Vol. 423 No. 2
10 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Minister for Labour if he will outline (a) the present position in regard to the code of practice in dispute procedures in essential services (b) the parties that have accepted it and (c) the agreed sanctions for its breach.
The code of practice on dispute procedures, including procedures in essential services, was declared by order to be a code of practice for the purposes of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990, in January this year.
The aim of the code is to ensure that disputes are resolved without recourse to industrial action by providing practical guidance on procedures for the resolution of such disputes. The code places particular emphasis on the avoidance of industrial disputes in essential services and sets out additional procedures and safeguards for inclusion in agreements between employers and trade unions in such services.
The code has been widely circulated to Government Departments, State-sponsored bodies, employer organisations, individual employers, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and individual trade unions with a view to encouraging the adoption of its provisions in employer-trade union agreements, particularly in relation to essential services.
Employers providing essential services have been asked to inform the Labour Relations Commission as soon as discussions on procedures and safeguards as envisaged by the code get underway and to notify it of the arrangements put in place to ensure continuity of essential supplies and services.
In keeping with the voluntary nature of our system of industrial relations, codes of practice are not legally binding and no sanctions are provided for their breach. They are intended to foster good practice and encourage reasonable behaviour in accordance with widely observed standards. The provisions of codes of practice may, however, be taken into account by courts of law, the Labour Court, the Labour Relations Commission, the Employment Appeals Tribunal, rights commissioners and equality officers in determining issues before them.
Has the Minister entered into any discussions with trade unions and employers in the vital services involved to try to gain acceptance for the code of practice? Is the quote in today's newspapers accurate, that if there was not voluntary acceptance he would reconsider the matter?
Regarding the first part of the Deputy's question, I have not been in direct consultations with employers or trade unions in the essential services in regard to the observance of this code. That is a matter for the Labour Relations Commission, who are statutorily under an obligation to promote good industrial practice, and the wider acceptance of the code should be left with them. Yesterday evening, at a meeting of the Institute of Personnel Management, I simply made the point that in these difficult circumstances it is very important that sectional interests of any kind should not hinder the national interest in these turbulent times. I want the voluntary nature of our industrial relations practice to continue and I believe that there is sufficient responsibility on all sides of industry to ensure that this will happen. I hope that what I suggested will not in any circumstances be necessary. Since I took office I have at all times sought to give space to both sides of industry and given them the opportunity to deal responsibly with disputes. There is sufficient responsibility and commonsense in the whole arena of industrial relations to ensure that we will not put the vital national interest at risk.
Will the Minister clarify his remarks? Is he considering alternative contingencies if there is not voluntary acceptance in the case of essential services? Is he solely exhorting people to subscribe to the voluntary code?
The comments were more in the nature of exhortation rather than a threat.
Has the Minister set a deadline by which parties must indicate whether they will accept the voluntary code of practice?
I believe that the voluntary nature of industrial relations practice is probably the best way to proceed.
