Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 11 Jun 2015

Vol. 882 No. 1

Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2015: Second Stage (Resumed)

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Yesterday I commented on some of the stand-out provisions of the Bill, such as section 7, which concerns registered employment agreements and instructs the Labour Court to register agreements only where there is all-party agreement and in cases in which the court is satisfied that a trade union is substantially representative of workers in an organisation. On the other side, section 18, which concerns sectoral employment orders, will extend advantageous benefits and conditions to workers in a sector even if they or their employer were not party to Labour Court proceedings.

Section 20 of the Bill is also significant because it provides a mechanism to allow a business owner or employer to apply to the Labour Court for a temporary derogation from the requirement concerning pay levels set out in the sectoral employment order. This, it must be pointed out, is for businesses experiencing temporary financial difficulties. It is important that businesses experiencing difficulties have options regarding sectoral employment orders, and this is an issue I raised at the Oireachtas committee. It provides flexibility. In times of financial difficulty for a business, when jobs are under threat, we should not put in place a system that would compound this threat. Section 20 will enable business owners and employees to work together to save the business and bring it back to viability. An example would be everyone in the business taking a small cut rather than allowing a colleague to be let go. This is the type of flexibility we need to ensure job creation and job retention.

In terms of the benefits of the Bill for workers, it will ensure that where there is no collective bargaining, workers will have an effective system that will allow them to air grievances about pay or conditions of employment in the Labour Court. For employers, the Bill will provide a clear and balanced mechanism in which the fairness of the employment conditions of workers can be assessed where collective bargaining does not take place.

I again commend the Minister of State on the work he has done on this Bill. I wish him well in its passage through the House.

It has been predicted that in 2015 we could see one of the highest levels of workplace stoppages since pre-recession times. Disputes in the transport, education and retail sectors alone will bring to more than 65,000 the number of days lost this year to work stoppages. This compares to 33,748 between 2010 and 2013, according to CSO figures. The high levels of disaffection do not come as a surprise to many of us. One in five workers now earns less than the living wage of €11.45 per hour, a level of income on which it is impossible to make ends meet in modern Ireland, something that has been accepted by agencies in Ireland and Europe.

We currently have the weakest legal protection for bargaining in the Western world. Hence, the broad aim of the Bill - that is, to provide an improved framework for workers who seek to enhance their working conditions of employment where collective bargaining is not recognised by their employer - is commendable. As the economic recovery continues, as we are told it will, it is important that the right to collective bargaining is in place and that employees who seek improvements in pay and conditions are not victimised for doing so.

However, I am greatly disappointed that the proposals fall short of statutory union recognition. From my interpretation of the Bill and those who have read it with me, I understand it does not require employers to engage in collective bargaining. Rather, it provides a framework through which employers who fail to do so may be brought before the Labour Court by trade unions. I am also confused - perhaps the Minister of State could offer an explanation - as to where the term "voluntary engagements" in the definition of collective bargaining came from. I remind him that I am currently dealing with FÁS supervisors in Waterford who won their case in the Labour Court but still have not been paid. They have been told that because the money is not available they cannot be paid. Therefore, going to the Labour Court does not necessarily mean that one's rights are vindicated.

I welcome the fact that the determination of the Labour Court may be enforced by the Circuit Court if an employer refuses to engage. I ask the Minister of Sate to clarify that when the Labour Court makes a recommendation that is not upheld, such as in the case of the FÁS workers I mentioned, workers can go to the Circuit Court.

I acknowledge the enhanced protections against victimisation by employers of workers who invoke their rights under the new legislation. However, my interpretation of the Bill, together with some people in the trade union movement, is that it is disappointing that the Bill does not apply where the number of workers party to the trade dispute is considered insufficient, having regard to the total number of workers employed by the employer. If that is correct, it immediately removes the recognition of collective bargaining as a fundamental right, as it is under international and European law, if the numbers are considered too small. Why should a worker be discriminated against just because he or she is in a minority in their workplace? It is a very important part of the Bill and needs to be reconsidered and perhaps amended, unless I am misreading the Bill, which I do not think I am.

The Bill was designed to provide significant strengthening of laws to protect and promote workers' rights and the low-paid. However, it fails completely to recognise the plight of workers on zero or minimum-hour contracts with no hope of the economic stability that is necessary to build a future for themselves or their families. Many of us have spoken about the plight of the Dunnes Stores workers, but this problem is not confined to one company. I was recently contacted by a constituent in Waterford who works for Penneys and was recruited on a 11.5 hour contract. At the time, she made it clear that she was available for work seven days a week in the hope of getting full-time employment. In reality, her average working week is four-hour shifts spread over four days, and because of the way the hours are spread out she cannot claim jobseeker's allowance. Her average weekly take-home pay is €169, and last week she came home with €124. That is slave labour and it is an issue that is not being dealt with. It is the essence of the problem here, where many workers are on the minimum wage or below or have zero-hour contracts. They are the people we should be trying to help in this Bill.

The company to which I referred continues to recruit staff in Waterford while at least 30 of its workers are on these contracts and available to work full-time. It does not make any sense at all when we are discussing a living wage and respectable conditions for employees. I know the woman I mentioned and she is living in poverty. There is no way that somebody who wants to work full-time - who has work available but cannot avail of it because the employer wants to keep him or her on a minimum hour or zero-hour contract - should be living without a decent quality of life. It is demeaning and demoralising for people who want to work hard, and the Bill fails completely to deal with the many such workers.

In Frederick Court, which is run by the HSE and the Government, four women have had their hours cut back to six hours a week in the past couple of weeks. Their wages have been cut dramatically. We now have workers on contracts of 1.5 hours a day facing cuts. Where in the Bill is provision made for the workers who most need to be protected? This is very important because it applies to workers everywhere, including those in the public service and the private sector.

We do not know what will happen in years to come as we privatise contracts in hospitals and so on. Private contractors are contracted under the lowest possible amount of money; therefore, wages have to be cut.

Their contracts could be up in two years while another contractor could come in and do the same work. There are thousands of workers across the country feeling this way.

Over 16% of employees are estimated to be living below the poverty line. The pattern of recovery in wages is uneven across sectors and occupations, not to mention the precarious work contracts and conditions. This, coupled with cuts and a tightening of eligibility conditions in social welfare along with increases in taxation, have increased poverty even further to the extent that the think tank, TASC, is warning that inequality in Ireland will edge closer to US levels unless there are changes in economic and social policy. I would go further. If this country does not dramatically, not to mention urgently, rethink its stance on employment rights and the rights of workers to secure employment, a liveable wage and defined hours, we are heading for income inequality that will have catastrophic implications for future generations.

I know the Minister of State, Deputy Nash, means well for workers and has met the Dunnes Stores workers. While not a criticism of him, this Bill may have been different if the Labour Party was not in coalition with Fine Gael. However, we should address how those workers on zero-hour contracts and similar contracts are treated. It is appalling and degrading for them. I have workers telling me they want to work 40 hours a week full-time but do not want to be on social welfare. I gave the Minister of State the example of a worker in Penneys coming home with less than what they would get from social welfare. There is something fundamentally wrong with a system where a worker can earn €125 for working a week spread over four days but cannot claim social welfare. Those are the workers that need the most protection.

The Bill is commendable in many areas. For the first time, legislation is being introduced which would protect workers in some ways. However, it has failed and is a missed opportunity to deal with workers on low incomes and zero-hour contracts.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for giving me the opportunity to speak on the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2015. I also welcome the debate on this Bill. While there are more measures I would like to have seen in this legislation, as an Independent Member I will always look at each Bill in the context of how it is presented in the Dáil and in broader society to decide on its merits. If I believe it is good for workers or for the people, I will support it. The bottom line is I will be supporting this legislation. I commend the Minister of State on his work in this whole area. The bottom line for me is that it is sensible legislation, protecting the rights of workers in difficult and harsh economic times and in which some employers are hostile to their rights.

For too long, Irish workers have been pushed around and exploited. We have to stand up to protect them. Last Saturday, I attended the protest against Dunnes Stores and I support the Mandate workers on the zero-hour contracts issue. People need to wake up and support these workers as many of them are our neighbours, friends and families. I also welcomed last week the Minister of State’s strong support for these workers. It is important the Minister of State responsible for labour issues goes on the record to support workers in such cases. I know from talking to many of the staff on the ground, many of them friends of mine, that they really appreciated the Minister of State’s stance. It is important this issue is not politicised in a party political way. If people are exploited, they should be supported, regardless of their political background as it is a justice and equality issue. I speak as a former branch secretary in the INTO, the Irish National Teachers Organisation, and a delegate to the Dublin Council of Trade Unions for many years. I have had strong contact with many of those who will be affected by today’s legislation over the past 20 years.

We also know the reality of modern Irish society. Reform will come slowly and concessions will have to be given. The Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill, as presented, is progressive legislation. I accept it is difficult for the Minister of State. As Deputy Halligan said, one does not always get everything one wants in coalition. At the same time, I accept this is a positive development in the industrial relations field.

When one digs down deeper into the legislation, one sees the Bill aims to reform the system of registered employment agreements and provides for a process of registering employment agreements on an individual enterprise basis but also on a sectoral basis. The Bill will also introduce reforms on the right to engage in collective bargaining. It will amend the procedure under which trade disputes are brought before the Labour Court in circumstances where collective bargaining is not practised.

The bigger picture is often missed by many of our colleagues, however. This Bill is also part of a package of employment legislation to counteract the weaknesses in existing employment legislation. These include the minimum wage (amendment) (low pay commission) Bill and Workplace Relations Bill 2015. The reality is that there has been a marked increase in industrial disputes between 2014 and 2015. In the first quarter of 2014, there were just two disputes involving 178 workers, resulting in 310 working days lost. However, in one year, this has increased with disputes involving 27,588 workers and 24,056 working days lost. This attempt at reform and the protection of workers is positive.

Outside of legislation, if one looks at good practices in SMEs, small and medium-sized enterprises, where workers are treated with respect and given a decent wage, productivity is usually high. I have many friends who employ between three and 15 people in SMEs. They have close relationships with their staff and pay them well. They get it back in productivity and growth in their businesses. Employers need to cop on and listen to what is going on with labour legislation such as this Bill. They should not see it as a threat against their businesses as some of them seem to do. There are ultra, right-wing conservatives on top of some businesses who do not seem to get this. It will cause them more grief in the end. They need to open their minds. Even if they do not like trade unions or do not want to negotiate with their workers, the bottom line is they will increase productivity and growth if they do.

It is also important to broaden this debate to include the public sector. We have seen the hammering public servants have taken over the past eight years from right-wing conservatives who present themselves as commentators without any electoral mandate. I will remind them that over the past several years, public servants have implemented many workplace reforms. Productivity has been boosted by additional workplace hours. There are new shared services and the redeployment of staff.

They have had a 10% reduction in their numbers and their sick pay and annual paid leave were reformed. There was average benchmarking between 2002 and 2006 of 8.9% and this was wiped out with pay cuts. There was no benchmarking award in 2007. Many public servants have delivered reforms and shared services despite 10% cuts. It is important we say this during the debate.

To return to the legislation, it is important that we focus on the low paid workers whom Deputy Halligan mentioned. The grave injustice they face is a new issue in Irish society. They are caught between deciding whether to take a low paid job or stay on social welfare whereby they know they will be able to put food on their table. Families are getting caught in the poverty trap. It is sad that in 2015 some 138,000 children live in poverty and the number in consistent poverty has increased from 6.8% to 11.7%. People such as Dr. Niall Muldoon, the Ombudsman for Children, is concerned that 37,000 children will be living in poverty in 2020. At present, 1,054 children are homeless. We need to target resources to these people. I jump up and down here speaking about children in poverty, but the figure of 138,000 can be tackled. It is not out of control. If we could focus employment and social welfare resources to target these people first, we could then move on to deal with the other injustices in society. We need a clear strategy.

We hear debates on the radio about Independents speaking together. When we do so, we speak about poverty, protecting the rights of workers, educational disadvantage and services for people with disabilities. We can work very closely together on these issues, even though we might come from very different backgrounds. The bottom line is we are big and bold enough to sit down and hammer out real issues on which we can agree. I hear smart alec commentators stating it is not a cohesive group, but when it comes to come serious issues such as unemployment, low pay, poverty, disabilities and education we have a group of Independent Deputies who will roll up their sleeves and get stuck in. This is why people are looking in our direction for the formation of a Government. As we all know, we must get elected first and this is what is most important.

The legislation is positive. The Minister of State will probably die of shock, but I commend him on the work he has done on it. As an Independent Deputy in opposition, if somebody in government does something progressive we should support it and I welcome it.

I am glad to have an opportunity to contribute to the debate on this important legislation. I warmly welcome the tremendous work done on the legislation by my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Gerald Nash, and I compliment him on it. The legislation will allow for collective bargaining in the workplace and for sectoral registered employment agreements to be re-established.

I listened with some disbelief and bemusement to some of the utterances of some politicians, particularly in Fianna Fáil, who bemoaned the fact that the legislation is just a repair job. With regard to Dunnes Stores, they exhorted that the legislation be implemented immediately. They must have fallen asleep because I remember the Supreme Court's decision on Ryanair in 2007 which cast doubt on the functionality of the Acts and had a significant and chilling effect on their use subsequently. Now they pretend this is not a significant advancement. Of course we are circumscribed by the constitutional provisions, and I agree with Deputy Halligan as I would also like to see this as a constitutional right, but it is not the case now. The Bill is a significant step along the way. My roots go back to the very beginning when my late grandmother was involved in the Lock-out, so I will not take lectures from people who do not have these leanings. Every Labour Party member and public representative would certainly go further and Deputy Halligan acknowledged this. Notwithstanding the ample opportunities other parties in the House had to deal with this, they singularly failed to do so. It is appropriate that the Labour Party has availed of its opportunity of being part of the Government to rectify what has been long sought by our activists and trade union colleagues.

When implemented, the Bill will give some industrial muscle and strength to workers, such as the Dunnes Stores workers, and ensure such a situation is unlikely to recur. The Labour Court would be able to investigate a dispute and all the relevant factors and surrounding circumstances. We have thousands of tremendously good employers. Small employers always obey the rules and regulations. Legislation is like a big umbrella which catches the unfortunate small people doing their best who are struggling and who have good communication with workers. It will also catch the big employers. If an employer fails to participate or recognise the recommendations, the outcome can be subject to judicial supervision by way of a Circuit Court application to have the recommendation enforced. I anticipate that when a matter goes to the Circuit Court it would award costs against recalcitrant employers. This is what should be done. Recalcitrant employers should pay the cost of the worker having to go to the Circuit Court. Many of them have deep pockets, and a costs order which could be subsequently enforced would have a sobering effect and might bring them to the implementation table much quicker.

We have met Dunnes Stores workers in Mullingar and everywhere else and we have marched with them. We have noted their plight. I hope the legislation will provide some remedy and respite for them. Dr. de Buitléir has examined the minimum wage and measures will be brought forward on this. The University of Limerick has examined zero hour and variable hours contracts. How can one plan with any certainty under such a contract? I agree with Deputy Halligan in this regard. How does one pay a mortgage or for child care, a car or other such costs if an employer can, when one has a number of years' service, cut one's hours from 19 to 14 to ten and bring in somebody at the lower end to replace one? This must be nailed. Workers in Dunnes Stores and other firms are looking for fair pay, decent wages and reliable hours which are not changed or altered at the whim of the employer. We must tackle the issue of zero hours contracts and variable contracts because of the lack of certainty.

We should not forget that appropriate legislative amendments to the industrial relations legislation of 2001 and 2004 were a commitment in the programme for Government drawn up in March 2011 to reform the law on employees' rights to engage in collective bargaining and ensure the State complies with judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in this regard. The new legislation will be of benefit to employers and employees as it will bring some degree of certainty to the industrial landscape and will assist in preventing a race to the bottom in terms of pay, conditions, employment and skills. I know from his background this is something which motivates the Minister of State and brought him into politics.

Collective bargaining and fair conditions of employment go hand in hand. The right to join a union and bargain collectively for fair pay and fair conditions of employment is critical for a fair workplace as it is the only way to ensure employees have equal bargaining power with the employer. The right to collective bargaining is essential so working men and women have the strength to improve their living standards, provide for their families and build a strong foundation for our economy. The trade union movement has repeatedly stated that workers are not commodities to be bought and sold. They make a very productive input. My uncle always said nobody ever made money on the back of the bricks and mortar, it was always on the back of the workers. It is the sweat on the brow of the workers which is productive and creates extra output and profits. This is why it is important we ensure their rights are recognised.

The right to collective bargaining through a trade union is a human right, recognised in human rights and European treaties. I have heard about other human rights, but this is definitely a human right. Every human rights system recognises workers' rights to unionise and take appropriate action to protect their interests. One has only to look at Article 23.4 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Articles 27, 28 and 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

We signed up to recognise these human rights standards but the law has not been adequate to protect employees, whence the necessity for this legislation. I am very proud that the Labour Party was instrumental in bringing this forward.

The International Labour Organization has expressed serious concern that Ireland's laws and practices are inadequate and violate of Articles 87 and 88 of the said convention relating to freedom of association and the right to organise and participate in collective bargaining. It recommended that we amend our laws to bring them into line with the fundamental convention requirements and that is what is being done. Ireland lags significantly behind other industrialised European countries in respect of providing workers with collective bargaining rights, recognition of a union and the acceptance of negotiation on a collective agreement being an essential element in asserting those rights.

In the Wilson case, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that governments needed to ensure that the right to unionise is respected by employers, including by prohibiting coercive practices such as offering inducements or more favourable treatment if workers do not exercise their union rights, or using other means to attempt to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees at any stage in the exercise of their trade union rights. It is important, therefore, that there is a focus on outlawing less favourable treatment, victimisation or other penalisation. There are myriad ways of victimising workers and I would like the Minister to look at them as they need to be prohibited. These include refusing to hire somebody because he or she exercises his or her human right to join a union and seek to collectively bargain and keeping a blacklist of workers who support the union, which is particularly unacceptable. Refusing to allow the union representative to meet with the workforce to discuss and prepare a collective bargaining request is an unfair practice as is the refusal to provide workers with any information.

To collectively bargain, workers need a back-up and hands-on help from the union. It is not acceptable for management to hold meetings to caution against joining the union or seeking to collectively bargain to protect and improve pay and conditions, or for management to threaten to move operations if workers exercise their human right to collectively bargain through a trade union. Disciplining, penalising, harassing, transferring or making a worker subject to any less favourable treatment because they support the union also comes into this category, as does favouring employees who do not support the union over those who do when it comes to promotions, hours, the enforcement of rules or anything else. Similar actions include penalising workers who take action in support of securing a collective agreement, taking away benefits or privileges in order to discourage people from seeking to collectively bargain through a trade union or promising employees a pay increase, promotion or special favour if they oppose the union. I am sure Deputy Halligan would agree that is a fair collection of inducements and forms of victimisation.

The Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2015 also provides for the reintroduction of a mechanism for the registration of employment agreements between an employer or employers and trade unions, covering remuneration and conditions of employment in individual enterprises. It also puts in place a new statutory framework for establishing minimum rates of remuneration, terms and conditions of employment for a specified type, class or group of workers. It is in effect a framework to replace the former sectoral registered agreements and this is contained within Part 2 of the Bill. I listened to the speech of Deputy Tóibín yesterday and he did not seem to acknowledge the progress that this legislation will mean. We would of course like a constitutional change but that will take some time. Deputy Finian McGrath spoke about the potential for a wide range of Independents in the next Dáil and it will be interesting to see if they will bring forward something such as this. It is something a re-established Constitutional Convention might examine and I await progress in that area.

This, however, is progress and it is churlish not to acknowledge that. A lot of people may wish to downplay the role of the Labour Party in bringing forward this long sought after legislation. The legislation must, of course, pass the constitutional test. We are prohibited from introducing legislation that is not in conformity with the Constitution but this legislation conforms with it and it achieves significant progress.

In McGowan and others v. the Labour Court, Ireland and the Attorney General, the Supreme Court held that Part 3 of the Industrial Relations Act 1946 had regard to Article 15.2.1 of the Constitution which vested in the Oireachtas the exclusive power to make laws, which cannot be allocated to other bodies or individuals. That is why this legislation has been brought forward in this format. We ended up in a serious situation in which the registration of employment agreements were declared invalid, meaning the Labour Court no longer had jurisdiction to enforce or apply them. In effect, all enterprise level REAs that had been registered by the Labour Court - over 50 of them - were invalid, notwithstanding the fact that they were not the subject of the Supreme Court decision. This led to significant uncertainty and there was angst and some disputes, especially in construction-related areas. The restoration of REAs and sectoral employment orders will provide a mechanism whereby the existence of legally binding terms and conditions of employment relating to rates or remuneration, sick pay, pension, etc. will be examined and this will promote harmonious relations between workers and employers. Ultimately, employers should look at this as something of benefit to them as it provides tramlines within which industrial relations can be conducted.

The Labour Court will, in respect of SEOs, initiate a review of pay, pension and sick pay entitlements of workers in a particular sector and, if appropriate, make a recommendation to the Minister. The Labour Court will, under the legislation, have principles to take into account in helping to make its decision. A derogation will be allowed for employers from SEOs under specified circumstances.

The proposals which were approved by the Government and published in May respect Ireland's voluntary industrial relations system but ensure that where an employer chooses not to engage in collective bargaining, either with a trade union or an internally accepted body, the 2001 Act will be remediated to ensure there are effective means for a union on behalf of the members in that employment to have disputed remuneration terms and conditions assessed against relevant comparators. That is important because very often it was a lack of knowledge that made both sides somewhat wary. It also ensures that if an employer chooses to collectively bargain with an internally accepted body, as opposed to a union, that body must pass the test of its independence, because it is extremely important that it is not just a cover or a front for the employer. I believe, however, that the most appropriate body with which to conduct industrial relations is a union.

There is a provision to ensure that cases dealt with are those where the number of workers is not insignificant and that elements of remuneration conditions have to be looked at in the context of the totality of remuneration conditions. There is also provision to manage the frequency of the reassessment of like issues. It is important we have a detailed definition of what constitutes collective bargaining and accepted bodies, bringing clarity to the requirements to be met by the trade unions in advancing a claim. It also sets out the principles and conditions for the Labour Court to follow when assessing workers' terms and conditions and contains provisions to ensure that they are looked at in their totality. There is enhanced protection for workers who may feel they are being victimised for exercising their rights in the form of interim relief in the case of dismissal and that is important.

This is a good start to remedy a lacuna in the legislation. I am proud of the role of the Labour Party in bringing it forward and I compliment the Minister.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this very important Bill. It shows the implementation of the Labour Party agenda in government and in statute and the debate is very welcome.

One of my most poignant moments in my job as a public representative occurred when I went down to the picket lines at the six Dunnes Stores outlets in Galway city a couple of weeks ago. I met the workers, primarily women, on the picket lines. It was not easy for them and there was not uniform support from customers or staff. Many of the people protesting and picketing were outside while there were people inside working. The divisions, the bitterness and the discord were notable. The decision they took was largely on behalf of other people.

The people who are active in the unions were doing it for other people who are coming into Dunnes. They saw how the younger people working there had such precarious conditions and such volatile hours and so on. If we are to take anything from that, we should realise that when people engage in an industrial dispute, they do not do so lightly. They do so when there is something at stake, in an atmosphere which is not conducive to their own progress at work and is often very harsh. They must be commended for what they did.

They are aware that this legislation is going through this House. They know the need for it and it will make a big difference in those situations. The vast majority of employer-employee relationships work quite well. We do not hear about strikes or industrial disputes very often because most of the time employers and employees engage quite positively. Where employers refuse to acknowledge that their employees have a collective view on their working conditions and hours of work and refuse to engage with their employees, that is anathema to good industrial relations. It is bad business practice. This legislation will help to remedy that and put in place a structure that will allow those workers to see their rights vindicated.

We need to take a step back. In the years to come, as the economy continues to recover, we must have a debate in this country about the kind of society we want to build.

Will we just go back to where we were ten years ago, the era of light-touch regulation, of worshipping at the altar of the developer, of the quick buck, of the guy who manages to buy a site and sell it on, or do we build a society and an economy that rewards people who get up in the morning and contribute? The only thing we all have that is individual to ourselves is our day's work. Whether it is Bill Gates or someone working in Dunnes, all a person can do is get up in the morning and go to work. People should be rewarded and respected for contributing and we should not have this hierarchy of entitlement and worship in the economy based on people's roles. If we go down that road again, saying that the guys at the top need to be looked after and the people at the bottom have to watch themselves because if their wages go up a little we will lose the jobs, and so on - if we go down that road of a low-wage economy, where it is very good to be at the top and very bad to be at the bottom - we will sow a seed of real discontent and we will do people a disservice.

The measures we are debating today, with the registered employment agreements, the collective bargaining, and the excellent work the Minister of State is doing on the Low Pay Commission, will ensure that everybody in society who gets up in the morning, goes to work and contributes will be respected and afforded the decency they deserve because they are contributing and doing their best. If we keep that message at the heart of what we are doing and the decisions we make, and if we create an economy and a society that is based on people working and respecting them, we will have a far different trajectory from the one we followed in the boom years, when it was about whoever had the flashiest car, the biggest house, or whatever was admired. We need to realise that our society is broader than that and everyone must contribute and must be able to get by. I commend the Minister of State on his passion in pursuing this. He has been dogged in his determination to see it through. He has consulted widely and he has strengthened the Bill from its original version, putting in anti-victimisation measures and comparative measures that were not there before. All of those measures will go a long way towards creating that floor and that trajectory in our discussion about our economy and participation, which will see us finally moving in the direction in which we all want to move, namely, that of an economy that is people-focused and worker-focused.

I am sharing time with Deputy Naughten. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute briefly to this important debate. I would like to voice my support for the general thrust of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2015. The Bill will go some way towards strengthening our current legislation, and that is a starting block from which we can move towards the dismantling of zero-hour contracts, poor working conditions and victimisation of workers who wish to be represented by trade unions, as we saw in recent weeks.

In February 1998, as enterprise, trade and employment spokesperson in the House, I introduced the first trade union recognition Bill on behalf of the labour and trade union movement. This followed lengthy consultations with trade union and employee representatives and was especially directed at assisting unionised workers in Ryanair, where chief executive Michael O'Leary refused to engage with his own workforce and its trade union representatives. I recall the bitter hostility to the proposal from some employers and in particular from US companies based in Ireland and from IDA Ireland acting on their behalf. A key mechanism in the 1998 Bill was subsequently adopted in the 2001 and 2004 Industrial Relations Acts and later attacked in the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Ryanair v. IMPACT. That brings us back to today's legislation.

I welcome Chapter 2, which restores the legislative framework for REAs, and Chapter 3, which does the same for sectoral employment orders following a lacuna for many years in this area. In July 2011 the High Court found the JLC wage-setting mechanisms to be unconstitutional and struck down the employment regulation orders, EROs, which had applied under the Industrial Relations Act 1946. In 2013, in the John Grace Fried Chicken case, the Supreme Court further struck down Part III of the 1946 Act. Hopefully, these infirmities in earlier legislation have been fully rectified in sections 5 to 20 of this Bill and future court challenges regarding the constitutionality of Parts 2 and 3 will not occur. To have allowed our industrial relations machinery to exist without such legislation for a number of years was unacceptable, and I am glad the Minister of State, Deputy Gerald Nash, has moved at last to restore this legislative bulwark for good industrial relations.

I have some concerns regarding the provisions in section 7(3)(c) relating to REAs, whereby the trade union must be "substantially representative of the workers to whom the agreement relates". In section 14(1)(a)(i), relating to sectoral employment orders, there is a similar provision, whereby the trade union must be "substantially representative of the workers of the particular class, type or group in the economic sector". It will certainly now fall to the Labour Court to define these clauses on a case-by-case basis. I hope that significant groups of workers will not be disenfranchised by these sections in the actual operation of the Bill. Another big worry for workers and their representatives, as the Minister of State will have observed in the preparatory period of the Bill, is that there do not seem to be many compliance and enforcement provisions for Chapters 2 and 3 in the published Bill. Perhaps the Minister of State will return to these issues in his response to the debate and on Committee Stage.

Part 3 will amend existing legislation, as mentioned earlier, in order to insert definitions of "collective bargaining" and "excepted body". The nub of Part 3 of the Bill is the provision of a better legal route for workers to go to the Labour Court for reviews of their salary, terms and conditions, which is very welcome. However, the Bill does not address the fundamental right to trade union recognition and representation, which I tried to address 17 years ago, in a forthright way, or the deplorable impact on workers of the 2007 Supreme Court judgment. Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights clearly protects freedom of association, which includes the right to bargain collectively. Article 28 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights also provides for the right of collective bargaining and collective action. I note, for example, that Michael Doherty of Maynooth University has expressed concern that the term "voluntary engagements", which the Minister of State has inserted into the definition of collective bargaining, may be open to wide interpretation and that Ireland has had, until now, perhaps the weakest legal protection for collective bargaining in much of the EU. Unite trade union has also expressed fears that the retention of the concept of "excepted body" in section 23 may allow companies to negotiate with their employees only through an employer-sponsored association or an employer-friendly company union.

Like other speakers, I welcome section 35 of Part 3, which provides for the amendment of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 in order to protect persons who may be victimised or dismissed for being a member of the trade union. Only a few weeks ago we heard from Dunnes Stores workers in this very building about serious intimidation and victimisation of workers who stood up for their basic rights.

It is disappointing to see that the opportunity has not been taken in this Bill to include, once and for all, the right to full recognition for trade unions. This is a missed opportunity. However, I welcome the small improvements the Minister of State has made in this Bill and I commend him on that work.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this legislation and the principle behind it. The important aspect of it is that it will provide certainty for employees in that they will know what their rates of pay will be and it will also provide certainty for employers. In the many sectors we are discussing, many employers tender for contracts. It is a competitive area and the provisions of the legislation level the playing pitch with respect to employers based in this jurisdiction competing for contracts in that when they tender for projects the rights, rates, conditions and terms of employment of their employees are not being squeezed. It also gives certainty to employers when they put in a price for a contract in that they know that the cost of their labour will be at a certain rate over the period of the contract. It is good from the point of view of employees and it also provides a level of certainty that is needed for employers when they tender for contracts in what is a very competitive market. If an employer can secure a long-term contract, it provides long-term security to their employees. However, some employers tendering for contracts are not covered by these agreements or this legislation because they are outside this jurisdiction or they may continue to use subcontractors. They may squeeze the price from subcontractors, cut their margins and put legitimate businesses on the road. I have a concern about that. Our tendering processes are very much to the letter of the law with regard to what must be included but there is very little flexibility in dealing with the needs in respect of that contract in terms of ensuring that certain conditions are complied with as part of the project. Therefore, price is king with respect to tendering here.

Far more contracts in Ireland are successfully won by companies outside the country than in any other jurisdiction in the European Union. While that is partly due to the fact that we are a small economy and do not have the necessary expertise and skills in every area, another reason is that we only consider the price and do not consider other conditions. I will illustrate the point by giving the practical example of a sewerage contract involving the laying of sewer pipe. That is a pretty basic contract and there is not much room to cut corners. A contractor was awarded a sewerage contract in my constituency and untold problems arose while the works were ongoing. The contractor employed staff from outside this jurisdiction and they undercut legitimate employers and contractors locally who could not compete for it. It took years to resolve the problems created by that set of works and yet the next contract awarded by the local authority was given to the same contractor. The same problems arose again. That company eventually went to the wall. The local authority then had to follow up on the bond that was in place and eventually had to appoint another contractor to come in and fix the problem on the second contract. While local authorities might get caught once, there should not get caught again and again. A contractor who does shoddy work in one local authority area should not be able to move to another local authority area and create the same problems. There is a lack of joined up thinking across the board to ensure such cowboy contractors are identified. Such contractors either come back in another guise or move to another local authority area and secure contracts again.

There is also the matter of the impact of such projects in an area. I will use the example of water contracts again and this has been the experience across the board, although I have met people involved in tendering for work in the Department of Education and Skills, stationers and book suppliers across the country and they have all encountered the same problems. Irish Water is awarding contracts for water and sewerage mains works. Two of those contracts in County Galway, one in Oranmore and one in Ballinasloe, are causing problems. In both cases, it seems the issue is that has been a lack of discussion with local retailers. Sewer pipes and water mains are being laid through the business areas of those towns. There was a lack of engagement with the businesses and no conditions were attached to the contract to minimise traffic disruption or minimise the period that roads would be closed. Those should be basic, fundamental conditions attaching to a contract involving the laying of mains for the public water supply through a town centre or a retail area. Such works have a direct impact on ratepayers' ability to pay rates and pay their staff and it will end up that some of those businesses will go to the wall and more staff will be laid off as a result. We need to revisit that aspect when considering contractors tendering for projects. We need the provisions in this legislation and to consider not only the employees in these companies but the wider aspect of the direct impact such projects have on other employees in retail businesses in the towns.

The second point I want to raise is in regard to correspondence I received from the ESB Retired Staff Association. It proposed that a meaningful mechanism be included in the legislation to provide that it can be part of negotiations that would take place. Where there is a collective agreement between employers and employees, in many cases it has a direct impact on pensions but pensioners and the widows of pensioners have no say in that regard. Changes in terms and conditions can have a substantial impact on them. We would all have dealt with cases involving pensioners, or the widows of pensioners, but mainly pensioners, where a deal has been negotiated between a trade union and an employer that has sold out on the pensioners. The trade union will focus on the rights of its existing employees who are paying their dues to the union, and the union cannot be blamed for doing that. However, the rights and entitlements of pensioners have been sacrificed to get a deal with the existing employees and that should not happen. They all need to be treated in an equitable manner. We are securing rights for employees in this legislation but we also need to provide for the pensioners. They have a fixed income and in some cases, it is tied in with the current rates which, hopefully, will keep their income in line with inflation. They do not have the ability to earn additional income. They plan their retirement based on that income. When cuts are imposed, as has happened in the case of retired employees in the public sector, it has an impact on their living standards and perhaps on their ability to service loans or mortgages that they have taken out on behalf of their sons or daughters.

A mechanism needs to be created. The ESB Retired Staff Association has suggested that the definition of "worker" be changed to include former workers. I do not know how the Government can address this matter, but some recognition needs to be given to it in the legislation because their rights should not be undermined.

The association also raised the issue of the Pensions Acts. Rather than including collective pensioner representation at the tail end of the process when there is a pension scheme deficit, it needs to be included at the front end. Regardless of whatever provision is made for retired workers in this legislation, they need to be included at an appropriate time, not after the agreement between the employer and employees has been signed and is already a fait accompli where people are only going through the formality of consulting pensioners with no intention of making a change even though there are direct implications for a company's retired employees. How to draft such a measure in legislation poses a challenge, but we should not sacrifice pensioners just to get a deal with existing employees. Mechanisms need to be established so as to ensure that it does not happen.

The next speaker is Deputy Dowds, who I understand is sharing his 20-minute slot with Deputies Conaghan and Costello, who will take five minutes each.

I presume that this debate will adjourn at midday.

I will try to finish in that time.

I welcome this Bill. The Labour Party is the party of work and it is correct that a Labour Party Minister of State would ensure good working conditions for people. I congratulate him on the work that he has done in this regard, which has been welcomed in the trade union movement. It is important the Bill progresses through the Houses as quickly as possible and is put into practice. It is also important that how the legislation works in practice is carefully examined so that any necessary change may be undertaken. I am sure the Minister of State will work on this issue.

Deputy Naughten is leaving the House, but I would be interested in the Minister of State's response on the question of how the non-Irish companies that win contracts fit into the process as outlined in the Bill.

In the world we live in, workers are under much greater pressure because it is easy for people to move from one jurisdiction to another. As such, it is important to ensure that people in this country have good working conditions, pay and so on. There are situations in which pay and conditions have been undermined. In some logistics companies, for example, lorry drivers who have been working for considerable lengths of time are on much better hourly rates than others who have joined, often from other countries. It is important there are equal conditions, given what is a growing problem not just in Ireland, but throughout the EU. It is also important we tackle issues like zero-hour contracts and the race to the bottom. In the Dunnes Stores dispute, for example, people are on low pay, have uncertain weekly hours, etc.

In parenthesis, I would like to see major cuts in USC for low and middle-income workers in the next budget. However, I am happy to see high levels of USC for those on higher incomes.

I understand from my conversations with the Minister of State that this Bill will help people like the Dunnes Stores workers who are dealing with companies that refuse to engage with trade unions and workers directly. The Bill's final provision addresses the question of vulnerability. It is important that this provision be implemented.

The types of practice that we are seeing wreck people's lives in a number of ways. Family life is difficult if people are uncertain as to when and where they will be working. If income levels are uncertain, how can people provide themselves with accommodation? The Bill contributes towards an improvement in workers' rights.

I welcome the fact registered employment agreements, REAs, will be reinstated. These will give groups of workers and employers covered by them greater certainty, including about pay and conditions, and strengthen the hand of trade unions in negotiating on behalf of those whom they represent. It is a pity the old system was overturned, but it is good it is being replaced.

Turning to the sectoral employment order section of the Bill, this relates to trade unions, workers or organisations of employers requesting the Labour Court to examine the terms and conditions relating to the pay and pensions of a class of workers and to make a recommendation to the Minister on the matter. This is a welcome development. I note that there is a let-out clause in that employers can request temporary derogations. I hope that such derogations relate to important issues, for example, if a company is going through a bad financial patch and, therefore, cannot pay the correct amount at the time but will stick to the negotiated agreement as soon as it exits that bad patch.

I welcome the amendment to the Unfair Dismissals Act relating to victimisation, which is a problem in the workforce from time to time. Before the whistleblower legislation and this Bill, whistleblowers were vulnerable. We saw it in the case of Sergeant Maurice McCabe and the Garda. I am aware of one or two cases in which people lost their jobs because they stood up for what was right. It is correct that there be legislation to protect such people.

I wish to say something to the Minister of State and whoever follows in his shoes: it is important that we try to-----

I have no intention of going anywhere.

That is some confidence in the Government.

I would be happy if the Minister of State stayed in his position. I was not forecasting the demise of the Government. I was reckoning that Ministers get shifted around. It is not that I am forecasting the Minister of State's demise. I ask that this legislation be examined continually so as to ensure that the best conditions are available to workers.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share