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."

This Bill, when passed, will represent an important milestone in the history of the trade union movement in Ireland. It will restate, enhance and promote the role and relevance of trade unions in civil society. Enhancing the role and place of the collective bargaining process in the workplace and putting it on a stronger statutory footing will have beneficial impacts on the lives of individuals and their families, and will also be a broadly civilising force in society.

The introduction of the measure at this time causes us to evoke the memory of the origins of the trade union movement in the nineteenth century, the era of the industrial revolution. It was an era in which the character, shape and location of work changed fundamentally. The new work settings of factories could be brutal places, with brutalising experiences. It was the trade unions that intervened. They had a transformative impact, civilising the workplace, giving workers a say in pay and conditions and creating workers' rights. The agents of that transformative process were the trade unions.

Today, the character of work is once again changing rapidly. Work settings are changing. Old practices, technologies and established attitudes are being set aside or abandoned.

Some employers see these new work settings as fresh opportunities to reassert their authority and become the sole arbiter over workers' rights, their wages and conditions of employment. They want to have the final say on levels of pay, conditions in the workplace, on terms of employment, etc. This can become a hazardous environment for workers’ rights. It is also an opportunity, however, to restate and renew some of the historical truths about pay conditions, etc. The Minister of State’s proposed new measures will be a vital instrument in that progressive process.

I commend the Minister of State, Deputy Nash, for his dedication to this cause. Society is lucky that we have someone of his calibre with a deep and long history of experience in trade union activity and of thinking creatively about trade unions in the changing environment. If we did not have someone of the Minister of State’s calibre bringing forward this legislation, we would be losing important rights not just for workers but for all of us and civil society.

Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire Stáit agus buíochas a ghabháil leis an gCeann Comhairle as ucht an tseans labhairt ar an mBille seo.

I welcome this legislation and commend the Minister of State, Deputy Nash, on bringing it to the House. It contains important provisions for the reintroduction of registered employment agreements, REAs, which were struck down by the Supreme Court and makes provision for collective bargaining. At the same time, the Minister of State is steering important legislation regarding the minimum wage and low pay through the Seanad. This package of legislative proposals on industrial relations between the employer and employee is the most far-reaching reform of Ireland's industrial relations machinery in decades.

The old structure of REAs had been struck down by the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds. Whole sectors of the workforce previously protected by these agreements were left in limbo and this needed to be addressed urgently. An integral part of the deal on the sale of the State’s shareholding in Aer Lingus was based on the commitment that this legislation would be passed. It would then allow a series of REAs to be negotiated for various sectors of the Aer Lingus workforce and registered when this Bill becomes law. It is unlikely that the sale would have taken place if these REAs were not imminent. I hope no party or Member in either House will stand in the way of the passage of this legislation before the summer recess. It is important for Aer Lingus that the workforce will be able to engage directly with the employer as it is intended to protect against outsourcing of jobs and compulsory redundancies, as well as providing for pay and conditions of the Aer Lingus employees.

The legislation also deals with ensuring compliance by the State with recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights on collective bargaining. It will allow workers where there is no collective bargaining in place to access the Labour Court. One of the key issues addressed by James Larkin in the 1913 Lock-out was the right of workers to organise through a union and to collectively bargain on their employment terms and conditions with their employers. Thankfully, this vibrant issue in our history is now being addressed.

We are not going out on a limb in any way. Collective bargaining is a fundamental legal right in 24 of the 27 EU member states. It is the norm rather than the exception. It is significant we have these particular measures before us today. What is required is to do this in the context of the recovery that is taking place in our society. As the economy is beginning to recover, the quality of our society is equally important. We need decent working conditions for employees. That is the type of civilised society to which we should look forward. A good quality civilised industrial relationship machinery is extraordinarily important. It will deal with issues like the unattractive situation for Dunnes Stores employees. It will be difficult not to have such matters dealt with under this new legislation.

The Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection recently amended the Pensions Act to allow collective representation and recognition for groups representing former workers at the stage where trustees have applied for section 50 orders to the Pensions Authority. Could we begin to examine the possibility of not just workers being protected by industrial relations machinery but also former workers? Hopefully, both Ministers opposite will put this on their agenda for the not-too-distant future.

I commend this legislation to the Dáil.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2015. It gives the Oireachtas an opportunity to devise a framework that will provide for maximum industrial peace and constructive working arrangements. It includes new industrial relations laws which will rebalance the interests of both employers and employees. In the absence of collective bargaining, it will provide new mechanisms for workers who want to improve their terms and conditions of employment. For instance, in the current Dunnes Stores episode, collective bargaining could be used by the workers to advance their claims should the company continue to refuse to engage with them.

The economy is gradually improving as a result of the many sacrifices made by the various sectors in industry and general business. These collective efforts are now benefitting the economy.

It is most important this is further enhanced and developed to ensure everybody will experience the benefits of the recovery, which I hope will keep on the track it is at present and the economy will thrive. The other very heartening matter is the employment graph is positive and the availability of full-time jobs is on the increase.

It is crucial the legislation is fast-tracked and implemented at as early a date as possible. Among the matters contained in the Bill which I very much welcome are that the Labour Court will examine issues such as pay and sick leave provided by other employers in the relevant industry before making formal recommendations. The legislation is aimed at ensuring employers agree to come to the negotiating table or risk the prospect of being hauled before the Circuit Court. This is something those involved in the ongoing saga at Dunnes Stores in particular will welcome very much. What is happening there is not common but isolated enough, and I hope it will be corrected. By and large employers are fair people and I hope this will not go down the legal route. Businesses try to run as good a shop as possible and remain viable. They have gone through a very enduring time over the past five or six years in particular. The legislation would give comfort all round and with a bit of common sense and fair mindedness I am sure it will be implemented for the overall good.

The Bill provides for the reintroduction of a mechanism for the registration of employment agreements between employers and trade unions governing remuneration and conditions of employment in individual enterprises. It provides for a new statutory framework for establishing minimum rates of remuneration and terms and conditions of employment for a specified type, class or group of workers, particularly in the context of transnational provision of services and promoting harmonious relations between workers. In effect it is a framework to replace the former sectoral registered employment agreements.

The Bill will put in place legislative amendments to the industrial relations legislation of 2001 and 2004 which are required to give effect to the programme for Government commitment to reform the law on employees' rights to engage in collective bargaining. This will ensure compliance by the State with recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. The statement of Government priorities for 2014 to 2016 included the enactment of collective bargaining legislation as approved by the Government.

The main reform proposed in the Bill deals with proposed changes to the system of registered employment agreements and thereafter with collective bargaining reform. The implications of the proposed reforms are dealt with thereafter. Recent years have seen significant changes in the sphere of collective bargaining in Ireland and important court challenges have been made to the framework. John Grace Fried Chicken Limited and Others v. The Catering Joint Labour Committee and Others was a High Court challenge to Part IV of the Industrial Relations Act 1946 which found there to be insufficient principles and policies for the exercise of the law-making power, which had been conferred on joint labour committees and which was found to be unconstitutional. On 7 July 2011, the High Court delivered its judgment in this case and found the joint labour committee wage setting mechanisms to be unconstitutional. The case was taken by John Grace Fried Chicken Limited of Cork and the Quick Service Food Alliance, an organisation representing a group of fast food outlets, and concerned an application to strike down an employment regulation order as unreasonable and constituting an unlawful interference with constitutionally protected property rights. The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of sections 42, 43 and 45 of the Industrial Relations Act 1946 and section 48 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990.

Mr. Justice Feeney in the High Court held that as the Industrial Relations Acts 1946 and 1990 failed to set out any matters that could properly be described as policies or principles directing or informing the joint labour committees and the Labour Court as to the matters to be taken into account in carrying out the fundamental task of fixing wage rates and conditions of employment, the power delegated to those bodies was excessive and amounted to an impermissible transfer of power. Thus sections 42, 43 and 45 of the 1946 Act were found to be repugnant to the Constitution. The John Grace decision resulted in Part IV of the 1946 Act being deemed invalid. Consequently, 17 employment regulation orders ceased to have any force in law from 7 July 2011. The decision was not appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Government enacted the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2012 to rectify the difficulties identified in the John Grace decision.

McGowan and Others v. The Labour Court and others was a challenge to Part III of the Industrial Relations Act 1946 covering registered employment agreements. The Supreme Court decision has been interpreted by the Government as having struck down Part III in its entirety, such that amendments made by the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2012 cannot attach to an unconstitutional regime. The case concerned a registered employment agreement for electrical contractors working in the construction trade and registered by the Labour Court on 24 September 1990, pursuant to Part III of the 1946 Act. Employers' organisations had long complained that this registered employment agreement, to which they were not a party, imposed obligations industry-wide and that the employer interests were not adequately represented.

The litigation was set in the context of an employee proposal to vary the REA in order to increase the minimum rate of pay in the sector, among other complex procedural matters. The issue in this case was ultimately narrowed down to the question of whether Part III of the 1946 Act offended against Article 15.2.1o of the Constitution in the delegation of a law-making role to the Labour Court and to the parties to the REA. In other words, did Part III permit an excessive delegation of legislative powers?

In Ryanair v. the Labour Court and IMPACT in 2007, the Supreme Court found that the Labour Court did not adopt fair procedures in applying the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2001 in deciding whether there was a trade dispute and whether a practice of collective bargaining was found at Ryanair. The context of the dispute was the terms and conditions of a training course offered to Ryanair pilots based in Dublin so that the pilots could fly larger airplanes. The pilots were unhappy with a particular term of the training, such that if Ryanair was compelled to engage in collective bargaining with any union within five years of the training, the pilots would have to compensate Ryanair for the cost of the training, which was €15,000. Following a failure to reach agreement on the issue, IMPACT and IALPA sought to bring a trade dispute before the Labour Court under the 2001 and 2004 Acts.

However, Ryanair rejected the jurisdiction of the Labour Court on the basis that there was no trade dispute as it is understood in the 2001 Act. It was the practice of Ryanair to engage in collective bargaining negotiations in respect of the pilots who were party to the trade dispute, if any, and the internal dispute resolution procedures had not failed to resolve the dispute, if any. The Labour Court decided for IMPACT on the jurisdiction point in January 2005 and Ryanair challenged that specific jurisdictional decision by way of judicial review in the High Court. Mr. Justice Hanna in the High Court upheld the Labour Court’s jurisdiction but the Supreme Court decided in favour of Ryanair. The judgment of Mr. Justice Geoghegan was delivered on 1 February 2007.

Ryanair claimed that collective bargaining in the company operated by way of a continual process in which Ryanair negotiated with representatives of its employees for the purpose of concluding collective agreements which fixed pay and other conditions of employment. This system of employee representative committees, ERCs, was described as a forum for employee representatives to negotiate terms and conditions with the company on an ongoing basis. However, Dublin pilot representatives withdrew from this forum in August 2004. Such withdrawal gave rise to the question of whether collective bargaining still existed in the company for that group of workers. IMPACT argued that the individuals elected as employee representatives did not engage in negotiation but, at most, a form of consultation. Even if the ERC could be considered a negotiating body, there were no pilot representatives on the ERCs and for this reason it could not be considered an excepted body in respect of pilots. The Labour Court agreed with this argument when it assumed jurisdiction over the matter.

The Supreme Court thus agreed with Ryanair that the decision of the Labour Court was flawed and that the procedure was fundamentally unfair. However, as an obiter comment, the Supreme Court also criticised Ryanair's handling of the trade dispute, stating, "Continual propaganda in correspondence as to how excellent the company is rather than taking up the issues point by point was not helpful to anybody".

Certain matters have recently been brought to my attention. The Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection recently amended the Pensions Act to allow collective representation and recognition for groups representing former workers at the stage where trustees have applied for section 50 orders to the Pensions Authority. While the Tánaiste's initiative is welcome, it does not go far enough to address the concerns of the majority of pensioners. I ask the Minister for Social Protection to take this a step further and amend the Pensions Acts to allow for collective pensioner representations at the front end, and not the back end, of a process addressing a pension scheme deficit.

The fact that the principle of collective representation for former workers has been accepted and incorporated in pensions legislation now provides an opportunity in the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2015 to change the definition of "worker" to include "former workers" and to grant them access to the industrial relations machinery of the State. The right of the trade unions to represent their members in negotiations with employers on industrial relations issues is an inherent part of the industrial relations process in Ireland. This would include the option to refer any disputes that may arise during discussions between the parties to an independent mediation or arbitration process. Former workers should be afforded the same rights as workers and legislation should be introduced that would require former employers to engage with representative bodies for former workers on all matters relating to their original contracts of employment and pension matters.

I have been contacted by the ESB retired staff association. It is a national organisation, representing the interests of the majority of the ESB's 7,500 pensioners. What they are seeking in this Bill is, first, the rights of pensioner organisations to represent their members and to influence negotiations that would directly affect their financial security and, second, that pensioners would have access to the industrial relations and arbitration machinery of the State. The Government passed legislation for an annual 0.6% levy on the assets of private pension funds in 2011 which effectively raided pensioners' hard earned savings. The Government also introduced measures in budget 2013 that abolished or reduced household benefits. It was effectively a way of getting at private pensioners' earnings. I call for this to be abolished in the forthcoming budget.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2015. Our programme for Government gives a fair commitment to reform the law that currently exists for employers' rights to participate in collective bargaining, thus ensuring that we must comply with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. Based on these judgments, we need to make provisions for an improved and modern industrial framework that will provide employers with clarity and employees with an effective alternative where collective bargaining agreements are not in place. The Bill will once and for all provide a clear and balanced mechanism whereby the employment conditions of workers are protected in a situation where no collective bargaining is in place.

The Bill will also provide employers with a clear framework for managing their workplaces in the years ahead. In this regard I am pleased to see the new laws will provide a balance between the interests of the worker and that of the employer. This will be achieved through an improved collective bargaining system and will provide for registered employment agreements to be re-established and industry sector wage rates and conditions to be introduced, thus placing the Low Pay Commission on a statutory basis.

The Bill is the result of a lengthy consultation process that included intensive engagement with the relevant stakeholders. In this regard, I am pleased to see that the proposals have been welcomed by both IBEC and ICTU. I have no doubt that this Bill will provide for a framework that will allow all workers who wish to seek better terms and conditions in situations where no collective bargaining is in place or recognised by the employer and will provide a replacement for registered employment agreements. In practical terms, this will mean that in respect of the collective bargaining element of the legislation, workers who wish to improve their terms and conditions in places of employment where the employer does not recognise any collective bargaining arrangements now have a mechanism whereby they can commence a claim for better wages and terms and conditions with the help of a trade union, and have these claims determined by the Labour Court based on comparisons with similar companies.

Like all Members of the House, I regularly have to deal with constituents who are having difficulty in their employment, particularly in respect of pay rates and terms and conditions of employment. I have had to deal with many cases where employees felt they had no means of addressing workplace issues like pay rates or terms and conditions of employment. This legislation will bring clarity to these employees. Indeed, this legislation will also bring clarity to employers, especially those who felt there was no basis for them to implement pay rates or terms and conditions they felt were appropriate to their particular business.

I agree wholeheartedly with the Ministers involved that this legislation, when enacted, will complement Ireland's constitutional, social and economic traditions and also meet its international commitments and will therefore ensure our continued success in creating new and sustainable jobs and attracting much needed investment into the economy. In my constituency, Louth, we have seen over 3,500 new jobs created since we launched our Action Plan for Jobs and, as I have previously stated in the House, we are well on our way to reaching full employment by 2018.

This legislation will provide new, clear, balanced and proven mechanisms to deal with specific industrial relations issues and will address the gaps that exist in protecting workers while also addressing the issue of low pay. It will also provide stability and certainty for employers who, we must recognise, are the ones creating the badly needed jobs in the first place.

Here we are with the collective bargaining legislation. I think this is the third time I have spoken on this legislation. I feel like hell has finally frozen over because I am on the Dáil floor and am about to agree with something that Jimmy Kelly, the Unite union official, said last month. He said that this legislation does not provide for mandatory collective bargaining and, strictly speaking, he is absolutely right. People who are intimate with the putting together of this legislation know that to be the case. Many predictions have been made here today about what this is going to do. Nobody really knows how it will pan out. It could pass off very quietly or it could be a disaster. The reason he said that is that under this legislation companies may choose to negotiate with their employees through an employer-sponsored association. That is a good thing. For that reason, this could be much worse.

This does not amount to what was promised in the first place, but it does allow some people to tick a box politically. I have spoken to many of the people involved in the Department and industry associations in particular and I understand how and why this legislation has been watered down along the way without causing any political embarrassment. One major industry association representative said to me that they can probably live with it, as long as it is not abused too badly by the trade unions.

My reservations stem mainly from the timing. At the same time this legislation was mooted politically, the Minister for Finance was taking steps to end what has been called the "double Irish" tax situation and the issues surrounding transfer pricing as they relate to US companies that do business in Ireland. The European Commission got involved, particularly with companies like Apple, and applied pressure on our Government to end that situation. My point was, and remains, that we should have waited to see how that pans out before we start passing legislation like this because this legislation might ultimately act as a disincentive to inward investment. The reason I say that stems from the reality of what I do every day, namely, to work on the fundamentals when it comes to improving the conditions as they apply to foreign direct investment.

In Waterford we are still in bad shape economically. It is improving a small bit, but it is not comparable to Dublin or Cork. The Minister will be well aware of this. In the last four years, I have, for example, kept the funding stream to the airport just about going, even when the commercial flights were not there. They are there now, thankfully. I have also made sure, after four years, that a regional director of the IDA was appointed. Thanks to the Minister, Deputy Bruton, that finally occurred. It is tooth and nail stuff, in many respects, as a Fine Gael Deputy dealing with a Fine Gael Government. In many cases it is very hard to initiate change to the fundamentals involved. It is very difficult to get Departments to move. In the case of the Port of Waterford, it was a question of making an argument regarding the salary of the new CEO, who will be in place in August. That was difficult enough, bringing the salary from an €85,000 cap up to €125,000. Arguments had to be made and it took months. It is an essential component of the issue with the Port of Waterford, a company which is fine as regards governance, but which has been driven into the ground. New personnel were needed to take over the helm.

All these things are the building blocks for inward investment and improving the conditions for US companies in particular, though not exclusively, which are looking at Ireland and the south east as a place to put their money. When it came to the nuts and bolts of this legislation, the background to it, the Ryanair case and industrial relations law in general, it is clear from talking to people that we have a voluntarist system in this country. There is a view among people who deal with labour law that there was no big problem in this area in the first place and that people, by and large - though there will be the odd exception - were dealing just fine with what transpired in labour law after the Ryanair decision. Their point is that when one is dealing with US companies in particular, and I have some experience with this, they are conservative. They take a certain view of mandatory labour laws and it is unwise to restrict the latitude that currently exists on either side when it comes to open negotiations. The example I would use is what happened early last year when it came to Bausch + Lomb in Waterford.

A negotiated pay reduction of 7.5% was agreed along with the ending of bonuses and an increase in the working week. It was hammered out by people who are steps ahead of some of the politicians who were involved in it. Reality dawned on both sides that they had to deal with each other. Unfortunately, those cuts had to be made but since then the company has made a massive investment here.

If this legislation is abused by unions keen to justify their own existence, we will need to be conscious of the potential impact it will have on our competitiveness and on our attractiveness as a location for foreign direct investment. This country is in a position to create additional reasons for a company not to locate here. It was not that long ago when the Deputies opposite were telling the Germans how to run their economy and we all know how that ended up. We need to be careful about getting the balance right between safeguarding people's working rights, political agendas and the creation of jobs when it comes to foreign direct investment. This legislation might seem very reasonable and quite benign to some Members of the coalition but it may make corporate types think twice about locating here. Only time will tell.

I reserve the right to draft amendments to the Bill and I hope and believe that they will be dealt with constructively by the Minister. I do not mean to be in any way patronising by saying that the way the Minister of State has dealt with this legislation has been fantastic. I believe Members on both sides of the House who have dealt with the Bill would agree with me in that regard. I have had a number of conversations with him and he knows where I am coming from on the Bill. I understand where he is coming from on this, politically and philosophically, but I hope he accepts that there is a genuine point of view on the other side. I appreciate the effort he and his officials have put into the legislation since he took it on.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Bill. It seeks to reinstate the system of registering collective agreements in individual enterprises and will provide for a system of registering employment agreements on a sectoral basis. The Bill also aims to legislate for the right to collective bargaining and put in place anti-victimisation measures.

The Bill has arisen as a result of a decision of both the High Court and the Supreme Court in regard to the constitutionality of the previous agreements. The previous situation with regard to the registration of employment agreements worked quite well. I practised in the area of industrial relations for 18 years and I saw the process in operation. There were very few problems with the previous situation. I have practised in that area on both sides of the divide. I was a personnel manager for 15 years and, subsequently, I was an employer's nominee to the Employment Appeals Tribunal for nine years. I was a member of SIPTU and I was nominated by trade unions to contest the Seanad and I represented the Labour Panel in the Seanad twice. Therefore, I have seen the process operate from both sides. The existing legislation worked quite well. The necessity for it at that time was obvious. I do not want to name any sectors but it protected certain sectors very well which otherwise would not have been protected. It prevented the victimisation of certain categories of employees. It did not in any way restrict investment into the country. The companies that invest in the country and create employment are very good payers; they would not be come under the ambit of an employer with respect to the system as proposed in the Bill.

The Bill represents a commitment by the Government to reform the current law on employee rights to engage in collective bargaining in order to ensure compliance by the State with recent judgments of the Europe Court of Human Rights. We have a system of collective bargaining, which is voluntary, with the aid of the Labour Court and its services and other services. We have a system of trade unions and employer organisations, and that system has worked reasonably well over the years. We have also a system of as little engagement as possible by the Legislature in regard to collective bargaining. That is a very important yardstick in how we manage our industrial relations.

Under the Bill, the Labour Court is entitled to initiate a review of pay and pensions, seek entitlements and make recommendations to the Minister. The Minister should use the recommendations wisely and examine them rather than simply sign the order. It is important that the Minister adopts a hands-on approach to difficulties that employers, employer associations, employee associations and trade unions might have. The Labour Court can initiate a review of pay and conditions at the request of the employers and at the request of the trade unions. There is a balance in that regard. The experience of employers and employees prior to the existing legislation being rendered unconstitutional was quite positive and very few complaints were made about the operation of our industrial relations system. The Minister must be satisfied that the requirements under the legislation are complied with before he makes the order.

I welcome the legislation. I sincerely congratulate the Minister and the Government on bringing it forward. It is time that the previous situation was addressed.

Deputies Eamon Maloney and Seán Kenny have five minutes each.

I thank the Minister and his Department for the drafting and introduction of this Bill. It is very important and historic legislation. The two elements of it covering the registered employment agreements and collective bargaining are fundamentals in terms of our labour law and industrial relations system. I particularly noted the Minister's colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Nash, when introducing the Bill yesterday came under some attack from both Sinn Féin and a collection of career socialists whose contributions would probably go down as some of the most begrudging and negative criticisms of any Bill, but the Minister of State managed to survive the episode.

There was much talk by some Opposition Members about workers' rights. We got a lecture from Sinn Féin on workers' rights. Obviously, its spokesperson is unaware that Sinn Féin was the very party during the Dublin Lock-out in 1913 that refused to support it; so much for taking lectures from such people. Also, the party's great founder and leader Arthur Griffith combined with the church and the pillars of industry in this city during the Christmas of the first Lock-out to attack James Connolly and James Larkin and called for the Lock-out to be ended. So much for the tutorial from Sinn Féin on workers' rights.

It is 102 years late.

Collective bargaining is essential for people, be they unionised or otherwise, who are on limited or low wages in that it provides them a structure of protection. This is why I described the Bill as historic. It is not perfect legislation and no one is making that argument. As the Minister of State mentioned yesterday, it might be subject to review if necessary. Apart from the collective bargaining element, the registered employment agreements, REAs, are fundamental, particularly for workers in certain industries where low pay is a feature, for example, retail.

Many of these issues were highlighted last Saturday at the protest organised by the Mandate trade union which some of us attended. They were to the fore in the speeches made by various trade union leaders at the end of the march. The protest highlighted the importance of REAs, which were repeatedly mentioned, as well as the importance of collective bargaining to the trade union movement.

For some of the same reasons, the Bill is subject to the criticisms that were voiced by a number of the same people when the Unfair Dismissals Act, equal pay for women and the redundancy legislation were introduced. Nowhere was this more striking than during the House's debate on the national minimum wage, where most of the criticisms were negative. We have spent the best part of 100 years trying to introduce labour legislation that, as much as possible, supports people in ensuring dignity and decency in their workplaces.

The Bill is not perfect, but it was best summed up by the principal trade union leader, Mr. Jack O'Connor of SIPTU, in this month's edition of SIPTU's Liberty Newspaper. I agree with what he stated, namely:

There is no denying [the Bill] represents progress. However, no law, irrespective of how good it is, will of itself tackle exploitation in the workplace. That is still down to the task of persuading workers to organise themselves in unions so that they can assert their entitlement to dignity and fair treatment. The measures envisaged in this new Bill will make it somewhat easier to do so, but it will not do it for us - we still have to do it ourselves.

I am happy to see the introduction of this legislation. I thank the Minister, Deputy Bruton, and the Minister of State, Deputy Nash, for their work in this regard. In recent years, I have been concerned by the lack of a statutory framework to ensure that workers seeking to improve their terms and conditions can do so by seeking to engage in collective bargaining or REAs, the latter being particularly important, given the fact that the Supreme Court struck down the old REA framework on constitutional grounds. I am glad that the Government is now addressing this matter and has worked hard to ensure that the new REA framework is constitutionally robust.

The Bill makes provision for the registration of employment agreements between employers and trade unions governing remuneration and conditions of employment. The content of these agreements will be a matter for the contracting parties and will be legally binding on those involved. The Bill also makes provision for a new type of ministerial order, the sectoral employment order, SEO, which will allow the Labour Court to trigger a review of the pay and conditions in a particular sector of industry and to make a recommendation to the Minister. Such a review can be initiated at the request, separately or jointly, of organisations substantially representative of employers or workers.

There is broad acceptance that the reintroduction of REAs will benefit workers and employers. For both, these agreements and orders will provide certainty about future pay and conditions, thereby providing industrial peace. In a recovering economy, this is important.

I am also pleased about Part 3 of the legislation, which fulfils a significant commitment in the programme for Government to ensure that Irish law is consistent with recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights by providing a clear and balanced mechanism by which the fairness of the employment conditions of workers in their totality can be assessed where there is no collective bargaining agreement in the workplace.

The Bill removes the right of access of "excepted bodies" to procedures dealing with collective bargaining legislation. An "excepted body" is the term used in the Trade Union Acts to describe a body such as an in-house works committee or the like that is not a registered trade union and conducts negotiations on pay and conditions only for the staff of one employer. Since the decision of the Supreme Court in Iarnród Éireann v. Holbrooke, it has been clear that a body cannot be an excepted body within the meaning of the Trade Union Act 1941 unless it conducts consensual negotiations with an employer. If a genuine excepted body is in operation, this means that genuine collective bargaining is happening. The point of all this is to ensure that a body that is an in-house committee or similar and is merely serving as window dressing to give the pretence of collective bargaining is not allowed to avail of this legislation.

It is also important to point out that the Bill is concerned with providing a remedy where there is no collective bargaining; a fundamental reason for invoking this legislation must be the absence of collective bargaining negotiations. This prerequisite cannot be satisfied where there is a genuinely functioning excepted body. Under this legislation, if there is no consent, the Act can be invoked.

Section 24 inserts a new subsection into the principal Act to give practical effect to the principle of the independence of an excepted body. It gives guidance to the Labour Court as to the criteria that it should take into account when determining whether an excepted body is engaged in collective bargaining and is genuinely independent of the employer. Section 24 also amends the principal Act by providing that, where an employer asserts to the Labour Court that it is his, her or its practice to engage in collective bargaining with an excepted body in respect of the workers concerned, it will be for the employer to satisfy the Labour Court on this.

The Government has decided as a matter of policy that it would be preferable under this Bill for the workers involved in a dispute not to be required to make themselves known to their employers early in the process if possible so as to avoid any potential for victimisation. The new section provides that a statutory declaration made by the chief officer of the trade union concerned, setting out the number of its members who are party to the trade dispute and the period of membership in the grade, group or category to which the trade dispute refers, shall be admissible in evidence without further proof unless the contrary is shown.

The Bill represents a significant step forward for workers and employers. It provides a clear, workable and constitutionally robust framework within which workers' remuneration and conditions of employment can be discussed and determined. I know of cases where this legislation would have helped and supported workers who were horribly victimised because they were trade unionists who sought to bargain collectively in unfair workplaces. We have seen recent examples of such. As this legislation did not exist at the time, those workers were sometimes bullied into silence, made redundant under spurious circumstances or constructively dismissed.

I am proud to support this legislation, which has been an aim of the Labour Party for many years that is finally being put into effect. I am confident that this framework will fit Ireland's constitutional, social and economic traditions and international obligations, which is important, and will ensure continued success in creating jobs and attracting foreign investment into the economy. I warmly commend the Bill to the House.

I thank the many Deputies who took part in this debate. There has been a broad welcome for their contributions. The Bill builds on the Government's record of putting in place balanced measures, particularly to protect the most vulnerable in the workplace. The Government's first act was to restore the minimum wage.

We introduced legislation to cover temporary agency workers, a group of workers who were prone to abuse. We restored the joint labour committee structure after it was struck down by the courts. We are making two very important additional provisions in this legislation, the first of which deals with the issue of collective bargaining in a balanced way and the second of which restores the registered employment agreements. As many Deputies have pointed out, these agreements were struck down by the Supreme Court.

In our economic policy, we are seeking to achieve a virtuous circle in which successful enterprises can win new markets and apply innovation in a way that delivers more jobs and a higher standard of living for people. As we rebuild our economy, people have a right to share in the success of businesses. That is very important. We were exposed when registered employment agreements, which had been an important part of ordered industrial relations in the past, were struck down. There is no doubt that there was a good tradition of registered employment agreements in the area of public procurement contracts. That is an area where there is concern about unfair competition entering into the marketplace. We have had to take a great deal of time to make sure we have something that is constitutionally robust. I think we have a great deal of confidence that this has been achieved.

We have also tackled the issue of collective bargaining, which many people were very keen to see addressed in a balanced way that allows workers in circumstances in which there is no collective bargaining who are not getting fair terms and conditions to take cases ultimately to the Labour Court and thereby have their right to fair conditions vindicated. As Deputy Seán Kenny has pointed out, we have struck a balance here. There are good measures here to give workers genuine protections, including those he quoted, such as the genuine independence of the accepted bodies. We have built a protection against victimisation into this Bill. We have ensured the burden of proof will not expose workers who might be unfairly exposed. We have provided for comparability to look at pay levels in other similar areas, including collectively negotiated pay levels. On the other side, we have given the employer reasonable certainty that this mechanism will not be abused, that genuine negotiation will be recognised and that it will not be possible for this to be used by very small groups or used repetitively. We have ensured that employers will have certainty about the environment.

Deputy Deasy asked whether this could be construed as an instrument that might scare foreign direct investment. I assure him that is not the case. We have been careful to deal with both sides of this in the way we have done. We have made sure we understand the needs of foreign investors. As Deputy Neville has pointed out, they pay well. The IDA average pay is well ahead of the average industrial wage. They are good-paying companies. This legislation is designed to deal with circumstances in which employers will not bargain and will not offer rates that are comparable elsewhere. I think we have dealt with that.

I was reading the transcripts of the debates over the last two days. It is important to say that Deputy Maloney rightly put his finger on it when he said that a great deal of less-than-fair comment has been made. It has been suggested that the Government has used JobBridge to pretend it is providing employment, or to deliver employment that is not real. The CSO, which is an entirely independent body, has categorically shown that over the last two years, every single net job that has been created has been a full-time job. The number of part-time jobs has decreased. That is the truth of the matter and is there for everyone to read. We are delivering an economy with full-time employment. More than 105,000 people are back at work. That is a fantastic testimony to the ingenuity of Irish workers and businesses. They have gone further afield to win new markets and do new things. Bausch & Lomb offers a very good example of a workforce in a difficult situation that has reinvented the way it does things and won new investment. The voluntary approach to industrial relations, which has been at the core of our system, is delivering and has delivered in many workplaces, even in these very difficult times.

The collective representation of retired people was raised by a number of Deputies. I certainly recognise the concerns they expressed, because pension funds are being restructured in a way that is obviously a challenge for people. It is important to bear in mind that the industrial relations machinery we are talking about here is voluntary in nature. People enter into it on a voluntary basis. It does not hand down mandatory arbitration. That has not been the approach. Reference was made to the whole issue of how decisions are made. They are made under the trust deeds and the rules of pension funds. We have to find within that legislative area new ways of making sure people get their concerns heard. The Minister for Social Protection has made revised provisions to give people a chance to learn of proposals in advance and make submissions under the revised section 50 guidelines. There is a real consciousness of this issue. If the Pensions Authority is issuing a unilateral direction under section 50 to the trustees, provision has been made for those who represent pensioners to have an opportunity to make representations to the authority in respect of those proposals.

I should say in passing that we will introduce a provision on Report Stage in the House to ensure that a person who had an industrial relations issue before he or she retired, but who ceased to be a "worker" within the definition of the Industrial Relations Acts after he or she retired, will still be able to pursue the legitimate industrial relations concern that arose before he or she retired. We are making provision for that.

A number of Deputies raised the serious issue of bogus self-employment. It is important to say we will be introducing enforcement measures on Committee Stage that will give considerable strength in the enforcement of registered employment agreements and sectoral orders, which are very prevalent within the construction sector. NERA is responsible for enforcing all elements of employment law, as Deputies are aware, but following the striking down of registered employment agreements, all it was in a position to enforce was the minimum wage, which obviously was much less than what was provided for in those agreements. I think we will be in a stronger position on foot of the reinstatement of the agreements. The issue of bogus self-employment is handled by the scope section in the Department of Social Protection, which makes swift decisions on the insurability of employment and the appropriate applicable class. NERA regularly refers cases to that section in the Department to ensure these provisions are not being used in an improper fashion. Given that NERA's activity included more than 5,500 inspections in 2014, including some inspections of construction sites, it is clear that it is taking a very active approach.

Some Deputies suggested that the Bill should be more specific in setting out what constitutes "substantially representative" and "not insignificant", which are two terms used in the Bill. When we were drafting the Bill, we gave careful consideration to whether it would be helpful to include a specific percentage. We concluded that on balance it would be better to leave that matter to the Labour Court to determine based on guidance provided in the Bill. As the Labour Court is the expert in this area, my view is that it should be allowed the discretion to make an informed judgment on the issues on a case-by-case basis.

The question of how to ensure accepted bodies are genuine was also raised. The Bill inserts a new subsection into the principal Act to give practical effect to the principle of the independence of an accepted body. Specifically, it provides guidance to the Labour Court on the criteria it should take into account when determining whether an accepted body is engaged in collective bargaining, as defined in the Act, and is genuinely independent of the employer.

The Bill makes it clear that where collective bargaining takes place with an excepted body it must be genuine and have a track record. In this regard a high bar is set.

Deputy Halligan raised voluntary engagements in collective bargaining. That reflects that the system of industrial relations in Ireland is a voluntarist one. He also raised an issue about failure to implement a recommendation of the Labour Court. The procedure there is that one can go back to the Labour Court and get a determination which is binding on both parties and enforceable in the Circuit Court.

I thank the Deputies for their participation in this debate. This Bill has been a long time in gestation because it was absolutely essential to bring the sides together in respect of a complex Bill where there are sensitivities on both sides, and we had to ensure that we could get something that would be balanced and fair to everyone. That has taken time. I thank my officials who invested a lot of time in dealing with all of the parties involved. What has emerged is a good Bill that will protect workers for the future, will give employers certainty and will promote a harmonious industrial relations environment where people can look forward to improvements in their standard of living as the economy and enterprise improve and win new opportunities and create new employment.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share