I wish to share my time with Deputies Fleming, Ardagh and Haughey.
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.
This Bill is opportunistic legislation introduced by a cynical and exploitative party. It has nothing to do with workers' rights, fair play and social partnership. This is an attempt by the Labour Party and its spokesperson, Deputy Broughan, to exploit the difficulties of the Ryanair workers for their political gain. This Bill will not resolve the Ryanair dispute or any similar dispute in the future. This Bill is not about alleviating the problems of some unfortunate workers on strike pay, it is about giving false hope to those workers in the hope that the unsuspecting public will believe the Labour Party cares.
If the House were foolish enough to pass the Bill it would set back industrial relations by decades. In 1987 Fianna Fáil led the way in building social partnership which has been the cornerstone in the process of fostering economic growth and increased employment. It is interesting to note that the only real threat to that partnership approach came in the time that Fine Gael and the Labour Party were in Government, the same parties which most derided the approach when Fianna Fáil first introduced it.
The Bill proposes to cast aside the model of voluntary social partnership in favour of an adversarial and coercive approach. The measures proposed can only increase confrontation and industrial unrest. The result will not be better working conditions, but fewer jobs as investors look with horror at unworkable legislation disrupting productivity and trade.
Deputy Broughan claimed to have consulted widely on all sides in industry. Having examined the Bill, the only evidence I can find is that he copied widely. The Bill is a hotchpotch of measures which have already proved unworkable in other jurisdictions. Employers faced with the terms of this legislation will have little option but to take their cases to the courts here and in Europe. The outcome of these cases will do little to enhance workers rights or conditions.
The loose and careless language of the Bill has great potential for enhancing the income of the legal profession. Imagine the fun our bewigged friends in the Law Library would have debating what is meant by "a substantial number of employees" in the context of this Bill. After days of debating thus in the High Court they would deserve to unwind in the Shelbourne Bar. They might decide to name a corner of it after Deputy Broughan in gratitude. Fortunately, that will not happen because I do not doubt that the House will reject the Bill which is little more than an ill conceived publicity stunt.
I believe in trade unionism, a belief I am sure I share with the majority of Deputies. Without the strength of collective bargaining workers would never have achieved the significant rights and protections they enjoy. Trade unionists have led the way in rights for women, the disabled and the disadvantaged. Although I believe in trade unionism, I believe less in the trade unions and, in particular, their high profile leaders.
On a point of order, is this a Private Members' Bill?
Is it in order that no Opposition Members are present? I would have thought there should be Opposition Members present to debate the Bill.
Perhaps the Bill has already fallen.
It is an indication of indifference.
It is in order to continue the debate.
If the passion supposedly driving this Bill were in evidence Opposition Members would be present.
As I said, I believe less and less in the high profile leaders of the trade unions. Last year an ordinary member of a union dared to challenge for high office and it sent shock waves through the union establishment. Challenging the status quo is not the badge of honour it was in the past in the labour movement. Dissatisfaction among ordinary members at the cosy cartels in the upper echelons of the unions resulted in the close vote on the Partnership 2000 agreement. I welcome that union members are challenging those arrangements.
If, traditionally, the membership was the union, the branch secretary was the authentic voice of that membership. The best branch secretaries are the opposite of good children — they are heard and not seen. However, nowadays we are seeing the phenomenon of the television star branch secretary and I doubt if this is to the advantage of the union members. A Member of the House who had us on the edge of our seats awaiting revelations that would have shaken the State to its foundations may have been the first television age branch secretary. With these branch secretaries television visibility and politics are more important apparently than workers and their jobs. How much have high visibility struggles benefited the workers of Veha or will they benefit the workers of Ryanair?
Ask the workers who are in the Visitors' Gallery.
The Veha workers are not here to be asked.
The Deputy can ask the workers afterwards.
They cannot have been impressed that the Deputy was not in the Chamber for the opening of the debate.
We were rocked to our foundations again this week with a challenge from Deputy Rabbitte to Ryanair to deny that it was to contract out its baggage handling. Within an hour the chief executive of Ryanair had taken up the challenge and unequivocally denied the allegation. This got Deputy Rabbitte on the news but I do not understand what it achieved for the Ryanair workers. The vast majority of branch secretaries work hard for their members and in my experience they work above and beyond the hours for which they are paid. I expect these men and women share many of the concerns I have expressed.
A cornerstone of Partnership 2000 was the promotion of partnership in the public and private sectors. In researching this Bill Deputy Broughan obviously read that document. Partnership 2000 established a national centre for partnership to facilitate trust and partnership——
It also established a high level group.
——between employers, employees and unions. That could be thrown aside if we adopt Deputy Broughan's approach. I understand a report is being prepared for the Tánaiste on the issue of trade union recognition and I hope this report will put forward realistic recommendations for resolving such disputes through negotiation and mediation.
In the meantime, Ryanair baggage handlers at Dublin airport are on strike because Ryanair will not allow SIPTU to represent them. The workers' case is clear and easily understood. Ryanair uses professional negotiators in their dealing with the workers. Why are the workers not entitled to use professional negotiators? Ryanair has responded by setting out a detailed case expressing its concerns at the effect union recognition would have on its business. If I were to make a judgment I would side with the workers. However, that is not the point at issue in this Bill and it is not for me to decide the matter. The workers and the company must resolve their differences. Significant industrial relations machinery is in place to assist the parties in this regard and it is in this respect that I have concerns about the attitude of Ryanair management.
Vote for the Bill.
I would vote for a Bill that would do something but the Deputy knows this is nonsense. Ryanair was wrong to refuse a Labour Court offer to mediate in the dispute and such an attitude can only prolong the dispute and ultimately lead to residual bitterness when the matter is finally settled. One of the saddest aspects of industrial disputes is that they are ultimately settled and often on terms that should have been attained at the start of the dispute. Prolonging disputes by unnecessary and unrealistic stubbornness is unfair to workers and their families and flies in the face of proper industrial relations.
"Winners and losers" is not the language of successful business and is not the right approach but neither is coercion. I do not commend the Bill to the House as it is a recipe for industrial chaos. I reiterate my distaste for the exploitive and opportunistic nature of this proposal. Far from championing the cause of workers, the Labour Party is using them as usual.
Get off the fence.
I am not on the fence but the Deputy is stuck on it now.
The Fianna Fáil Party is always on the fence.
The Bill should not even be put to a vote and if the Deputy had sense, or at least good nature, he would withdraw it and admit it is a recipe for disaster. He is simply using workers.
I do not agree with the general provisions of the Bill. Nevertheless, there must be trade union recognition by Ryanair. The workers, including the baggage handlers, have a fundamental right to be professionally represented by the trade union of their choice. The dispute is unseemly with national implications, especially for the principle of social partnership. In 1987, Fianna Fáil pioneered successive partnership programmes and it seems all parties now subscribe to this philosophy. All subscribe, though some of them were late converts, to the concept of consensus and social partnership. Indeed, Deputy Bruton, when in Opposition previously, gave the impression he did not agree with the concept but, thankfully, he enthusiastically embraced the philosophy upon becoming Taoiseach.
Since 1986 the Government and the social partners have brought forward several programmes for the development of the economy and this has led to unprecedented rates of economic growth. The Irish model of social partnership and consensus has been extremely successful and the trade union movement has played a crucial role in the process. The movement is healthy, which is in contrast to the position in other European countries. Trade unions are a crucial part of economic and social life and have made an enormous contribution to Ireland's development over the years.
Nevertheless the Bill would damage the process of collective bargaining and the voluntarism which is the basis of industrial relations in Ireland. In its present form the Bill could have serious consequences for the industrial relations process and for the concept of social partnership as a whole. The system in general "ain't broke" and, therefore, there is no need to fix it. However, there is a serious problem in Ryanair. The company has been a success story since its establishment 12 years ago and its workers have played an important part in bringing about this success. It has made air travel more accessible and cheaper. Today Ryanair is a profitable company and workers must benefit from these increased profits.
The company has been assisted by the Government and taxpayers in many different ways. Information was provided to the House yesterday on the extent of that assistance. Until the end of 1994 it received tourism marketing grants totalling over £1 million under operational programmes for tourism. FÁS provided over £45,000 between 1991 and 1993 and a further £120,000 in 1993 and 1994 under the jobs training scheme. It was announced in late 1996 that Ryanair, in the form of its subsidiary Ryanair Direct, would receive assistance of £2 million between 1997 and 1999 from Forbairt. In addition, the value of discounts availed of by the company at Cork, Dublin and Shannon Airports between 1989 and 1994 was also provided to the House yesterday — £0.5 million in 1989; £0.86 million in 1990; £1.2 million in 1991; £1.99 million in 1992; £1.92 million in 1993 and £2.08 million in 1994.
Ryanair must adopt a spirit of co-operation and social partnership now that is has come of age and behave similarly to any other successful company. I fully agree with the Taoiseach's remarks at the Cork Chamber of Commerce annual dinner on February 13. He stated:
I do not believe that a tooth and claw style capitalism is the direction in which most people want the Celtic Tiger to go. We need a real impetus on both sides to engage in real dialogue with third party help offered by the State if that is required.
I deeply regret Ryanair declined the invitation of the Labour Court. It is a respected forum where issues could have been clarified and the facts of the dispute determined. I urge the company to accept third party help and adopt the partnership route even at this late stage and ask it to accept the offer from the Labour Court. This is a serious issue of principle and all Members must have a view on it because of its wide ranging potential ramifications for partnership and our industrial relations mechanism generally.
Deputy Rabbitte is a staunch trade unionist and I wish to take RTE to task for giving him such coverage in this evening's news bulletin where he made scurrilous allegations about the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment misleading the House. He was a Minister in the Department during his tenure in Government and had a seat at Cabinet. It has been in the public domain for many years that offshore non-resident companies have been and are used for tax evasion and money laundering. It is not only since Deputy Mary Harney became Minister that this information has come into the hands of the Department. Sunday newspapers in Ireland and England have printed exposés on the misuse of UK and Irish non resident companies by company registration agents on the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands for many years. The UK disallowed the registration of non-resident companies weeks ago.
On a point of order, how does this relate to the Trade Union Recognition Bill? I do not know who wrote this script for Deputy Ardagh and sent him in here to deliver it, but it does not have anything to do with trade unions.
This is about trade unions.
Deputy Ardagh, without interruption please.
Why was action not taken on this matter for two years when Deputy Rabbitte was in Government? I also question why RTE put yesterday's news at the top of their Six-One news slot this evening.
Getting back to the question of trade unions rather than trade unionists, modern Ireland owes its current position as an industrial nation to the development of the early trade union movement which dragged masses of downtrodden workers into the 20th century. Trade unions gave a voice to workers who had not previously been heard. In this country's consciousness, trade unions are "good guys." Under this Bill the Labour Party is trying to recast the role of trade unions. With one ill-conceived Bill, it is endeavouring to demonise trade unions. It wishes to turn them into another arm of the law, a vindictive, coercive, corrosive, "big brother is watching you" arm. Ireland fought long and hard for democracy, both politically and industrially, and this Government will not turn the clock backwards at the electoral whim of the Labour Party.
I am not being cynical when I say this Trade Union Recognition Bill——
Not half.
——has only one catalyst, the by-election in Dublin North. The Labour Party wants to curry favour with the employees of Ryanair. It wants to be seen as a party that can face down a major employer in north Dublin, bring Ryanair to its knees, win an election and to hell with all the structures of the State that have been established in the last half century to settle industrial disputes in a reasoned manner.
Whether a worker wishes to join a trade union should be a matter of free choice. Trade unions operate in an entirely voluntary way and nobody should be coerced to join one.
They will not be under this Bill.
It is a choice one should be free to make. The Bill will institute mandatory membership of a trade union for all workers.
It will not, the Deputy has not read it.
Deputy Broughan should allow Deputy Ardagh to continue.
Such a move would have a detrimental effect on relationships between employers, on productivity and on the image of Irish industries abroad. Apart from the availability of an educated workforce, one of our main attractions for multinationals is the choice about trade union recognition. Foreign multinationals have traditionally paid over the odds, their employees are happy and they see no reason for trade unions. If trade union recognition were mandatory for multinationals, it would be another issue for them to consider before deciding to locate here. They traditionally like greenfield sites and this includes a workforce untrammelled by work practices, associated with overaggressive trade unions, work to rules, go slows, walkouts and so on. Like modern progressive native industries, multinationals prefer flexible dedicated workers who communicate their concerns to management and who work through their problems in an open and reasoned manner.
Trade unions are voluntary organisations. It is not up to the State to guarantee membership of trade unions by forcing workers, through legislation, to join up. Trade unions are necessary when desired by workers to provide them with a voice to communicate their needs and problems to management. It would be much more beneficial, however, to concentrate on training and skills, on management communication, motivation and performance recognition. There are circumstances where without the voice of a shop steward employment conditions would not have improved, but the power of the shop steward can sometimes be misdirected, even in a voluntary organisation.
We cannot erode the freedom of workers to choose whether to join trade unions. Democracy is about choice and freedom.
There is not much choice in the Ryanair dispute.
This works both ways. It also applies to management's choice about how its organisation is managed and its staff is motivated. This includes freedom to choose to join a trade union movement or freedom to negotiate working conditions in whatever way suits the needs of the employer and the employees for the common good.
I did not refer to the question of Ryanair because it has been adequately dealt with by other speakers from this side of the House.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill tonight. The trade union movement has had an outstanding record in recent years. It is unique compared with any other countries in Europe. Through the Programme for National Recovery, the Programme for Competitiveness and Work and Partnership 2000 it has been involved in social partnership at the highest level. This has been achieved through a voluntary code on the basis that any agreement freely entered into between willing participants is a far better agreement than one forced on people through legal mechanisms. That has contributed to the success of the trade union movement in recent years.
ICTU's access to the Government and its direct say in framing important agreements for the country is unique. It has a major input in budgets in respect of taxation rates and pay increases. Most trade unions in other European countries would give an arm and a leg to have that level of influence.
We have had a fantastic record of industrial peace in the past decade or two. Some ten or 20 years ago we were losing more than one million man-days per year through strikes. The number of days currently lost through strikes has decreased dramatically because of the social partnership between Government, employers and trade unions and I would be very concerned about any approach to jeopardise that.
In recent days I have tried to establish the number of trade union members. From labour force surveys approximately 55 per cent of workers appear to be member of unions. In reply to a letter I sent to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions I was informed that approximately 90 per cent of public sector workers and 35 per cent to 40 per cent of private sector workers are unionised. There is a major disparity between those figures. Detailed research should be carried out to establish the facts about trade union membership.
Peter Cassells stated on television last weekend that 91 of our top 100 companies recognise trade unions. It is clear that there is a high level of trade union representation in major companies in the private sector, but the overwhelming majority of workers in small to medium size companies are not members of trade unions. It is wrong to force something on the majority of workers in the private sector if it does not apply through a voluntary code. I call for a full report to establish the facts so that debates like this can take place on an informed basis rather than on assumptions about figures.
It is no coincidence that the recent industrial relations difficulties have been about companies flexing their muscles when a private sector company competes with a public sector one. Employees in the public sector are generally sure of their positions because a down-turn in business does not lead to redundancies, but people in the private sector need additional flexibility when they face State monopolies. It is important that there is flexibility in the private sector.
Peter Cassells also stated that the main problem is with bad employers. We need to tackle the question of low pay rates for unskilled workers and employers who deduct tax and PRSI but do not return it to the Revenue Commissioners. Those are the type of issues we should address if we are seriously concerned about the rights of workers and employees. It is not merely a question of trade union recognition. We should also recognise the needs of workers who have chosen not to join a trade union.
While the Bill may have been well intentioned, it could have the opposite effect. One has a constitutional right to join a trade union and the converse has been established in the courts. One has also a right not to join a trade union. Employers have a right to negotiate with unions if they so wish and employers have the same legal right not to do so if they so wish. This legislation, if enacted, could disenfranchise some trade union members who have negotiating rights in a company even though they represent a minority of the employees in that company and the overwhelming majority of employees who are not members of trade unions may seek not to be represented by a trade union. The Bill could be counterproductive from a trade union point of view.
The system is not broken and we should not try to fix it. The enactment of this Bill could do more harm than good.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Ó Caoláin, Gilmore and Stanton.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
A law introduced to resolve one specific problem is not good law. This Bill has been drafted mainly because of the dispute in Ryanair. I acknowledge the difficulty in Ryanair and hope it can be resolved. The enactment of this Bill, because of the use of the words "shall be" in numerous sections, would make it mandatory for employers to deal with trade unions and for employees to be members of a trade union. I have no difficulty with employees being represented by trade unions where they so wish. It is a fundamental right of any person who wishes to join a trade union that they be allowed do so. If a majority of workers in a company wish to join a trade union, the employer should negotiate with that trade union. If the Bill were enacted this would be mandatory and it would be a mistake to introduce it in that case.
Without employers there would be no employees. It is important to give employers as much latitude as possible. Much of the legislation introduced in the past 15 years favours the employee. What this country needs is more jobs. I come from a small town where 170 jobs were lost last week and the chances of those jobs being replaced are slim. We need an entrepreneur to come in and provide extra jobs. There is a similar requirement in many parts of the country.
The Government should provide more incentives to people willing to take risks and provide employment. It is important that there are good relationships between the employer and employee. I speak from experience as an employer. I am lucky that I had many excellent employees but there are problems which can be difficult to resolve. It would be a mistake to accept that the way to proceed is by way of mandatory trade union membership. It would make a mockery of the social partnerships built up.
I recognise Deputy Broughan is attempting to have a problem resolved but by resolving one a large number could be created.
I support the Bill and emphasise the need to safeguard the basic right to trade union membership and the right to have that membership recognised by employers. It says much about the current state of affairs in industry that it is felt necessary to bring forward legislation.
The growing anti-trade union trend was seen in a recent survey of large companies investing in the State and employing 500 or more people. Only two of those 18 surveyed had recognised trade unions. Lest it be thought that this anti-trade union culture is a foreign import, we need only remind ourselves of the disputes of recent years at Pat the Baker, Nolans Transport and the ongoing Ryanair dispute where employees are again fighting a battle which their great grandparents had to fight in this city in 1913.
One of the main reasons for this anti-trade union trend among employers is the Industrial Relations Act, 1990, introduced by the Taoiseach when Minister for Labour. While this Act may not have been the all out assault on trade unionism which was made by Margaret Thatcher in Britain, it tipped the balance significantly against organised workers and in favour of intransigent employers.
Some opponents of this quite modest Bill have cautioned against the use of legislation to coerce employers but the legal coercion is already there. The Industrial Relations Act interferes with the rights of trade unions to conduct their own affairs. With compulsory secret balloting for industrial action it sets a standard higher than that for votes in this House. The effect is to allow employers to drag trade unions through the courts and severely limit the right to take industrial action. Employers may deploy all the resources at their disposal, including those of parent companies and other employers, to come to their aid in industrial disputes but trade unionists are legally barred from availing of the help of other workers. Industrial action is and always has been a last resort in disputes but the anti-union trend means a new breed of employers, such as those at Ryanair, are by their refusal to recognise unions depriving employees of the first resort, the industrial relations machinery of the State. To allow this to continue would be a recipe for spiralling industrial strife.
A much neglected aspect of the issue of trade union recognition is the whole area of health and safety. In the building industry casualisation is the norm and trade unions are rare. Consequently there have been more accidents, more injuries and more deaths. Unorganised and unprotected by the vigilance which good trade union organisation brings, workers in this industry are increasingly exposed to injury and death. There has been an average of a death per month in the construction industry in the past 36 months. This is the dark side of the construction boom of which we hear so much. The culture of mé féinism, which has been built up in this economy and is actively fostered by many employers, seeks to undermine the strong tradition of democratic organisation among workers. If the economy is to prosper, that tradition needs to be strengthened.
The Bill is welcome if only to set in motion a debate which is vitally needed. I am pleased to give it my full support.
I thank Deputy Reynolds for sharing his time with me. I support the Bill and congratulate Deputy Broughan on bringing it forward. It is before us immediately because of the refusal of Ryanair to recognise the industrial relations institutions of the State or the industrial relations practices of our society.
However, Ryanair has not been slow to recognise the State when it comes to getting subsidies or assistance. The Minister for Public Enterprise, Deputy O'Rourke, told the House yesterday of some of the State assistance which has been given to Ryanair. I draw the attention of the House to a more remarkable subsidy which Ryanair has been getting from the State since 1992. Official Ryanair documents, copies of which I have examined, show that the company's headquarters is located on a key State-owned site at Dublin Airport which the company has occupied rent free since 1992, that the State has agreed to waive rent on the site until 2004 and that the company will enjoy a further 50 per cent rent reduction for the site for the following six years to 2010. The prospectus published by the company at flotation in relation to its headquarters states:
The building is included in fixed assets in the consolidated balance sheet at a net book value of £1,330,000. The annual rental payable by the Group to the Minister is £192,000, but payment of the rent is suspended for the first 12 years of the agreement and Darley will receive a 50% rebate on the rent for six years thereafter.
This subsidy amounts to an astonishing £3 million from the taxpayer. It is unacceptable that a successful and extremely profitable company should be enjoying such a huge rent subsidy at the expense of the taxpayer. Given the company's decision to thumb its nose at the industrial relations practices of the State, most people will react with anger and outrage at the news of this arrangement. Given the attitude of Ryanair and its refusal to recognise the right of its baggage handlers to be represented by the union of their choice, the Minister for Public Enterprise must take immediate steps to terminate this extraordinary arrangement. The European Commission should examine the arrangement which is, in effect, a direct State subsidy to the airline.
Details of the rent arrangement were given in the prospectus circulated to potential investors at the time of flotation of the company. The prospectus further reveals that for the first four years of the arrangement the beneficiary of the rent free arrangement was a trust established for the benefit of the children and grandchildren of Mr. Tony Ryan.
Speaking in the House earlier this month I made the point that attempts by Ryanair to present itself as a heroic little company which had worked its way up the beanstalk by its own energy and with no State aid did not accord with the facts and that Ryanair had been given repeated doses of favouritism in the allocation of routes. I was not aware, however, of the extent of the generosity the State has been showing to the company.
This is a most successful company which reported profits of almost £100 million for the six months to the end of September. The chief executive, Mr. Michael O'Leary, helped himself to a £17 million bonus over three years and the directors together took almost £24 million between 1995 and flotation. Why should Mr. O'Leary and members of the Ryan family be in receipt of such a generous subsidy of £3 million from the taxpayer?
The Progressive Democrats which form part of the Government have never made any secret of their admiration for Ryanair. Was it mere coincidence that this extraordinarily generous deal was negotiated when that party was previously in Government? The Minister for Public Enterprise should make an immediate statement on the details of this arrangement, the background to it and the steps she intends to take to bring it to an end.
The voluntary nature of industrial relations is being offered as the reason the Bill is being opposed. A voluntary industrial relations code does not mean that workers or management are free to do what they like. Workers have had to learn this by having their rights circumscribed in the industrial relations Acts. An employer's right to hire and fire has been circumscribed in labour law. There are many precedents, including the 1969 craftworkers strike and the 1990 legislation introduced in response to the changing industrial relations climate. Where a prominent employer refuses to recognise the industrial relations institutions of the State, there is an obligation on the Government and the House to legislate to ensure employers volunteer to attend the Labour Court and the Labour Relations Commission, something which Ryanair management has pointedly refused to do.
I compliment Deputy Broughan on introducing the Bill into which he has put much thought. He has been working on the proposed measures for some time. It cannot be said, therefore, that he sees the ongoing Ryanair dispute as an opportunity to advance some philosophically based policy measure or gain electoral advantage as Members on the opposite side of the House have suggested. The Bill is a sincere attempt to add to the labour legislation in force.
The introduction of the Bill at this time serves to highlight the incredible situation at Ryanair where management has refused to talk to the chosen representatives of the majority of its baggage handlers. Ryanair management is reputed to include some of the toughest negotiators in the country. There have been reports that, following flotation, many Ryanair shareholders added millions of pounds to their wealth. Ryanair management has to be tough, it is running a successful company in an industry where the margins are extremely tight and competition intense. Much of the company's success, however, is due to its workers.
A successful company has to recognise the contribution of its workers. There are times when an employer can be too tough. Ryanair management needs to adopt a different approach when dealing with its workers. It may be the case that it does not have the skills required to negotiate with professional negotiators in a manner in keeping with 21st century practices. Some commentators have suggested that not alone is it unable to deal with its workers in a manner in keeping with 21st century practices it has not yet moved into the 20th century and is still languishing in 19th century thinking and methodologies with regard to industrial relations. It should update its thinking and skills so that it can enter the modern age like almost all other successful companies.
Most successful companies pride themselves on their good industrial relations. Human resource management is cited as being vitally important. If most companies placed human resource management at the forefront, there would be no need for this Bill. It is incredible that a supposedly modern successful company lags so far behind when it comes to industrial relations that it has led to a strike which threatens the concept of social partnership on which much of our economic success is based or is it the case that Ryanair management is afraid to face professional negotiators?
The issues workers want to discuss lend themselves to negotiation. We owe much to the professional negotiators employed by the trade unions. Their involvement in recent years has meant that emotion has been removed from the equation. Issues have been dealt with in a practical and professional way. Everyone has benefited — owners, management, workers, shareholders, consumers and the economy as a whole. I am certain the issues at the core of this dispute could be dealt with to the satisfaction of all concerned, if modern day approaches were adopted by the company. I understand the core issues include a pay claim, the introduction of a staff grading structure and effective health and safety procedures, and acceptance by Ryanair of the right of workers to be represented by professional negotiators.
Since the onset of the dispute, Fine Gael has not been found wanting so far as the workers of Ryanair are concerned. We have supported them from the start and will continue to do so. We believe, however, that this Bill is not the way to go at this time.
When introducing the Bill on 17 February Deputy Broughan said there is a long tradition of voluntarism in Irish industrial relations and a reluctance to resort to legislative sanctions. He praised the Labour Court, the Labour Relations Commission and the Employer Labour Conference and acknowledged that "the vast majority of Labour Court recommendations are accepted by employers and trade unions". He went further and cited the extension of social partnership since 1987 as being one of the chief reasons for the "incredible economic prosperity Ireland has enjoyed in this decade". By his words Deputy Broughan acknowledged the system as it exists at present works. It works so well we are the envy of Europe.
On 3 February last the Labour Court advised Ryanair to recognise the trade union and to negotiate the proposed agreement to regulate relations between the two sides. IBEC has also advised Ryanair to attend the Labour Court and the Labour Court regrets the non-attendance of Ryanair. Ryanair has two options. One is to choose to give its workers generous terms and conditions, as many multinationals do in a nonunion environment, or it can grant union recognition and negotiate with its workers in the traditional way. However, it cannot have the best of both worlds. It was reported that ICTU is not calling for blanket mandatory union recognition, but is looking for the basic right of workers to have their union recognised if the majority of the staff want to join. Trade unions now want professional representation not blanket recognition.
However, as Deputy Owen pointed out, this legislation is untimely. A high level working group is considering what should be done with a management that decides it will not listen to the views of its workers. We should await the findings of that group. Legislation already exists under sections 38 (1) and (2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. It states that where the Minister is of the opinion that a trade dispute, actual or apprehended, affects the public interest he may refer the matter to the commission or the court which shall endeavour to resolve the dispute and where the Minister is of the opinion that a trade dispute is of special importance he may request the commission or the court or another person or body to conduct an inquiry into the dispute and to furnish a report to him on the findings. I put it to the House that is the next step and it should be taken now if it has not already been taken. I note the Minister of State is nodding and I take it that may now be happening.
We are looking at it.
Partnership 2000 called for the setting up of a high level group made up of the social partners to examine this issue further. That group has submitted an interim report and is due to meet again in the coming weeks to consider the position. Its interim report recommended the continuance of voluntarism with regard to trade union recognition. Fine Gael has always supported that concept and continues to believe it is the best way to maintain the valuable social partnership which has led to industrial peace for over ten years.
Fine Gael recognises a further mechanism ought to be put in place to tackle the problem of employers who will not deal with their staff when they wish to be represented by a trade union. We welcome the fact that this issue continues to be on the agenda of that high level group and we await the outcome of its deliberations. The attitude of Ryanair management highlights the need for such a mechanism and Fine Gael calls again on the chief executive of Ryanair to attend the Labour Court to discuss the current dispute. The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment has powers under the Act which she should utilise to help resolve the dispute.
We recognise that voluntarism must ultimately remain the guiding principle of industrial relations if tens of thousands of existing and potential jobs are not to be put at risk. Many thousands of jobs created by inward investment are non-unionised and good industrial relations are enjoyed between employers and employees. The IDA has been able to sell Ireland as a good location for international jobs specifically because our industrial relations code is based on voluntarism. The introduction of compulsion through this Bill would put the IDA's efforts to attract overseas investment at risk.
At present Limerick has 50,000 jobs of which approximately 30,000 are non-unionised, but the type of legal compulsion proposed under the Bill would jeopardise those jobs. In Dublin North multinational companies created approximately 6,500 jobs which are non-unionised. One major international company alone has 1,700 jobs and that company and others would not have been attracted to Ireland if we had mandatory trade union recognition. Those jobs would also be jeopardised by statutory compulsion of the type envisaged under this Bill. The Labour Party legislation is not the way to proceed in the interests of the continuation of social partnership and inward industrial development.
A similar debate is taking place in Britain.
There is a Labour Government in office there.
Problems have arisen and even though that Government's manifesto referred to trade union recognition it is having second thoughts on that issue. It considers voluntarism, not trade union recognition, is the way to proceed. That debate also highlighted other problems which were also highlighted here prior to this.
A good deal of work went into preparing the Bill. It was a sincere effort to address an issue, but there are a few anomalies in it. Reference was made to "a substantial category". We do not know what number constitutes a substantial category. That was discussed and is also part of the problem encountered in the debate in Britain. My colleague Deputy Reynolds mentioned the issue of mandatory recognition. The Bill states the employer recognises a particular trade union specified in the order. Mandatory recognition is not the way to proceed. We must build on partnership in order to succeed.
I again call on Ryanair to attend the Labour Court. Its management is on its own. All those who have spoken here have raised the issue of Ryanair and asked it to attend the Labour Court. If it does not attend it will put a great deal at risk. Ryanair owes this country and State a good deal and it has been supported by this State through thick and thin. It is now pay back time. It should attend the Labour Court, negotiate and come into the 21st century.
: The Government has opposed this Bill for reasons advanced in some detail by different speakers and not just those on the Government side. Deputy Broughan's Bill, timed to deal with one high profile union recognition dispute, namely Ryanair, does not help the situation. The debate his Bill stimulated in the House over the past two weeks served the useful purpose of allowing us to have a public airing of all the aspects of the controversial and complex subject of union recognition and there have been many thoughtful contributions over the past four days of debate.
Deputy Owen reflected on the change in the fortunes of the trade union movement in Ireland over the past century. She summed up the history of the trade union movement well in her quotation from Professor Patrick Lynch's Thomas Davis lecture, in which he described the trade union movement in Ireland and the United Kingdom going through three stages, from oppression to tolerance to privilege. Deputy Owen also observed wisely that words such as "coercion" and "mandatory" used in the context of industrial relations are not consistent with good industrial relations and would damage our image abroad. I could not agree more.
I think Deputy Broughan recognises his Bill represents a radical departure from the tradition of voluntarism in Irish industrial relations and the reluctance to resort to legislative sanctions. He acknowledged the nation has been served well over the past 50 years by institutions such as the Labour Court and the Labour Relations Commission. He went on to note that the vast majority of Labour Court recommendations are accepted by both employers and trade unions. That seems to be a strong argument in favour of retaining our voluntarist approach. This Bill would radically damage that approach not just in relation to recognition disputes, but would almost certainly have repercussions for the whole of our voluntarist industrial relations system. The system is a delicately balanced one and one cannot fundamentally alter one part of it without affecting the whole system. Nowhere is the adage, "if it aint broke, don't fix it" more apt than in this case.
My party colleague, Deputy Noel Ahern, referred to his own experience as a trade unionist. He quite rightly pointed out that the trade union movement was strongly opposed to any move that would make the findings of the Labour Court binding. As he said, "trade unions have always jealously guarded their right to refer a matter to the Labour Court for its consideration and then to accept or reject its findings, depending on the mood of its members at that time". This sums up well one of the difficulties this Bill potentially poses for the trade union movement. If Labour Court recommendations were to be made binding in one area, there would almost inevitably be demands for employers that they should also be binding in other areas, something which would not be to the liking of unions. In effect, the voluntarist approach would be seriously undermined by this Bill.
Listening to the eloquent speech of the leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Quinn, one would think this is a very innocuous measure his party is introducing. Perception is often as important as reality in industrial relations. While, as the Deputy said, the Bill does not include a mandatory recognition clause, it nevertheless indirectly puts legal pressure on an employer to recognise a union. It would greatly alter the present position on union recognition.
This debate has been much overshadowed by the present dispute in Ryanair. I must be clear about this — the Government does not condone the attitude of the management in this dispute. As the Minister, Deputy Harney, pointed out last night, the essence of our voluntarist approach to industrial relations is that when industrial disputes cannot be resolved by local discussions and negotiations, they are referred to a third party, namely the Labour Relations Commission or the Labour Court. The attitude of Ryanair management in this dispute has been roundly and rightly condemned. So far they have declined to take part in any discussions in the Labour Court which would serve, at the very least, to clarify the issues involved. As the Minister said, if third party intervention would be helpful in this dispute, we would be prepared to look at the possibility of an independent inquiry under section 38(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. Before going down that road, however, we must be confident it will be helpful.
Various speakers in this debate have remarked on the complex and difficult nature of the union recognition question. It is a subject which has given rise to controversy not just in Ireland. However, as the International Labour Office commented in a study of collective bargaining, European countries have generally refrained from adopting measures which would impose on employers a statutory obligation to recognise unions and have preferred to resolve recognition issues by voluntary action, that is, through action by the parties themselves as distinct from the essentially legislative/administrative approach in North America. We are not alone in the approach we have adopted in dealing with this issue.
I have already referred to the effect which the legalism of this Bill is likely to have on our voluntarist approach. I now consider the effect it is likely to have on the industrial relations institutions, especially the Labour Court, and the potential for litigation to which it would give rise. One impact of this Bill, if enacted, would be to lead to litigation in industrial disputes. The Labour Court has largely avoided this in the 50odd years of its existence. By assigning a quasijudicial role to the court in one area of industrial relations, the Bill would undermine its effectiveness in assisting settlement of other types of dispute.
In addition, the involvement of the law courts in trade union recognition is likely to raise the general industrial relations temperature. To introduce a fundamental level of compulsion within the system is to depart from its essential voluntarist underpinnings. This could lead in future circumstances to other areas of compulsion in industrial relations, which would be anathema to both employers and the trade union movement. It would mean a return to the confrontation and adversarialisms of the past in industrial relations. It would thus undo much of the work done by Government and the social partners in fostering a consensual and partnership approach both at national and workplace level, particularly over the past decade.
Let us reflect on the benefits of social partnership. There is no doubt that the social partnership reflected in the four national programmes to date has been a key part of our economic success. Partnership 2000 follows the Programme for National Recovery, the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and the Programme for Competitiveness and Work . These programmes have provided the essential basis for the economic success we now experience. That success has brought us within striking distance of the European average income. It has brought us record increases in the numbers at work — there are 130,000 extra people at work over the three years of the PCW, which is more than one and a half times the total increase in employment over the previous 20 years.
I hope it continues.
We are optimistic that it will. The April 1997 Labour Force Survey showed a fall in unemployment of 61,000 since April 1993 and a growth in employment of 3.9 per cent, representing 51,400 additional jobs. There has been a record number of announcements of new investment projects, increased numbers in higher education — the highest in the western world — and an air of confidence in business and society generally. In short, social partnership has created the high standing of the Irish economy. It has given us the economic performance so well recognised by international commentators.
In 1995, for example, growth was four times the European average and it is estimated that for 1997 GNP growth was 7.7 per cent. This is combined with inflation below the EU average. Ireland's year on year inflation rate in December 1997 was 1 per cent compared with an EU average of 1.8 per cent. Our success has brought our public finances under control, with a general Government surplus of 0.9 per cent of GDP estimated for 1997. Ireland's general Government debt to GDP ratio continues to decline — it is provisionally estimated at 67 per cent for the end of 1997 with 61 per cent forecast for the end of 1998. Our economic success has produced a substantial real increase in net disposable income; for example, a real increase in income of 23 per cent for single people on average manufacturing earnings since 1987, compared to the reduction of 7 per cent in their incomes between 1980 and 1987. It has given us much lower interest rates and a strong balance of payments, which underpins our ability to achieve high growth on a continuing basis.
While it may not be the primary factor, one of the motivations in calls for trade union recognition is the fact that large multi-national corporations are setting up operations here with the assistance of the State's industrial development agencies, and employing policies not to recognise trade unions. The Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, mentioned the other night that a number of unions had suggested that State agencies such as the IDA should pay grants, subsidies, etc., only to those green field companies who are prepared to recognise and deal with trade unions.
It would not be appropriate to set preconditions regarding the way inward investment companies, or indeed indigenous investing companies, organise their employment relations. I agree with the IDA, which argues that setting such preconditions would severely handicap agencies such as itself in their efforts to secure investment in the face of competition from development agencies elsewhere. Competition in the international marketplace is aggressive and the IDA's performance on behalf of Ireland is the best in the world.
There is no doubt in my mind that mandatory trade union recognition — and changed policies that are perceived as mandatory, such as those proposed in the Bill — would impact adversely and substantially on inward investment in employment. I am in no doubt as to the consequences which enactment of this Bill would have on this country's primary standing in such niche areas as electronics — it would be most damaging.
Many new overseas companies choose not to recognise trade unions. The way to tackle this problem is not to introduce policies, such as statutory recognition or grant contingency, which would discourage and possibly prevent such companies from setting up, rather for the trade union movement to make itself more attractive to these companies. Not every trade union sees this as an impossibility. For all these reasons, and many more, the Government cannot support the Bill. When Deputy Broughan takes an opportunity to positively consider the importance of inward investment and carefully balanced investment by the indigenous sector and the right of employees to make their own decisions——
And to be members of trade unions.
At their discretion.
Without discrimination.
——without the mandatory demands, sanctions or impediments proposed by Deputy Broughan, both he and his party will recognise that the evolution of the trade union movement and the building of our economy, which has evolved so successfully, particularly over the past decade, makes it mandatory on him to act responsibility and to not force the issue to a vote. He must show solidarity with the trade union movement, investors in our country and the people at large so that our success can continue into the next millennium.
When I introduced this Bill on behalf of the Labour Party last week, I called it a modest proposal, designed to resolve the growing problem of trade union recognition disputes. The Bill was produced after lengthy consultation with the trade union movement, industry and the IDA. The first draft was produced in early October, as a contribution by the Labour Party to allay the fears expressed by constituents who, at that time, were denied their fundamental civil right to be represented by a trade union.
I resent the implication in the statements of the Minister of State. Deputy Kitt, and some other Fianna Fáil Members that the Bill was hastily cobbled together or ill timed. It is the product of a great deal of thinking and research, not just by the Labour Party but throughout the trade union movement.
What changed since 1994 when Deputy Quinn had a different position?
One of the reasons is there are more of these problems. There is now a major and serious problem which must be addressed by the Minister of State and his senior Minister.
Does the Deputy accept he changed his mind?
I am the Labour Party spokesperson on Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Last week, the Labour Party did not apologise for introducing a modest proposal and we do not apologise tonight.
The Bill seeks to build on the long and proven experience of our industrial relations procedures, especially the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court. Under its provisions a trade union recognition dispute would be referred to the Labour Relations Commission which would investigate it and make a report. Under sections 2 to 6 it would then go to the Labour Court, which can order and carry out an investigation. It can also order a ballot, which would obviously be a ballot about trade union recognition. That would be very clear to the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, if he had studied the Bill. Under section 10 the process would eventually result in an employment regulation order.
The Bill sets out the development of our industrial relations procedure. In essence, it strengthens the Labour Court and gives it a fair and balanced method of resolving trade union recognition disputes. I note the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, now accepts the Bill does not order mandatory recognition of trade unions. That was not its aim or part of its remit and is nowhere in the Bill.
Notwithstanding Deputy Stanton's generous comments tonight, for which I am grateful, the most striking feature of the six hour debate on the Bill has been the unholy, but natural, alliance between Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats, in fierce opposition to trade union and workers' rights. This modest Bill has strikingly revealed the real agenda of the three conservative parties and the common vested interests which they represent.
Day after day on the Order of Business and during debates the Labour Party and its allies — a small body of Deputies in this section of the House — must listen to a phoney war, and sometimes vicious, personality driven politics, between Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats. In reality, these parties together represent the great centres of wealth and vested interest in society. Their posturing and bluster on so many issues in this House is just so much hot air and verbiage. They are in perfect agreement on the issues which matter to them. As President Clinton's famous adviser, James Carville, said some years ago, the key issue is always "the economy, stupid".
Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Deputies recently shed crocodile tears in Dublin Airport for the Ryanair workers who are denied their fundamental constitutional right to be members of a trade union. Not one of those Deputies has the integrity or guts to support this simple measure in support of workers and trade union rights. Their failure to so do will be long remembered by the people of north Dublin and the rest of the country.
Throughout the debate there were references to the hasty and ill timed nature of the Bill, implying it was conceived solely as a response to the Ryanair dispute or the Dublin North by-election. In reality, the Bill had a long gestation, given the critical issues concerned for working people and their families. However, the very reason for the Dublin North by-election reminds us of the Fianna Fáil-Fine Gael partnership where it counts in local government, especially in the rezoning frenzy in County Dublin and Fingal. It is Senator Seán Ryan's committed opposition over 15 years to the rezoning steamroller of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and their developer friends and his defence of the airport workers which gives him a strong chance of regaining his Labour Dáil seat.
Government speakers, such as the Tánaiste, have tried to portray the Bill as some sort of threat to industrial relations and social partnership. However, it is the Government's failure to tackle the Ryanair dispute, and the underlying festering problem of the denial of trade union rights in many other companies, which endanger industrial relations proceedings and social partnership. Again and again deeply respected trade union leaders, such as Jimmy Somers, the president of SIPTU, and Mick O'Reilly, the general secretary of the ATGWU, have warned of the consequences for social partnership of allowing powerful employers, such as Michael O'Leary of Ryanair, to deny the constitutional right of workers to belong to a trade union.
Since 1987, workers led by their trade union leaders have shown an incredible discipline and single mindedness in creating the basis for the prosperity now enjoyed by much of our society. Throughout that period, an average of at least 11 serious trade union recognition disputes annually have inspired a powerful demand among workers to have their constitutional rights protected. Deputy Moloney referred to his research on trade union membership. As he acknowledged, trade union membership in the private sector is of the order of 30 or 35 per cent. This demand of workers produced the high level group and submission of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, Trade Union Recognition: The Right to Bargain, which influenced me heavily in drafting this Bill.
Yet, on this, as on so many issues, this Government of U-turns has failed to take any decisive action and is now foolishly opposing this moderate and carefully researched Bill. When will the Government stop wringing its hands on the Ryanair dispute, as we have seen so many Government Deputies do tonight, and take action to resolve the problem?
My colleague, Deputy Stagg, told us yesterday how Ryanair has received large assistance from the State and the European Union since 1989, in terms of discounted landing charges, job training and marketing and Forbairt grants amounting to almost £12 million. In addition, priceless Irish landing slots abroad were allocated to Ryanair when it almost collapsed in the early 1990s. Deputy Gilmore told the House tonight that an additional £3 million of, effectively, State funding has gone to Ryanair through its arrangement for the rental of its headquarters at Dublin Airport.
However, all the Tánaiste can say to Ryanair workers tonight is that she is prepared to look at the possibility of an independent inquiry under section 38(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. After a bitter dispute involving the serious harassment of workers over two or three months, why is the Tánaiste not calling this inquiry tonight? Is she influenced by the generosity displayed to the Progressive Democrats by the owners of Ryanair, as revealed in the famous skip in South Frederick Street a few months ago? I challenge her to accept the Bill and to intervene immediately under section 38(2) of the 1990 Act and order an independent inquiry into the Ryanair dispute.
The Tánaiste and her misfortunate Minister of State with responsibility for Labour Affairs, Deputy Tom Kitt — who is truly the Dan Quayle of Irish politics — have refused to accept the depth and seriousness of workers' and trade unionists' concerns on their basic constitutional right to belong to a trade union. What is the use of Article 40.6.1 of the Constitution, guaranteeing the right to belong to associations and unions, if the Dáil refuses to vindicate that right in legislation as this trade union recognition Bill attempts to do? It may well be that a future High Court or Supreme Court will interpret Article 40.6.1 as permitting the right to professional trade union representation as being implied in union membership, or a constitutional amendment may in future be necessary to copperfasten that right. This simple Bill avoids those complexities by strengthening the remit of the Labour Court. It does not impose mandatory recognition of trade unions as implied in the distorted speeches prepared by their press officers and produced here by Fianna Fáil and PD Deputies.
In section 6 the Bill simply gives the power to the Labour Court to make a recommendation in a trade union recognition dispute. If this recommendation is ignored or not complied with, the Bill rightly gives a final sanction under section 10 to the Labour Court in terms of making an Employment Regulation Order on pay and conditions, on consultations with a union over matters already covered by legislation, and on disciplinary matters.
The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Harney, and her Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, have told us how 85 per cent or so of Labour Court recommendations have been accepted by both parties in recent years. Why then should we expect recommendations on trade union recognition under this Bill to be any less successful, given the deep respect in which the Labour Court is generally held? The protracted nature of some recognition disputes over recent years shows the urgent necessity for new procedures and a final sanction as the Bill proposes. The solution offered here is not mandatory recognition but a simple procedure based on the long experience of Irish industrial relations.
In their response to this Bill, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats have hidden behind the voluntary tradition of our industrial relations. In the past few decades, trade unionists and Labour Party Ministers in various Governments have been reluctant to legislate for this sensitive area of trade union rights. However, as contributions to a recent meeting of the Irish section of the International Centre of Trade Union Rights showed, trade unionists and politicians of the labour movement have now accepted the urgent need for legislation.
The contributions of the Minister and the Minister of State completely ignored the fact, to which I referred in my introductory speech, that more and more aspects of the employment contract are being decided by legislation and statutory instruments. Twenty-five years ago there were only a few key areas of workers' rights covered by law, including holidays, redundancy rights and basic conditions of employment. Since then, especially when Labour have been in Government, a raft of very necessary legislation has been passed on matters affecting unfair dismissals, collective redundancies, transfer of undertakings, European Works Councils, working time, part-time working and young workers.
This House will shortly be debating again a law on parental leave and EU legislation is planned on works councils and short-time contract employment. Some of this legislation was passed in the teeth of opposition from certain groups of employers and did not have, despite the Minister's assertions to the contrary, the support of all the social partners.
Why should the Oireachtas be fearful of legislation to protect the key constitutional right to be a member of a trade union? The voluntary approach in this Government's argument is simply a fig leaf to avoid taking any action to support workers who are being intimidated and threatened with the loss of their jobs. The outrageous claim by the Minister that US multinationals would refuse to come to Ireland if this Bill is passed is a total distortion of national policy on inward investment. As my party leader, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, said last night, the attraction of high-tech US companies was in no way lessened when he was Minister for Enterprise and Employment by their knowledge that Irish workers might or might not elect to join a trade union. My Labour colleagues and I cannot see how this Bill could pose any threat to the human resource policies of the US multinationals. My visit to Silicon Valley clarified that.
The Bill in no way allows the imposition of a union on employees who do not wish to be represented by a union. Clearly the Labour Court will make a binding employment regulation order only if it finds that pay and conditions are out of line with industry norms. Most multinationals with advanced human resource management structures would claim pay and benefit packages well above such norms, making union membership irrelevant. In such cases many of these companies may prefer to deal with professional trade union representatives, however, and there are outstanding examples of very successful multinationals with a long history in Ireland which are fully unionised. An example which springs to mind is of Data Products Hitachi in my own constituency which arrived in Ireland in the late 1960s. It is still going strong and, of course, it is fully unionised and has made a deep impact in northside Coolock area.
As many commentators have noted, the irony of the present Ryanair dispute is that the famous airline on which its company culture is modelled, Southwest Airlines of the US, is both brilliantly successful and recognises trade unions. With regard to the hysteria generated by the Minister and the Minister of State concerning Ireland's competitors for inward US investment, let me remind them that the British TUC and the CBI are near to completing proposals to resolve trade union recognition disputes in the UK with the strong encouragement of Tony Blair's Government.
Likewise many MEPs such as my colleague Bernie Malone, and the EU Commission itself, are proposing an EU directive on trade union recognition under the Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties. Once again, it looks as if we will have to look to Europe from this House for key legislation because of the inactivity of a Fianna Fáil dominated Government.
The condemnation of this Bill by the Minister and her PD colleagues is to be expected, but the virulent response of Minister Kitt is a symptom of a deeper malaise. His comments about the quasi judicial role of the Labour Court are especially laughable, given the fine history of that institution. Our Labour Bill is a simple mechanism to strengthen the court's power.
The Taoiseach, Deputy Ahern, and his brother, Deputy Noel Ahern, the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, Deputy Brady and other Fianna Fáil Deputies who have spoken in this debate pride themselves on their consensus approach, learned they say through a personal trade union history. Tonight, however, they are betraying that history and voting with the "Ryanair managements" of this economy and against workers and their families
The Labour Party believes that all workers and citizens must be treated fairly. Fairness in an increasingly deregulated economy demands the right to be professionally represented for workers who desperately need it. A point that was ignored by virtually all the speakers from Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael is that we live in an increasingly deregulated economy. We see throughout almost every area where formerly a very strong State sector existed that under EU competition policy we are moving into an era of deregulation. Surely in that case individual workers, a group of workers, even a substantial group of workers in a company such as the baggage handlers of Ryanair, who wish to be represented, are at a very strong disadvantage dealing with a very powerful and rich management. Surely a basic right they deserve is to be professionally represented by skilled trade union negotiators. That is what we have sought to achieve with this Bill. In around 70 per cent of the private sector, workers do not have the power to exercise this constitutional right to belong to and be represented by a trade union. The Labour Party's Trade Union Recognition Bill tries to remedy this need. On behalf of the Labour Party, I commend it to Dáil Éireann.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 63.
Tá
- Bell, Michael.
- Broughan, Thomas.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Gilmore, Éamon.
- Gormley, John.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Higgins, Joe.
- Higgins, Michael.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- McDowell, Derek.
- McManus, Liz.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- Penrose, William.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Upton, Pat.
- Wall, Jack.
Níl
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Brady, Martin.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Carey, Pat.
- Collins, Michael.
- Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Fox, Mildred.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McDaid, James.
- McGennis, Marian.
- McGuinness, John.
- Moffatt, Thomas.
- Power, Seán.
- Roche, Dick.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G.V.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Stagg and Ferris; Níl, Deputies S.Brennan and Power.
Question declared lost.