Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Jun 1996

Vol. 467 No. 2

Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Bill, 1996: Committee and Final Stages.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, lines 7 and 8, to delete "branch or division" and substitute "division (however described)".

This is a technical amendment to avoid problems which might arise because of the specific meaning given to the term "branch" in company law.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 8, subsection (1), line 18, to delete "groups" and substitute "group".

This is a technical amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 7.

We now come to amendment No. 3. I observe that amendment No. 4 is consequential. I suggest, therefore, that we discuss amendments Nos. 3 and 4 together.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 9, subsection (1) (b), line 8, to delete "and".

The purpose of these amendments is to enable the Minister to make regulations concerning the powers and procedures of arbitrators and arbitrations. After the Bill was published a legal question arose as to whether the arbitration Acts or alternative arrangements would apply. In view of the fact that some of the detail of the arbitration Acts might not be appropriate to arbitration or deciding on issues that might arise under the Bill it has been decided to insert a new paragraph (c). The amendment to section 21 arises from the same point.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 9, subsection (1), between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:

"(c) the powers and procedures of arbitrators, and the conduct of arbitration proceedings, under sections 20 and 21; and".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 8 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 12.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 13, subsection (9), line 33, after "agreement" to insert "which has been accepted by a majority of the workforce".

The purpose of this amendment is to deal with the Pepsi Co incident where a particular company decided to deal with the special negotiating body and to have that meeting in Ireland in the K Club. I have already referred to what happened. The Minister has assured me that what happened was unacceptable, that the trade union movement is investigating it and that she is monitoring the situation closely. I would be anxious that the Minister would report back to me on any information she may have on this type of situation.

I propose the inclusion of the words "which has been accepted by a majority of the workforce" to ensure that the type of situation which allegedly took place does not arise again. We are anxious that as many multinational companies as possible will use Ireland as a headquarters for their meetings, whether a special negotiating body meeting or a works council meeting. Because of our legislation that is likely. If media reports of what happened in the case of Pepsi Co are correct, it is unacceptable. I ask the Minister to accept my amendment which would bring the section into line with the provisions of section 6 (7) pertaining to Article 13 agreements — pre-directive agreements. I am concerned that in the absence of this amendment special negotiating bodies could be suspended after agreements are made which are unacceptable to the workforce. It would avoid a repeat of the PepsiCo debacle.

We in the Department considered the possibility of proposing an amendment on these lines and we obtained legal advice which was to the effect that this is implied already. The amendment seeks to amend subsection (9) which states:

A Special Negotiating Body shall remain in existence for as long only as it continues to have the function of negotiating for an agreement....

by adding the words "which has been accepted by a majority of the workforce". We have been advised that this is already implied. If I were to accept Deputy Kitt's amendment we could have a limbo situation. In the event of failure by the special negotiating body to reach agreement that body would remain in existence, the provisions of the annex and the mandatory agreement would come into play and the special negotiating body would be in limbo. On the amendment proposed by Deputy Kitt, the advice of the draftsman is that it is already provided for and that a legal limbo could be created. For those reasons I have not tabled an amendment.

The functions of the special negotiating body, as provided for in section 11, include the negotiation of a written agreement, which is obviously a safeguard. Under the directive the special negotiating body has the right of acceptance of agreements and it would be ultra vires the directive to undercut that in any way. Even if the amendment is not accepted, what Deputy Kitt is seeking is already implied.

Section 6 (7) states:

An agreement referred to in subsection (1) shall not be valid unless it has been accepted by a majority of the workforce to which it applies.

The Minister has said that written agreements are referred to in section 11. The reason I tabled the amendment was to ensure absolute clarity in regard to the structures and to ensure there is no confusion following this legislation. I accept the Minister sought legal advice which was to the effect that inclusion of this amendment could cause some degree of confusion. I accept what she has told me. There is a reference to "a majority of the workforce" in section 6 (7). Will the Minister confirm if the reference to the majority workforce in my amendment is unnecessary in the context to which I referred earlier?

There was no special negotiating body in Pepsi Co because we were looking at a pre-directive agreement. Once the directive is in force the special negotiating body or the annex provisions will come into effect. The amendment would not affect or protect pre-directive agreements. The advice I have received is that the special negotiating body is the protection for agreements under the directive. If any further clarification is required we can return to it on Report Stage. That is my understanding of the legal advice.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 12 agreed to.
Section 13 to 16, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 17.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 15, subsection (4), lines 37 and 38, to delete "the Communityscale group of undertakings shall be paid their wages" and substitute "a Community-scale group of undertakings shall be paid their wages (within the meaning of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991)".

The purpose of this amendment is to clarify exactly what is meant by wages and to bring in the definition used under the Payment of Wages Act.

Is the purpose of the amendment to clarify the definition of wages?

That is correct.

It covers basic wages, allowances and overtime?

It covers all that area.

I welcome the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 17, as amended, agreed to.
Section 18 agreed to.
SECTION 19.

Amendment No. 8 is cognate with amendment No. 7 and both may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 16, subsection (1) (b), line 21, to delete “£10,000” and substitute “£5,000”.

The thinking behind the amendment is that the sum of £10,000 is perhaps excessive. I mentioned earlier that Ireland is considered corporate friendly in terms of legislation. It is also seen as a country which is trying to promote partnership. The general thrust of the Bill is away from repressive elements in the context of Ireland potentially being used as headquarters for meetings and work councils. Given the comparisons I made earlier between more severe measures which are in place in other countries, such as Germany, perhaps it would be prudent to delete £10,000 and substitute £5,000. However, I have an open mind on the matter.

The offences covered by the subsection are those by a company which refuses to co-operate by letting the workers know how many employees the company has so the ball can start to roll in terms of whether the operation is covered by the Bill and the directive. Non co-operation by a company of this scale is serious and a £5,000 fine on an operation employing 1,000 people, with 150 people each in up to three member states, is small, although, if the offence continues, the amount will increase. I do not foresee this provision being used, but it is important it is included in the Bill. Companies on this scale must be told they do not face Mickey Mouse fines if they do not comply with the law. This matter involves multinational giants, not corner shops for which £10,000 is a large amount.

Amendment No. 8 relates to subsection (3) (b). This refers to somebody who discloses commercially sensitive information they receive in the course of the consultation process to a third party. Huge sums of money could be at stake. In reply to Deputy Harney, I said I am satisfied that it should be a criminal offence and that these procedures are adequate. It would send the wrong signal if the level of fines was reduced. Neither amendment relates to trivial offences. The first involves non co-operation in terms of a multinational ignoring the Bill. Given the type of money such operations have, the penalty must be serious. Regarding the second amendment, it is a serious offence for a worker to sell secrets to a competitor, given the amount of money which is likely to be at stake. It would send the wrong signal to reduce the fines. Having heard my comments, perhaps the Deputy will be disposed to agreeing with me.

I agree with the Minister of State.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 8 not moved.
Section 19 agreed to.
Section 20 agreed to.
SECTION 21.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 17, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following subsection:

"(4) An arbitrator to whom under subsection (2) a dispute is referred shall make his or her determination on the basis of the written submissions of the parties, but may conduct a hearing, at which both parties may be present, if he or she thinks the circumstances of the case require it.".

This follows from the fact that the Arbitration Act will not apply to arbitration under the Bill and, therefore, how arbitrators conduct their business must be spelled out in the Bill. This is the purpose of the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 21, as amended, agreed to.
Section 22 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 17, before the First Schedule, to insert the following new section:

23. — The Arbitration Acts, 1954 and 1980, shall not apply to or in relation to an arbitration under section 20 or 21.".

This matter was covered previously.

Amendment agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 17, paragraph 1, line 43, before "on" to insert "in a full-time or regular part-time capacity".

I intend to withdraw the amendment as the issue was clarified in the debate earlier.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 18, paragraph 2, line 4, after "day" to insert", or, in relation to a Special Negotiating Body, a trade union official or official of an excepted body, whether or not he or she is an employee.".

The purpose of the amendment is to clarify that a trade union official or official of an excepted body, regardless of whether they work for the company, can be appointed to a special negotiating body. This is intended in the text, but the amendment spells it out so there can be no ambiguity on that point. Trade union officials are eligible to stand for the special negotiating body.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 18, paragraph 4, line 20, after "management" to insert "in consultation with existing employee representatives".

I am happy to accept the amendment which relates to agreeing the appointment of a returning officer in an election. It is a sensible proposal.

Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule as amended, agreed to.
SECOND SCHEDULE.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 20, paragraph 4 (1) (b) (ii), line 3, to delete "undertakings" and substitute "undertaking".

This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

I thank Deputy Kitt for his excellent contribution and Deputy Harney who, as always, made a lively contribution. I was pleased to clarify that the spirit of most of Deputy Kitt's amendments is contained in the text of the Bill and to accept his constructive amendment to the Second Schedule. He approaches legislation in a positive and co-operative manner. I thank him and the Progressive Democrats for their co-operation in taking all Stages of the Bill today at short notice. As the legislation must be passed before 22 September, it must be dealt with before the summer recess and the co-operation of the parties opposite has enabled us meet that deadline.

I also thank my officials who spent many hours consulting both sides of industry to ensure the participation approach enshrined in the Bill was included in its preparation.

Thank you, Sir, for assisting us with this Bill. It is often claimed that it is a cosy arrangement to appoint constituency colleagues from opposing parties to deal with the same portfolio, but that is not true in this case. We have had an intelligent debate on this matter and such debates expose our ideological positions as individuals and party representatives. In a few hours we have dealt with significant legislation that is a step in the right direction, but much remains to be done at a domestic level to improve social partnership.

I thank the Minister for the manner in which she presented the Bill and, while not many Members contributed, we have managed to pass all Stages today. We support social partnership at every level and encourage the Minister to involve the social partners at all levels in the months ahead.

Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 5.25 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.
Top
Share