will send the Deputy information on that point because we will be reviewing exactly those points. There is legislation which is very different to European legislation and I would not like to get involved in comparative analysis, but I am quite prepared to look at certain aspects. In regard to the multinationals I am aware of many contentious issues and have been directly involved in some issues relating to multinationals in Waterford recently. I appreciate the point that non-Europeans would not be governed by EC law and we would have to be conscious of that. I would be glad if there were something we could do although I am not too sure as to what we could do. However I will be very glad to look into it.
The time has come to deal with questions nominated for priority.