I wish to share my time with Deputies Ulick Burke and Howlin.
Private Members' Business. - Trade Union Recognition Bill, 1998: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Deputy Owen put the Fine Gael position on this Bill admirably in her contribution and I support what she said. It is depressing, to say the least, that we have a need to discuss this matter in 1998. Industrial relations should not require a Bill such as this. Employers and employees should be capable of conducting their relationships as partners, each benefiting by the progressive action of the other. The majority of the trade union movement must receive our praise. It has progressed, responding to the changes in industrial relations which have occurred over the past 25 years.
The primary issue which has given rise to the presentation of this Bill is the dispute at Ryanair in which a number of employees are seeking the right to representation by a trade union. We must congratulate Ryanair and its staff who have revolutionised air travel with competitive pricing which benefits the public. Ryanair is one of the great successes in aviation. It is sad to see this dispute dragging on. Given the contribution of the staff to the company's success, are they not entitled to share in the fruits of that success?
The chief executive of Ryanair appeared to reject the challenge of meeting with the professional negotiators, opting instead to carry baggage. All industrial and other relationships are a balance between the needs and desires of different agendas. The executives of this high-flying company tell us their employees already have the benefit of the negotiation skills of SIPTU as Ryanair always pays a little more than union negotiated rates. Is it the case that this is a good employer which pays more than its competitors and which is concerned that its employees do not squander the financial rewards of their labour on unnecessary expenditure such as union dues? Is it the case that some employees of Ryanair do not realise how paternal their employer is? We can only look on from the outside.
The company seems to have an autocratic style. This is the same company which decided without consultation to reduce the level of commission paid to travel agents on the sale of Ryanair tickets, thereby undermining the business of every local travel agent and its employees and putting jobs at risk by reducing the viability of the travel agents' trade. In short, it wanted to reduce the pay level while increasing the workload. For what purpose was this done if not to increase the salary of the chief executive and to drive up the share price?
I understand why Ryanair employees seek the comfort and protection of skilled negotiators. The employees have a right to expect respect, a fair wage, reasonable rosters, some training and development to allow for progression and security of employment. However, the Ryanair employees do not seem happy and I wonder why.
I congratulate Deputy Broughan for presenting this Bill. Trade unions have made a major contribution to the country's economic progress, especially since the late 1970s when social partnership was developed. Trade union members have made many sacrifices through difficult times and have often borne the brunt of pay restrictions, cut-backs, difficult working conditions and employment embargoes.
The history of trade unionism from James Connolly to the present indicates that every trade union leader has gone through difficulties to enhance workers' pay and working conditions. It is wrong to deny the right of trade union representation and membership, but it is equally wrong to have a compulsory trade union requirement. The Bill's timing is significant, coming as it does when baggage handlers at Ryanair have been denied their wish to be represented at the Labour Court by SIPTU. It is unacceptable that Ryanair will not attend a Labour Court hearing to resolve these difficulties. Ryanair's management is walking an industrial relations tightrope and, unfortunately, it is walking away from the mechanisms provided by successive Governments over many years.
Why does Ryanair refuse to discuss the dispute in the Labour Court? Does it intend to wreck the progress of the past 20 years whereby employers, workers and trade unions have worked in harmony? Ryanair is out of step with all other major employers and its actions will inevitably lead to its own destruction, unfortunately self-inflicted. Ryanair has been a good employer and has done much for air transport but it is important to note that over the past decade or so most other similar cases concerning trade union recognition were in the low pay sector, very often in the private sector. There is a lesson to be learned for all concerned. The voluntary nature of industrial relations and union membership must continue if social partnership is to survive. If the Ryanair dispute and others about trade union recognition are not settled quickly, we will start down a road of confrontation and unrest. Few employers, trade unions or workers want to follow it.
The progress of the past decade cannot be lost because of the intransigence of a few insensitive employers, such as Ryanair. Partnership has led to great success and if there is to be full involvement in maintaining progress in future, trade union recognition is necessary but it must be voluntary and acceptable to all parties. It must never be forgotten that trade union involvement in the economic plans of the past decade was responsible for much of current day economic progress.
There is a great need for an integrated contribution from workers, Government and employers. Compulsory input into such a partnership makes it impossible to work. Management requires skilled workers to produce quality output and support from all parties is essential for this success. We cannot have a situation whereby the voluntary aspect of trade union membership is a disincentive to employers and we must be conscious of unemployed people and the possibility of future employment potential.
The economy must always be competitive as multinationals in the past have left a very sour taste because of their sudden withdrawal from Ireland. For example, Digital in Galway — we know what happened in the wake of its departure — and others put forward lack of competitiveness in Ireland as the reason for leaving for other low cost labour countries.
Mandatory recognition will not help and could drive away possible investment, lose jobs and bring resentment to the fore. Suspicion would replace partnership. There are many good aspects to the Bill, but trade union membership must be voluntary and not compulsory at all times.
I congratulate my colleague, Deputy Broughan, on introducing this legislation which is extremely timely and welcome in the context of the Ryanair dispute. There are many contributory factors for which credit could be taken for the remarkable performance of the economy in the past decade. However, there is a consensus that the single most important factor in transforming the economy and creating the much vaunted Celtic tiger has been the establishment of social partnership at national level. It is a model being looked at by economies across the globe.
Partnership 2000 is being enjoyed currently, the most recent in a series of consensus built programmes involving all elements and participants in the economy to work together with common objectives. The common aim of social partnership is the advancement of the country but each component must advance so that it can turn to its membership and say social partnership is good for us. The day that one partner feels the people it represents are not getting their fair share is the day social partnership will crumble. This means putting workers and their legitimate representatives, the trade union movement, on an equal footing with the other sectors involved in negotiating partnership. There must be equality of treatment and that basically is all that is required of the Bill. It seeks to vindicate and establish in law the basic and vital reality that underpins our current economy, the right of workers to associate and have professional representation.
There is much talk also of increased globalization in terms of capital and technology. The social dimension of it has not been as advanced as economic developments over the past decade. I had the honour of representing the previous Government at a conference on world trade and its effect on the marginalised. While the free movement of goods and services and the globalization of markets has huge benefit for those best able to participate, it can be very negative for those who are marginalised and not equipped to participate fully in the transformation of an economy.
That can happen at two levels. At international level, countries are beggared because they are not part of the evolving global economy and are even more marginalised than they were. Within countries, sectors of the population can be marginalised and excluded from full participation in the fruits of economic growth and development. Social inequalities and injustices at national and international level must be addressed, but first they must be recognised. There must be a champion or a representative to argue the case of those who are not getting their share of economic growth.
The gravest threat to social partnership in Ireland is the ongoing assault on the trade union movement by Ryanair. It is an assault not only on the rights of trade unions and individual workers over a principle which we thought was established decades ago — the right to associate and to be professionally represented — but also on the continued well-being of the nation, and every worker, organisation and business in it. I am delighted the Tánaiste is present to participate in the debate but she should take seriously the increasingly voiced concerns of the trade union movement that assaults on its very right to exist undermine fundamentally the future of social partnership and, indeed, the very existence of the current framework, Partnership 2000.
The attitude presented by Ryanair management is closer to the thinking of the 1920s than the declining years of the twentieth century. Much has been said about the management of Ryanair. I do not intend to dwell on that. I am more concerned about the principles of this Bill which mean the Government cannot be a disinterested bystander. It must defend consensus and dialogue, the hallmarks of labour relations in recent times. I read with concern the comments made in the House last week by the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, who said he was at one with the Taoiseach in regard to Ryanair. What will he do about it? It is all very fine to decry the inflexibility of that company, to laud the rights of workers to be represented and to encourage people to participate in the industrial relations mechanism aimed at dispute resolution, but a Government must do more than exhort. It must be prepared to take specific and concrete action. According to the Minister of State's comments last week, the Bill introduces sanctions and is, therefore, unacceptable. What can be done about a recalcitrant company that will not accept the basic rights of people? It has always been the case that we should take sanctions against those who are out of step with the norm or the broad thrust of public opinion and policy. Of course it is proper to take sanctions against those whose policies undermine the consensus upon which the common good is based. The Minister of State said the Bill was ill-timed. I cannot think of a better time to introduce it. In the case of the Ryanair dispute, the will of the Oireachtas, the attitude of the Government and the resolution of all of us to maintain the partnership process upon which our well-being is based should be clearly displayed.
Last week the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, gave a dissertation, an historic lecture about the origins of trade union recognition. From my experience the single most significant political event that happened in Wexford this century was the 1911 lock-out, the repercussions of which are alive for the citizens of my home town and county to this day. That dispute was about the right of workers to associate and negotiate, to be represented by a trade union. It was a bitter and awful dispute and after six months of hunger the workers were forced to climb down and could not join the transport union. They were beaten through starvation and went back to work. However, they overcame that dispute and founded their own local union which was a shadow branch of the Transport and General Workers' Union. The resonance of that early struggle of workers to have rights is real in people's thoughts today, but they believed it was something they had left behind decades ago. It is incomprehensible that a similar dispute could be faced today.
From his comments in a press release rather than in the House last week, apparently the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, regards the Bill as oldfashioned, old rather than new Labour policy. When it comes to recognising the importance of partnership with the trade union movement and the role of workers in building and sustaining this economy, the Labour Party is, as always, consistently on the side of workers. There is nothing about the Bill that represents old Labour. It is a modern Bill that seeks to maintain consensus and does not force anybody to do anything. It simply requires people to go through a just process and seeks to ensure that basic rights are not denied by any person using a dominant position to bully others. We have come a long way from the days of the bullying employer who told workers how high they should jump and they obeyed.
I am gravely disappointed at the attitude of Government Ministers and spokespersons on this matter. The Tánaiste is in the House tonight. Since she has had a week to reflect on this matter, I hope the line taken by the Minister of State in her Department has shifted. However, I am more hopeful than optimistic about that because the attitude of the Fianna Fáil Minister of State will probably be hardened by the Progressive Democrats senior Minister in the Department.
Much depends on the outcome of the Ryanair dispute. The Bill certainly addresses the issues involved in that dispute, but it applies to all disputes and not merely one that seriously threatens to undermine the partnership approach to growing our economy. I do not want to hear the usual comments that the Bill is flawed or badly drafted. Flaws and drafting can be addressed. We are talking about principles. If the Tánaiste rejects the Bill, I want her to put forward her ideas on how to address the issue. I do not want exhortation, I want to hear what measures the Tánaiste and Government propose to put in place to ensure the management of Ryanair accepts the normal working conditions of any business that operates within our economy. I want to hear a rational and measured proposal to address this long-standing and bitter industrial dispute. We cannot have it both ways. It cannot be argued that what the Labour Party suggests is wrong but the objective of the Bill is right unless the Government has alternative proposals.
This extremely important issue includes a number of fundamental concerns for workers. There was a fair degree of resistance within the broad membership of the trade union movement to the last partnership deal. That resistance will harden unless the Government shows itself to be fair. In another agenda on another issue, the question of fairness and equality of treatment regarding participants in discussions is stressed again and again. On this issue there should be no equivocation. The rights of workers are clearly and deliberately being undermined. The Government can neither be neutral nor a bystander, it must be involved. I want to hear how the Tánaiste proposes to address this issue so that the trade union movement continues to be engaged in partnership.
We brought two Bills before the House since the current Administration came to office, the legislation dealing with Sunday trading and the measure being discussed tonight. On the first, the Government did a double somersault and voted down measures which the major component of Fianna Fáil proposed in the last Dáil. The Government has an opportunity to redeem itself somewhat tonight by addressing the issues so well put by Deputy Broughan. If not crafted to the degree the Tánaiste would accept, it is incumbent on her to bring forward her own clear concise proposals to deal with this important issue.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Noel O'Flynn.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
The issue of trade union recognition is complex, difficult and sensitive. If it was not, Deputy Broughan and his colleagues in the Labour Party would have introduced this Bill during their time in Government over the last five years. It would be remarkable if Deputy Quinn, as Leader of the Labour Party, was to support legislation now which he refused to bring forward when he had ministerial responsibility for this area.
Labour was in office for 15 out of the past 25 years and on no occasion did it seek to promote this legislation. Labour and Democratic Left Ministers held office at the Department of Enterprise and Employment during the last five years and did not seek to promote this legislation. There was no mention of trade union recognition in the Labour Party election manifesto at the last election.
It is not as if the issue of trade union recognition arose only with the Ryanair dispute; it has been around for many years, but no Irish Government, of any stripe, has sought to deal with the problem by way of legislation. It is an issue that has given rise to much passionate debate particularly in the past few years. There is one important conclusion which can be drawn from this debate, namely, that legislation is not the answer. It is contrary to all our traditions of voluntarism and free collective bargaining.
I do not believe that the Bill provides an appropriate or workable solution for industrial relations disputes. If enacted, the Bill could lead to a deterioration in industrial relations. Put at its simplest, legislation is not the way to resolve industrial relations disputes. However, the Bill has served the useful purpose of allowing this House to air, in a frank debate, all the issues involved.
I think Deputy Broughan recognises the difficulties involved here. In his contribution last Tuesday introducing the Bill he said: "there is a long tradition of voluntarism in Irish industrial relations and a reluctance to resort to legislative solutions". I fully agree.
Sometimes it becomes necessary.
We must endeavour to maintain the voluntary approach which has served us well during the past 50 years. We need to reflect long and hard before changing that system in the very fundamental way the Bill seeks to do. There are many who doubt that the Bill is capable of resolving union recognition disputes.
It is clear, in the context of our voluntary approach, any solution to industrial relations disputes must have the support of the social partners. The discussions in the high level group on trade union recognition, set up on foot of a commitment in Partnership 2000, offer the best prospect of finding a solution. The group is representative of all the interests involved and has established some important principles. For example, the primary focus should be on the resolution of disputes rather than on advancing any particular mechanism and we must find a solution within the present voluntary system of industrial relations.
The group submitted a report to me before the end of last year, as required under Partnership 2000. However, more time is needed for reflection on the relevant issues and a further meeting of the group may be necessary. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the Irish Business and Employers' Confederation and the Government have agreed to finalise the work of the high level group. It is essential to await the outcome of these discussions rather than take precipitate action.
We must not underestimate the difficulty involved in arriving at a solution that will be acceptable to the social partners as well as Government. Many in the trade union movement recognise the enormity of the task. This point was made within the trade union movement during the debate on the matter at the ICTU biennial conference last summer in Belfast. Whatever about the study of this issue in the past months, it is fair to say that this Bill is being promoted now because of the dispute in Ryanair.
It predates that dispute. I can show the Minister the first draft.
The Deputy's party was in Government for 15 of the past 25 years. The Deputy's Leader held office at the Department of Enterprise and Employment, which has responsibility for this area——
I was not there; this is my first time——
It may be the Deputy's first time but I presume he is promoting the Bill on behalf of his party. I presume the Bill is being promoted by the Deputy in his capacity as spokesperson on enterprise, trade and employment.
Times change.
Certainly they seem to have changed in the past six months. I believe the Bill is being promoted because of the dispute in Ryanair. However, we need to keep a sense of perspective and it must be appreciated that responding in this manner to situations such as the Ryanair dispute is not necessarily the best way forward. For voluntarism to work it is essential that all the parties to the employment relationship abide by certain ground rules, even if these rules are not explicitly stated or have the force of law. The essence of voluntarism is that where disputes cannot be resolved directly between workers and their representatives on the one hand and management on the other, the dispute is referred to a third party for conciliation or adjudication. In practice, this means the dispute settling agencies — the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court. Certainly in the case of Ryanair, all the labour relations machinery of the State is at the disposal of the parties involved. It is a great pity that this machinery has not been availed of in this case. If I thought that further third party intervention would be helpful, I would be prepared to look at the possibility of an independent inquiry under section 38(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
Why not do that?
If the Deputy listens I will tell him.
Acting Chairman
We have had enough interruptions. The Minister to continue without interruption, please.
I have discussed the matter with the employers representatives, IBEC, and with the ICTU and the management of the company and if I believed it would resolve the dispute I would be pleased to act under the provisions of section 38(2). I do not think we need always to look for a political decision as a means of resolving disputes of this sort. There is no point in going down a particular road unless we are reasonably certain it will be helpful in terms of finding a solution.
The Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, and other speakers on the Government side have dealt in detail with the various flaws in the Bill. I do not intend to rehash all the arguments, but I wish to mention some of the chief reasons I cannot support the Bill. If enacted, the Bill would entail a radical change to the legislative framework in which our industrial relations machinery is conducted. It would have serious implications for the functioning of the industrial relations agencies, the Labour Court and the Labour Relations Commission.
The Bill would diminish the effectiveness of the Labour Court by giving the court a quasi-judicial role which would almost certainly lead to litigation in industrial disputes. The functions of the Labour Court have been firmly rooted in the voluntary approach and the principle of free collective bargaining. The court has served us well for the past 50 years. It enjoys the respect of employers and unions alike. For instance, a survey conducted by the court in 1995 found that 84 per cent of its recommendations were accepted by the parties. This is a measure of the stature of the court. It is a position we should try to preserve and enhance, not jeopardise as this Bill seeks to do.
The Bill would serve to bring the law into aspects of industrial relations where it has hitherto been largely absent. It would introduce a degree of compulsion within the industrial relations systems which would represent a major departure from its essential voluntary nature. It is likely to involve the Labour Court in litigation, which it has up to now largely avoided when dealing with industrial disputes.
How would it do that?
It is likely to lead to mandatory procedures in other areas of industrial relations, something which neither employers nor trade unions would welcome. Expert commentators have identified several difficulties associated with statutory union recognition procedures. For example, Professor Beaumont of Glasgow University has highlighted the fact that we must acknowledge that mandatory recognition could be a double edged sword. By this he meant that if we were to provide for mandatory recognition where the majority of employees in a company wish for it, we would also have to provide for the opposite where a majority of employees do not want to be part of a union. Furthermore, the professor points to the fact that highly legislative and adversarial procedures will pose operational difficulties for the responsible administrative bodies and will risk the creation of adversarial collective bargaining relationships from the outset.
A very important consideration to be taken into account when considering the union recognition issue is the impact any form of compulsion would have on foreign direct investment in Ireland. We are heavily dependent on foreign investment. Some 50 per cent of all of those employed in manufacturing and internationally traded services work in the foreign direct investment sector. This is an aspect we cannot afford to ignore because too many jobs depend on this investment.
There is no doubt that changes in our current practices which might be perceived as moves towards mandatory trade union recognition would impact adversely and substantially on inward investment and consequently on employment throughout the country. In particular, the consequences that mandatory recognition would have with regard to this country's primary standing in such key areas as electronics would be very damaging. Most multinational companies chose not to recognise trade unions, yet they are among the best employers in the country.
They sometimes recognise them at home.
There is no hue and cry among employees in these companies for union recognition. This is the best example of the advantages of a voluntary approach on this issue. When he was Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Quinn did an excellent job in terms of attracting foreign direct investment to Ireland. He would be the first to appreciate the effects this Bill would have on the national effort in this respect. Over the past couple of months this has been one of the most frequent issues raised with me in my dealings with foreign companies. The publicity generated by this debate has caused concern because American companies do not understand our culture.
What multinational companies raised this issue?
Several. If the Deputy was to speak with the chief executive and project managers of IDA Ireland they would confirm that.
I have been to Intel.
The Deputy is out of step with his leader.
In this debate about union recognition we must not lose sight of the fact that Ireland has one of the highest levels of unionisation in the West. We have not experienced the catastrophic decline in membership levels which some countries have experienced in the past 25 years. At the end of 1996 total trade union membership was in the region of 540,000 representing approximately 53 per cent of all employees at work. This is a very high density level by international standards.
What about Scandinavia?
According to data published by the International Labour Office last year only 14 of 92 countries surveyed had trade union density rates in excess of 50 per cent. Some countries, despite having statutory provisions for trade union recognition, have experienced long-term decline in union membership levels. In the US, for example, which has had statutory recognition procedures since the 1930s, only 14 per cent of workers were union members in 1995.
The voluntary approach to industrial relations represents a culture that has developed in this country, especially in the past 50 years. It has served us very well and the social partnership of the past decade, which has contributed so much to the economic boom of recent years, is a product of that system. It is a system we must maintain and develop and not fundamentally alter as this Bill would do. We must find another solution to industrial relations disputes, one which is consistent with the voluntary approach. The best prospect of finding that solution lies with the high level group established under Partnership 2000. We must await the outcome of its deliberations.
The Deputies supporting this legislation, especially those in the Labour Party and Democratic Left, should not underestimate the damage this legislation can do to the reputation of this country. I welcome the responsible approach adopted by the Fine Gael Party and by Deputy Owen, the Fine Gael spokesperson on enterprise, trade and employment.
That is the conservative approach which has dominated this House; it will not always do so.
The Labour Party was in Government for 15 of the past 25 years and did not introduce this legislation. When in Government over the past five years members of the party held ministerial office at the Department of Enterprise and Employment while the Deputy's party leader was Minister for Enterprise and Employment for over two years. However, the party did not promote legislation of this kind and there was no mention of it in its general election manifesto.
There was in Fianna Fáil's manifesto.
Acting Chairman
It would be helpful if Deputies speaking and interrupting addressed the Chair rather than one another.
I do not believe that one dispute should lead us to promote legislation of this kind. We must have a sense of perspective on these matters. I hope, as does everybody in this House, that the dispute at Ryanair can be speedily resolved. The Minister of State at my Department, Deputy Tom Kitt, has worked hard to bring about a resolution of the dispute.
The Dan Quayle of Irish politics.
If section 38(2) of the Industrial Relations Act can play a useful role we will pursue that route. I recommend to the House that this Bill be opposed.
I support the Minister's approach. The timing of the introduction of this Bill leaves much to be desired. It appears the Opposition is more interested in scoring points than in introducing constructive and balanced legislation. We are all aware that the Bill is a knee-jerk response to the Ryanair dispute and many in the Labour Party would share my views. Instead of offering their services to bring about an agreed solution some Deputies are attempting to inflame an already heated dispute.
The Deputy should talk to his party colleagues who are canvassing at Dublin Airport.
They may think it is good politics, but many would not agree and I do not believe they will be thanked by anybody. I have not heard anyone say that a solution can be achieved by prolonging a dispute that has been marked at times by bitter verbal confrontation. I support the views of Deputy Quinn when he said that such problems must be resolved by both sides in dispute. He takes the logical viewpoint and recognises that it is impossible to force parties to a dispute to negotiate against the will of either party. I expect him to take this view and I hope his parliamentary colleagues will take a similar view.
This Bill is an example of hasty and illresearched legislation which can be seen in the vagueness of its proposals. The Bill proposes that the Labour Court will have the powers of legal enforcement against parties to a dispute. In its highly successful history it has never needed such powers. Those who mediate through it do not have to seek expensive legal advice. The introduction of these legal powers would ensure that employers and would be employers toe the line.
How would the Bill's proposers react if it were enacted and its powers were used against the trade union which did not accept a court ruling? Would they rush to introduce an amendment to ensure that such powers were to be used only against the employers? How would parties to a dispute feel if their disagreement were prolonged by lengthy legal debate and, if at the end of such a debate, the ensuing recommendation were the subject of a counter legal argument? The Labour Court should be allowed continue its good work in the time-tested manner.
It is better than having disputes resolved by the Supreme Court.
The Opposition has expressed concern at the refusal of some firms newly established in Ireland to recognise trade unions. Would the Opposition prefer that we push this legislation? Do we show disregard for the jobs that may not materialise in a country which tells would-be investors that they are not welcome except under certain conditions? The public would not welcome that approach.
We need as many jobs as we can attract. Unemployment is the major problem in Ireland and in Europe. It has become a reality in what were, until lately, boom economies. We should not place obstacles in the way of those who would consider setting up in Ireland. They do not come here because they love the Irish and they are not under the spell of the Blarney Stone, which is near where I live.
We are not under its spell either.
They invest here because IDA Ireland and other Government bodies have sold them facts about Ireland. They are told it is the place to locate their industries, they are given incentives to come here, told of the availability of sites and our highly skilled and technically versed workforce. They invest here because they are sold the idea that Ireland is the answer to their prayers. We are not the only sellers in the market for new jobs. We succeed against fierce, cut-throat competition from the many other countries which are crying out for new investors and new jobs.
We are all aware of the many industries we have lost because they got better deals in other countries. How many of these countries have this type of legislation? Which of them would be laying down this precondition to would-be investors? I am not aware of any and, as members of the Opposition have been interrupting throughout this debate, I am sure they would tell me if they know of a region in Europe or elsewhere which has them. It would be tantamount to financial suicide.
What about Scotland?
No trade unionist would thank us if we embarked on this road. Those in our schools and universities would not welcome legislation that deprives them of the prospect of employment. We must present a climate for jobs.
The Deputy is anti-union.
Acting Chairman
I have listened to Deputy Broughan interrupt continuously over a period of 20 minutes. If he does not desist, I propose to ask him to leave the House. I will ask him only once.
We must present the climate for jobs. That is the reality. In the event of jobs coming on line from new investors for the unemployed and the emerging workforce, we could leave it to management and the workers to negotiate pay and working conditions. That has worked admirably in the past.
There is a strong feeling in this land concerning the Ryanair dispute. The Taoiseach and the Government want it settled and Members on all sides want it finalised. The workers and management involved in the dispute also want it finalised, but we must face the facts.
On a point of order——
Acting Chairman
Is this a point of order?
It is. Since the erudite comments of the Government backbencher are being given to an empty House, on his behalf I would like to call a quorum so that they can be shared with his colleagues.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy may not call a quorum when the House is in Private Members' time.
His colleagues do not know what they are missing.
Acting Chairman
I again regret that the Deputy was interrupted unnecessarily and unwisely.
We cannot legislate for a solution, we must arrive at one based on consensus and the best place to do that is at the Labour Court which has a defined role. It has fulfilled its function with great success. Its findings are based on its vast experience. The Labour Court was set up by the Government in 1946 to provide a means whereby difficult industrial disputes could be sorted out. Despite its name the Labour Court is not a court of law and its procedures are informal. The union side or the management side can take a case to the Labour Court and, in most cases, the outcome of a court investigation is a recommendation which is not legally binding. Neither side is compelled to accept the court's ruling but in the majority of cases the parties do accept the decision.
The Labour Court consists of a chairperson, three deputy chairpersons and eight ordinary members, all of whom are appointed by the Minister for Labour. Of the eight ordinary members, four are put forward by the employers' organisations and four by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Normally the court operates with three people, the chairperson or deputy chairperson, an employers' representative and a union representative.
On the subject of trade union membership, page 69 of "Understanding Trade Unions Yesterday and Today" published in 1988 by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions states:
Will I have to join a trade union?
Most workers have the right to join a trade union if they wish and the majority of them do.
The right to join a trade union is protected by law and as a consequence you cannot be harassed or sacked from your employment just because you become a union member. Although it is in your interest to join a union, you are not compelled to do so except where a ‘closed shop' arrangement exists. In such cases union membership is a condition of employment. This means that an agreement has been made with the employer that all workers in a particular place of employment will join a union.
That approach has worked successfully for many years. I do not see the urgent need for change that drives the Labour Party. It did not show the same urgency while in power only seven months ago. I can only assume it is seeking political opportunism. As a new Member of this House, I want to say that will not wash. I fully support the Minister's stand on this Bill.
I compliment Deputy O'Flynn on his speech. I have not heard him speak in the House before and I will address some of the comments he made. I will disagree with him, but I hope to do so in a constructive manner. We have different views, but we have a similar mandate. We have been elected by the people of this republic to this assembly.
The Deputy referred to the Labour Court of which I have some knowledge. He said it is the best forum in which disputes of this kind could be resolved. I agree. The wisdom and judgment of the members of the Labour Court and the jurisprudence it has accumulated since 1946 make it the best place in which a final decision should be made. Am I correct in assuming that is the point the Deputy made? I gather the nod from Deputy O'Flynn that he is arguing that case, that ultimately the decision should be made not by the Supreme Court, adversarial lawyers or head butting between employer and trade union representatives but by the accumulated wisdom of the Labour Court.
It was set up by Seán Lemass in 1946 after a period of regulation and control of wages because of the war. That tripartite body was appointed by the Minister on the nomination of employers' organisations and what was then two but is now one trade union organisation. That body comes to a conclusion as to whether, given the circumstances, it should make an employment order under the 1946 Act. That is not something we are proposing now, it is a statute that has existed since 1946, the year of my birth. With 51 years of accumulated wisdom that body ultimately decides whether an employment order should be made in a particular case through the process Deputy Broughan outlined on behalf of our party. This is not some knee-jerk political reaction but a studied and measured analysis of a problem that has been bubbling for some time. The Labour Court and not the Labour Party, this House or the Supreme Court would determine whether to make an employment order. In those circumstances what would it decide? It would decide that, in respect of pay and conditions, a group of workers have the right to nominate a professional set of negotiators called a trade union to argue on their behalf. That is the issue.
Many people in this House on occasions need to defend their interests but they do not consider they have the necessary expertise. I suspect Deputy O'Flynn can relate to that. When sometimes faced with complex financial or legal difficulties, people require professional advice. They are good at what they do. They are good fitters, turners or aircraft manufacturers, but they may not be good at high finance or pension matters. Many business people who are good at property development, retailing or tourism may not be good on tax advice and other complex matters. What do they do? They get professional advice from lawyers, accountants, tax consultants or human resource management assistance.
What are the baggage handlers in Ryanair looking for today? They are looking for professionals to advise them. They want to know if they are getting the right deal. We live in the world of the market economy. We accept market society. There is not a single businessman who would go into that market economy today without getting the best advice in negotiating or advisory terms on what he has to sell. If one is a baggage handler in Ryanair, what is one's ability? It is the ability to load and unload aeroplanes quickly and efficiently. That is the commodity a baggage handler brings to the market economy. In this instance that category of worker has the right to appoint professional advisers to get the best deal for them.
They do not have fancy titles; they are called a trade union. It is probably not very fashionable today, but it might be more attractive to call them pension and life consultants or the association of the maximisation of market opportunities or any other title that might grace the pages of the advertising columns of The Irish Times business supplement on a Friday or the Sunday Business Post.
Why should business people and professionals have the right to get advice to ensure they are not selling themselves short, that they are looking over the ditch to the fourth field ahead, whereas workers cannot take advice in order to maximise the only thing in their possession to sell, their ability to work, to load and unload planes? They want the right to be professionally recognised in order to do so. That is what is at issue. In response to Deputy O'Flynn, this was at issue in August 1913 when working men walked off trams across this city because they were refused precisely the same right. In those days things went further — if one tried to have that right asserted on one's behalf one summarily lost one's job.
The failure of the Government to give any support to the Labour Party's Trade Union Recognition Bill is disappointing but not surprising. Almost every decision taken by this Government since coming to office has benefited the wealthy in our society rather than workers. This Government will go down in history as an Administration which clocked up a record number of U-turns during its short-term of office. In a week when we have seen Fianna Fáil Ministers — from Deputy O'Rourke to Deputy Kitt, even the Taoiseach himself — criticise Ryanair management, it is pitiful that they cannot bring themselves to support the balanced measure before the House. I emphasise that it is balanced because I am aware of the concerns expressed on the other side of the House and will address them.
As I said earlier, picking up on Deputy O'Flynn's comments, tonight's vote comes at a critical time. We know the future of social partnership is in danger. Even a cursory look at Newsline, SIPTU's in-house publication, reveals the depth of anger in that union at the behaviour of Ryanair management. Contrary to the snide remarks of the Minister, Deputy Kitt, last week, that union fully supports this Bill and issued a statement refuting his suggestions.
While serving in recent Governments as Minister for Finance and Minister for Enterprise and Employment, I never witnessed such a gross undermining of social partnership as I have in recent months. Every couple of weeks, trade unions warn of frustration among members over the Government's inability to act decisively on the commitments made in Partnership 2000. The December budget was a case in point. Even though trade unions, members of voluntary and community sector groups and even some employers called for tax reform targeted at low and middle income earners, the Government ignored all this measured advice and did precisely the opposite by awarding the benefits of tax reform to those on the highest incomes.
I am not surprised that patience is wearing thin among workers but I am disappointed because I am fearful for the future. The Government has shown contempt for Partnership 2000 by skewing tax relief towards the well off instead of directing it towards low and middle income earners. It would do well to heed the warnings made by one of the social partners, otherwise Partnership 2000 will be seriously undermined if not destroyed — I say that reluctantly.
This Bill recognises that workers have helped to create our booming economy. Others have played their part also — risk takers in our society, the administrators in our public service and the international regime of low interest rates from which we have benefited considerably. Everyone together has made sacrifices and compromises in the past and the workers deserve the chance to say how their workplace should be managed. It is a payback of a different kind.
Contrary to what some Ministers have tried to state, this is not a mandatory Bill. "Mandatory" is fast becoming a word the Government cannot handle. It first wanted mandatory reporting of child abuse, then it did not want it, and now wants it again, but it does not want mandatory union recognition. I am pleased to inform the Government that it is off the hook — the Bill does not include a mandatory recognition clause because to do so would be unconstitutional. Whoever wrote Deputy O'Flynn's script missed that point. This Bill does not concern mandatory recognition, rather it provides a mechanism to allow for effective recognition of a union to represent workers' concerns on issues relating to pay and conditions. If that is the only point on which the Government opposes this necessary legislation, the way is free for it to support it and, if it wishes, to amend any of its offensive sections on Committee Stage.
Last week the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, spoke on behalf of the Government in this debate. This is the same Minister of State whose views are so respected by his colleagues that they were prepared to vote down his Bill. Perhaps he is mistaken on this occasion. Could it be that the Government intends to accept this Bill but has failed to inform the unfortunate Minister of State? It appears, having regard to the Minister's comments, that this is not the case.
The Minister of State's speech opposing the Bill was a model of bureaucratic waffle. Each of his points was wholly misconceived. For instance, he claimed the Bill proposes mandatory recognition and compulsion whereas it encourages voluntary trade union recognition. This is different to the position in the United States — a place of much concern to the Minister, Deputy Harney — where, if 51 per cent of workers in a plant so wish, they can demand and have redress under federal law to have unions recognised. We are not proposing such a mechanistic approach to union recognition.
The Minister claimed the proposed role for the Labour Court would be quasi-judicial but it would be anything but that. We would give the court two powers. The first would be to make recommendations. Is that quasi-judicial? I would not have thought so. The second would be to make an employment regulation order. The court already has that power and has made such orders, where it sees fit or deems such an order is necessary, since 1946. This Bill is the child of the late Seán Lemass, one of the vaunted heroes of the present Leader of Fianna Fáil. If he is offside, where does that leave Fianna Fáil today? The present Taoiseach was much in evidence at the launch of a celebrated and much respected biography of Seán Lemass, written by a former Labour Party colleague of mine, Mr. John Horgan.
This is what we are attempting to do. In one instance the Labour Court, at the end of a long, voluntary process of conciliation and discussion, can make a recommendation — hardly quasi-judicial. In the other, it can make an employment regulation order, which power it already possesses. Will that cause a crisis on Wall Street or close the IDA's operations in North America? Let us be realistic. The hysteria from the Government beggars belief, especially since it is likely that more workers vote for Fianna Fáil than for Labour. As Leader of the Labour Party, it is sad for me to put that on the record but it is a fact nonetheless.
Where are the serried ranks of Fianna Fáil Deputies who receive trade union votes in general elections? How out of touch can one get in seven months?
The Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, said the Bill is ill-timed and tried the usual trick of querying what this side of the House did while in Government, to which I will return in due course. He should know that as Minister for Enterprise and Employment, and subsequently as Minister for Finance, I proposed or supported a wide range of labour legislation, including the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, the Organisation of Working Time Act, the Protection of Young Persons Act and other legislation. However, much as I would have liked to, one cannot do everything in a five year Dáil period and the task of reform and change must go on. In regard to the Minister of State's accusation, the Bill comes at exactly the right time. It was drafted long before the Ryanair dispute hit the runway, let alone took off.
The Minister of State said the Bill will encourage litigation and that its provisions are vague and uncertain. He clearly has not read the Bill. The reality is that the provisions to which he refers, and which determine whether a union is representative, are neither more nor less vague than many other Acts which deal with trade union consultation in specific contexts. Many of those Acts were brought in by the Minister of State's colleagues. Does he also accuse them of encouraging litigation?
The Minister of State's selective and misleading account of the ballot provisions also takes no account of the related provisions in the Industrial Relations Act, 1990, which have been in operation for a number of years.
Sadly, I do not need to say much about Deputy Owen's analysis of the Bill because it was even more superficial than that of the Minister of State. She queried section 8(2) and seems to be unaware this type of provision is common in labour law statutes. She should read up on labour law before making facetious comments about the drafting of the Bill, which she repeated on Network 2 last Saturday.
There is a timely obligation on this House to move forward on the issue of trade union recognition. I firmly reject the comments made by the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, on this Bill last week. His selective references pulled from the days of my tenure as Minister for Enterprise and Employment do not hold any significance for this debate. This Bill is a well researched document which was prepared by Deputy Broughan over some time, and in the full knowledge of the ongoing work between congress and other parties to the high level working group.
I wish to put on the record my understanding of the history of events. As we know, history is a very partial activity in which all of the participants to the same act have a slightly different view of the event. My recollection and knowledge of the history is as follows.
As we moved towards the end of the negotiations on the third partnership programme, the Programme for Competitiveness and Work, known as the PCW, one of the key trade union negotiators came to me — I was then the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, which Department is now known as Enterprise, Trade and Employment — with a proposal. It was suggested that congress would put on the table a proposition whereby in return for some resolution of the thorny issue of trade union statutory recognition in certain cases, which were and are exclusively domestic disputes, such as the Nolan dispute, the Pat the Baker dispute and the legacy of Hanlon's ambulances in Longford, congress was prepared to offer, through the mechanism of what became known as the PCW, a no strike industrial peace clause for the duration of the programme.
That proposal had my full support. I was not a key negotiator in that programme because most of the negotiations were conducted out of the Department of Finance. I encouraged the person involved whom I will not name. That person has since moved on to other things. The case was made quite convincingly.
At the end of the day, IBEC, which was the key player in this regard as the CIF did not have the same role, was not prepared to offer because it could not deliver its own members, which is not an unreasonable position in which to find oneself in negotiations. Therefore, congress was unable to push the issue.
That proposal to place trade union recognition on a statutory basis was made towards the end of 1994 when the PCW was being negotiated, although I would have to check the precise date. Therefore, according to my recollection of the history of events, the proposal for the legal recognition of the right of a union to represent workers being underpinned by a statutory provision originates from that time.
The proposal did not emerge in the agreed negotiations on the PCW. However, it did not disappear because when negotiations for Partnership 2000 commenced at the end of the PCW the same proposal surfaced again as it had become a real issue. We are aware of the ongoing constitutional case in that regard.
I wish to place this historical recollection on the record to refute any suggestion that this is an opportunistic Bill, with the Labour Party in Opposition motivated by the difficulties being experienced in Dublin Airport. Nothing could be further from the truth. I had difficulties with some aspects of the PCW negotiations. However, this issue arose during the course of those negotiations. This time IBEC could not kick it off the table — it had to be kicked into touch, so to speak. It was kicked into the arms of the high level working group. Deputy Broughan can correct me in his summing up if I do not recall matters accurately. The high level working group, which is still extant, reached the point where it could agree a process, starting with the origination of the difficulty and ending with the Labour Court, going through the exact flow chart indicated by Deputy Broughan in the documentation he has put on the record for public scrutiny.
I do not know what position is taken by Government representatives on this, nor should I necessarily. However, the sole difference between the congress representatives and IBEC representatives is whether the Labour Court should make a definitive recommendation or an employment regulation order. These are not fundamentally new powers, although I concede they may be the adaptation of existing powers for new purposes. That is all we are proposing.
I left the Department of Enterprise and Employment in 1994. If I had, as Minister, been presented at that time with the current impasse between the congress representatives and IBEC, I would have supported such a measure. I wish to refute, not in any acrimonious sense, the suggestion made by the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, that I am advocating something in Opposition which I would not have advocated when I was in Government. That is not the case.
The voluntary process was still travelling on at that time and I wished it well. I would still prefer IBEC and congress to arrive at a voluntary agreement on the proposals set out in our Bill. A voluntary agreement in any set of circumstances or human relationships is manifestly preferable to something which smacks of imposition or requires the underpinning of statutory law to give it effect. If I had been presented with such a Bill when I was in Government, I am sure it would have received the treatment it deserves. However, unfortunately, the then Opposition did not propose such a Bill.
Without the work on the ground of trade unions, many more disputes would go to the Labour Court, the Labour Relations Commission and rights commissioners than is currently the case. Collective agreements as a mechanism to prevent industrial unrest have been of crucial importance to the economy. We have always upheld the importance of collective agreements as a vital element of our industrial relations machinery. However, their importance is being increasingly eroded through trade union derecognition in some industries and a failure of other industries to recognise trade unions at all. Before we reach a stage where this vital element of industrial machinery is diminished completely, we must face up to the issue of trade union recognition.
I wish to address a number of remaining issues. The first is that the Taoiseach cannot have it both ways. He travelled to the vaulted building of City Hall in Cork and addressed the merchant princes of the city in their full finery at the chamber of commerce dinner. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Keeffe, attended this event on many occasions in the past.
They are his friends.
Some of our friends attend also. Some great employers attend that dinner.
The Deputy would be most welcome.
I got a great welcome; it was a better welcome than Deputy Reynolds received. It is a great occasion on which the second city of the Republic celebrates the success of commerce. Many great employers attend, several of whom created many jobs and weathered numerable storms. They recognise and deal with trade unions, but that does not mean they do not also have problems.
At that gathering I understand the Taoiseach denounced tooth and claw capitalism and he referred directly to the fact that Ryanair represents this untamed beast. Does the Taoiseach wish to talk to one of the people sitting on the back of this beast? I refer to a former Member of the House who was a key strategist in the recent partial electoral success of the Fianna Fáil Party. It was partial because it did not obtain an overall majority or even a working majority with the Progressive Democrats. The Taoiseach attempted to suggest that he is against tooth and claw capitalism, but, at the same time, the former Member of the House, Fianna Fáil Minister and European Commissioner, Mr. Ray MacSharry, who is a director of Ryanair, defended the right of the company to behave as it did. This is a contradiction and I wish to pose a question to the Minister of State, Deputy O'Keeffe, and other Fianna Fáil Members. Is Mr. MacSharry still a key strategist of the Fianna Fáil Party? Does his advice on strategy include advice on industrial relations?
He is now a private citizen.
He is a private citizen and I wish him well. However, he was also paraded and celebrated as a key strategist for the Fianna Fáil Party in the run-up to the last election. Is he providing strategy advice on industrial relations to the Government?
He is a private citizen.
He is also a public figure. He is a much respected former Member of the House and this is an even greater reason for posing the question. The House and others have a right to know if he is advising the Government on industrial relations strategy as he advised the Fianna Fáil Party on electoral and political strategy.
The Deputy is being unfair. I am disappointed in him.
I am posing a question. Mr. Mac Sharry went on record in the public domain recently. He did not have to do so; he volunteered the information. I do not have the precise reference with me but I will find it if necessary.
I would prefer if the Deputy did not continue to refer to a person who is outside the House and who is not in a position to speak for himself.
I am referring to a commentator in the public domain, but I accept the Chair's admonition.
An overly cautious and conservative view has been expressed that foreign direct investment, which is critical to the success of the economy, will run away in droves if this type of legislation is enacted. This is the other leg to the argument advanced by the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Harney. She made a number of points which I wish to address. I disagree fundamentally with the Tánaiste in political terms, but I believe she is sincere about this matter. She mentioned the difficulty of persuading investors to locate in Ireland if this type of legislation was on the Statute Book.
I am familiar with these concerns and I could understand the fears if it were a case of mandatory recognition in all plants. However, that is not proposed in the Bill. When I had the honour of holding the office now occupied by the Tánaiste and I was asked about this matter by inward investors, I told them they did not have to have a trade union. That is the case now and it would be position in the future if the Bill is enacted. I told the investors it was a matter of choice but I advised them that they would have a better system of human resource management if they had a union. However, the people who decide whether there will be a union are the workers.
The workers in Seagate chose not to be represented by a union and that was their right. Digital, because of the value system of the founder of that successful company, was prepared to pay above union rates in whatever area he operated so that he would not have to deal with unions. In addition, when it was a major manufacturing company in Galway city, Digital had an extensive and generous social programme. It could afford it, but it was excessively generous despite the profits it generated. However, when the crisis arose in Digital and there was a serious message to be relayed about the restructuring of the company and the closure of the entire manufacturing unit, there was no mechanism through which management could talk to the workers. I can relate to this problem because I was caught in the eye of the storm at that time. The type of system which Digital operated was incapable of dealing with the crisis which arose. Digital was leaving Galway, but the absence of a union made the job to be confronted by the task force even more difficult in terms of dealing with people.
The sequel to that story is happy, but foreign direct investment companies cannot overlook the performance of the economy, the emerging labour market shortage in terms of skills, the history of industrial relations and the extraordinary stability which enables companies in Ireland to forward plan wage rates and labour costs more than any other country in the OECD group. I invite the Minister's advisers to consider the point that there is no other country in the European Union that can project labour costs and rates with the same degree of certainty as Ireland. No other country can provide the same level of industrial relations peace and security. They are not only promises.
Ireland has a track record which is convincing in terms of telling an investor who is considering locating in Europe, which is effectively a choice between investing in Ireland or Wales, Scotland or the Netherlands, to look at the comparative records in terms of industrial relations stability, labour market costs and flexibility and trade union co-operation where they exist in companies. They should contrast that with the position in American companies in the main which must already deal with federal regulations on mandatory union recognition. It is proposed that a Labour Court with 51 years of jurisprudence, of making sensible, sane and balanced decisions, shall decide whether a significant number of workers in a section of a company have the right to be professionally represented by skilled negotiators in terms of advising them on the best price they can get for the only commodity they have to sell, their ability to work. Because of the responsibility the trade union movement has demonstrated over the past ten to 15 years, the kind of scare implicit in that assertion would simply disappear like snow off a ditch.
Debate adjourned.