Vol. 432 No. 6
5 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment if his attention has been drawn to the increased criticism of the terms of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990, by the trade union movement, and particularly to the motion passed at the recent annual conference of the country's biggest union, SIPTU, seeking a Government review of the legislation; if it is intended to undertake such a review; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The Industrial Relations Act, 1990 was enacted following extensive consultation with the social partners. The purpose of this consultation process was to achieve as much consensus as possible on a package of measures which would provide an improved framework for the orderly conduct of industrial relations. I am satisfied that the Act achieves the correct balance between the rights and responsibilities of employers, trade unions, employees and the broader public interest.
I am aware of the views expressed by various parties about the Act and of the motion passed at the recent SIPTU annual delegate conference. The Act, which did not become fully operational until July 1992, is monitored on an emergency basis by my Department and I consider that a detailed review would be premature and is not warranted at this stage.
The Minister has referred to the fact that the defects in this Act dominated the annual conference of the largest union, SIPTU. Despite what the Minister has said about consultation, is he saying that when one of the major social partners points to serious deficiencies in respect of picketing policy, policies relating to the prosecution of a dispute by a single worker and the place of picketing, he would wish to ignore the views of SIPTU and the trade union movement?
Perhaps I should restate my reply. I said I was aware of the views on the Act expressed by the various parties, including the delegates at the SIPTU conference. I have also had discussions with representatives of congress who have discussed in detail with me their concerns and reservations about aspects of the interpretation and operation of the Act. I expressed my concern when I shared the same benches as Deputy Rabbitte. Since the Act only became fully operational in July 1992 a detailed review would be premature and is not warranted at this stage. That is not to say we are not monitoring all the instances to which delegates at the Tralee conference made reference and other instances which have been brought to my attention by the industrial relations section of my Department.
I was going to refer the Minister to the close umbilical cord between his party and SIPTU and query whether the union has taken up the criticisms set out in a booklet I co-authored, which had the support of the Labour Party. Would the Minister agree that what we are talking about in regard to the law on industrial relations is a balance of rights and that it is the view of the trade union movement that that Act has tilted the balance so that it is a factor in causing disputes rather than in resolving them?
The Deputy is making a statement and I would ask him to ask a supplementary question.
It is a question. Does the Minister agree with the view of the trade union movement that those deficiencies in the Act are facilitating or provoking disputes rather than permitting their resolution?
The Deputy will be aware that the provisions of the Act, among other things, sought to tighten and clarify the law in relation to picketing, especially secondary picketing, to remove the immunity in worker versus worker disputes, and to remove immunity in disputes concerning only one worker where agreed procedures have not been followed and so forth. It was the view of many people who have knowledge, perhaps not as detailed as Deputy Rabbitte's, in regard to industrial relations procedures, that once the Act was put in place and the courts were brought into play, as they have been on a number of occasions, various interpretations from various benches could and possibly would give rise to unease and concern. I am aware of that unease and I am monitoring carefully the legal decisions that have arisen in respect of various disputes, of which I am sure Deputy Rabbitte is fully informed. A constant review is being maintained of the implications of those judgments, not all of which are complete in terms of their passage through the courts, and the consequences of those judgments and their impact upon industrial relations will be monitored carefully by my Department with a view to ensuring that there is a correct balance between on the one hand, the rights of workers and, on the other, the rights of employers and the general public.
Is the Minister concerned about the increasing incidence of resort to the courts by employers under the headings we have discussed? Does he recall that part of the quid pro quo at the time of consultation with the social partners was the abolition of the ex-parte injunction? If one now considers the period of operation of the Act, there has been increasing resort to the courts to secure injunctions which, in some cases, have had the effect of provoking industrial unrest.
I would be concerned that the legislation as it was framed and enacted in this House, without the support of my party which was then in Opposition, would still attempt to convey, albeit not in a perfect manner, a set of immunities to workers pursuing industrial disputes by way of pickets and other types of activity. Problems will continue to arise until such time as the law settles in this area. It is a sensitive and difficult area and it is being monitored closely by my Department. Whatever action is needed will be taken to restore balance to the interpretation and the understanding of the law as was intended in this House when it was passed through the Oireachtas.
