Vol. 456 No. 6
32 Mr. T. Kitt asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment the Government's position regarding the implementation of the EU Directive on working hours which requires statutory holiday leave being extended to four weeks by 1999. [14486/95]
The existing holidays legislation in Ireland allows for three weeks' paid annual leave. Most workers have, however, negotiated leave allowances in excess of that statutory minimum. The EU Directive on the Organisation of Working Time, adopted in November 1993, provides, among other things, that member states must take the measures necessary to ensure that every worker is entitled to paid annual leave of at least four weeks. While the directive must be implemented no later than November 1996, member states can avail of the option of a transitional period of not more than three years, up to November 1999, in relation to the annual leave provisions.
This means that member states have direction in deciding whether, and to what extent, the directive's three year transitional period should be used in implementing the entitlement to increased holidays. This issue, among others, was addressed in a discussion paper on holidays legislation published in November 1994. Here, it was suggested that phasing in the additional statutory entitlement over the transitional period might be the best way to enable employers to plan for and absorb the extra costs. The social partners responded to that document and significant consultations have taken place with them subsequently. The ICTU has sought the immediate introduction of extra leave, which it considers should be 21 days in line with negotiated norms. On the other hand, IBEC has argued that all employers should be allowed, on a voluntary basis, to avail of the three year transitional period. Other organisations representing employers have put forward a similar view.
I have given very careful thought to the views of the social partners. As I have just outlined, their views are almost diametrically opposed on this subject. I could not easily see how the State could readily reconcile their views without coming down on one side or the other. It would be preferable to advance on a consensual basis in the interests of the overall public good.
In this light, I have decided that the best approach to giving effect to the directive's annual leave provisions is for the draft legislation not to set out any legal obligations in relation to phasing in extra holidays in the period up to November 1999. The most appropriate approach to introducing the additional holidays is for the social partners to negotiate the issue in line with normal collective bargaining arrangements. It may very well be that they will conclude the best way to absorb the costs associated with the extra holidays would be to phase in the increase.
However, I am of the view that management, employees and trade unions are in the best position to make assessments on cost, competitiveness and employment issues and arrive at suitable, negotiated agreements on the basis of the individual circumstances of each firm.
While the majority of employees in the State already have 20 days or more, those businesses most affected by the extra holidays would be the most vulnerable to increases in labour costs — small enterprises, start-up companies, firms seeking to ensure survival in the highly competitive services sector. I would very much like to be in a position to introduce legislation for the extra holidays with immediate effect. However, we must all be conscious of our competitiveness position, particularly with unemployment so high and must avoid the imposition of measures that could put existing jobs at risk and stunt the generation of badly needed new ones.
Does the Minister accept that he has fudged the issue? Would he explain what happened to the proposal made by the Minister of State, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald, that the extra holidays entitlement be phased in? This was seen as a compromise. Does the Minister have figures for the number of workers limited to the statutory minimum entitlement of three weeks holidays? Is it true that they are in the main low paid and temporary workers? The Minister and his colleagues sitting beside him should have the interests of these workers at heart in dealing with the issue. Was the Minister responsible for having the proposal put forward by the Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald, changed or was it due, as reported in the media, to a revolt by the mandarins?
I have not in any way fudged the issue. The intention is very clear. The legislation will not give legal force to phasing it in and it will be open to the social partners to proceed on the basis of consenus. This is a well established and successful procedure. The issue will be discussed, at the appropriate level, in line with normal collective bargaining arrangements. That is the correct way to proceed and will give management, unions and employees an opportunity to ensure that the legal obligation to have four weeks leave by 1999 is dealt with in a way that is sensitive to the work conditions in each area.
The Minister did not state the number of workers involved. There are approximately 200,000 workers involved, many of whom are low paid. Does the Minister accept it is his duty to protect their vulnerable position? Is it true that some employers will not be obliged to bring in the new scheme by 1999?
All employers will be obliged to bring in the scheme by 1999. I am aware of the figure mentioned by the Deputy. Surveys carried out by various employer organisations describing the impact on the different sectors appear to be consistent with the figure of 200,000. It is the Department's task to protect both the vulnerable position of workers and issues of competitiveness that might undermine employment. Everyone will be entitled to four weeks leave by 1999 but in order to implement it in a way which is sensitive to the needs of different employments the matter should be discussed at the appropriate level in line with current negotiating arrangements.
Any politician who talks about holidays takes his life in his hands and any politician who is a barrister and talks about holidays is doubly foolish. Will the Minister agree that in implementing a minimum four week holiday entitlement he must be careful to ensure that it is not seen by those with clout to deliver on industrial relations matters as additional to present informal leave arrangements? Ireland must remain internationally competitive. Existing Irish habits, such as extensive factory closures at Christmas time and so on, should be taken on board. This should be a net entitlement and not a gross additional entitlement.
I am conscious of the need for competitiveness and am confident that the social partners will be in a position to deal with this in a way that is sensitive to our needs and will not add unnecessary burdens of cost. That is why I am leaving it to management, unions and employees to work out in accordance with normal negotiating procedures.
Did the Minister present his proposals to Cabinet?
No. The Heads of the Bill will be drawn up in my Department and will go to Cabinet. Then they will go to the parliamentary draftsman for detailed drafting.
I meant the altered proposals. Were the proposals worked out by the Minister of State. Deputy Fitzgerald, and overturned by the Minister presented to Cabinet?
No proposals were presented to Cabinet. The procedure is that the Heads of the Bill will be drawn up in the Department and will go to Cabinet in the normal way. They will then go to the parliamentary draftsman for detailed drafting and will return to Government for decision before final publication.
I am sorry if I appear obtuse. The Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald, drew up proposals, presumably in consultation with her civil servants, but they were overturned at a mac meeting. Was that matter brought to Cabinet?
The matter has not been discussed at Cabinet. That is the norm.
