I move:
That Seanad Éireann approves the following Order in draft:—
Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Order, 1980,
a copy of which Order in draft was laid before Seanad Éireann on 19 March 1980.
Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Order, 1980: Motion.
It will be recalled that on 29 March 1977, when the Second Stage of the Worker Participation Bill was being moved in Seanad Éireann the House was told that it was not possible at that time to determine, in advance, the sizes of the reconstituted State boards in question. The view was that it would not be appropriate at that stage to prescribe board sizes in the Bill as it could limit the discretion of the Government Ministers concerned. It was felt to be desirable and appropriate that the Ministers should have discretion in determining the size of the boards to take account of the appointments to the boards of members elected by employees. The solution adopted was to allow the new board sizes to be prescribed at a later stage by affirmative order.
For that purpose section 23 of the Act empowers the Minister for Labour, after consultation with the Minister for Finance and other appropriate Ministers, to prescribe by order—in relation to each of the State bodies designated in the Act—the number of members or directors of the reconstituted boards, including the number of employees to be appointed following an election by the work force. Where the total number is a multiple of three, elected representatives must constitute one-third; otherwise the proportion of elected representatives must be rounded upwards to the number which is next above one-third.
Under the terms of section 4 (4) of the Act, a draft of any order to be made under section 23 requires the prior approval of the Oireachtas by way of affirmative resolution of each House. The intention behind that provision was to ensure that there would be no diminution of the authority or responsibility of the Oireachtas in determining the appropriate size of the State boards concerned.
The present order, which has been laid before the House in draft is designed to comply with the requirements of section 23 of the Act in so far as two of the seven State bodies are concerned—Aer Lingus and Córas Iompair Éireann. The effect of the proposed order is that, as from the date on which it is made, the size of the boards of these bodies will be Fixed at 12 members, of which four—that is to say, one-third of the total—will be elected by the workers for appointment under the Act. This will standardise the increase in the board sizes of all designated bodies as a previous draft order was approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas in July 1978 in respect of the other Five State companies.
I have also included in the draft order provision for the similar alteration of the board of Aerlinte as required under section 28 of the Act. This section, which was incorporated into the Bill on Committee Stage in Dáil Éireann on 26 January 1977 stipulates that employees elected to the Aer Lingus Board are to be appointed to the board of Aerlinte also. This arrangement is necessary because even though Aer Lingus and Aerlinte are two separate legal entities, There is a long-standing procedural arrangement whereby the boards of the two companies meet jointly and operate as one enterprise. In effect it provides that where, under section 15, the Minister for Transport appoints a successful candidate to the board of Aer Lingus he must at the same time appoint that person to the board of Aerlinte.
Senators will be pleased to note that with the appointment of the successful candidates in Aer Lingus and CIE following the forthcoming elections, the scheme will be fully implemented in all seven designed State bodies.
I believe that the introduction of employee directors has brought some positive elements into the operations of those companies where elections have already taken place. I am continuing to have the operation of the Act and its developments monitored and have arranged, with the active co-operation of both the ICTU and FUE, to have a report from the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions in association with the Irish Productivity Centre, on the impact and effectiveness of the legislation. The information gained from this project will be particularly useful in developing future policy in this area and extending the scope of the Act to other State Bodies.
The idea and the principle of worker participation in State bodies is something that has long been discussed in this country and it was the subject of many reports and debates before it was finally implemented in 1977. It is good to see that this scheme now will be implemented in the seven designated bodies as they were introduced to us by the Minister in 1977.
Greater involvement by workers in industry is a matter which has received much discussion and deliberation in recent years, particularly due to the feeling that a certain remoteness and a drifting apart between employers and employees was something which had to be curbed. There was also the feeling that it was necessary to give a greater sense of fulfilment to employees, that they should be involved to some extent in decision making particularly in very large companies. In welcoming this order which will result in the scheme as originally outlined being implemented in the seven designated State bodies, I would have liked the Minister to have given some indication of the results to date of the experiences of the other five designated State bodies which have had the experience of this worker participation. I note that a report is to be formulated on the impact and effectiveness of this legislation. I hope that this will be forthcoming at a very early date. I am interested to know if work on this report has already commenced, if discussions on it by the various bodies represented in the compilation of that report have commenced.
It has been felt in very many quarters that worker participation is something which should be extended outside the public sphere into very many of our large private industries. I believe that we should first of all see what the experience is in regard to these State bodies before any further extension of the idea is sought. Worker involvement at decision-making level, on the shop floor level and particularly on the board of directors is something which has become a fact of life in very many other countries. We are in the infancy stage of the matter and we should find out as much as possible from the limited experience since 1977 of its operation and see whether the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. I know that it is a very difficult matter to break down that remote difference or gulf which may exist between employers and employees. It may be psychological or it may well be as a result of the structures in very many other large State bodies. But broken down it will have to be because it is necessary that there should be a greater feeling of worker involvement and participation at all stages of the operations of very large bodies.
In welcoming this order I look forward to the Minister informing us as to whether the report has already been commenced by the bodies concerned. Perhaps he might give some indication as regards the effectiveness of the particpation which has been experienced to date.
I welcome this order which standardises the number at 12 of the members of all the seven designated bodies of which one-third will be worker-directors. Secondly, it makes provision for the next step, to apply the Worker Participation Act to Aer Lingus and CIE.
The Worker Participation Act represents a positive step by the Government in promoting participation by workers in decision-making. It is a relatively modest but nonetheless important start in this field which should act as a stimulus to the social partners to engage in more extensive participative structures which need to be developed below board level.
I wish to make a few remarks on the role of worker-directors. While certain conflicts may arise because worker-directors are concerned primarily about their fellow-workers, it can be validly said that this situation is virtually the same as a member of a board who represents a particular group of shareholders. It seems to be both sensible and legitimate that worker-directors should represent worker interests on boards in addition to the range of other functions expected of all directors. The company of today is made up of several interdependent interest groups. The role of a board as a representational body deals to some degree with the conflicting interests of employees, shareholders, customers and the community at large. The idea of operating in the company's overall interest, of course, must prevail and all directors should act under that assumption.
Worker directors, because of their considerable knowledge and practical experience of their organisation have much to contribute to policy making which is a primary function of a board. However, it must be said that major decisions affecting worker conditions are made by management. While collective bargaining goes a long way towards joint decision-making on pay and conditions, there still remains a compelling need for managements to provide more information to their employees about their organisations. Therefore, I suggest that it behoves management to take worker representatives, including worker directors, into their confidence on the sharing of relevant information. In Germany they have many years experience of workers on boards and, I understand, that the worker directors already elected to our five State-sponsored bodies visited Germany last year where the vital importance of reporting back to their fellow workers was stressed.
An agreed structure for communication between the worker directors and the electorate is clearly a top priority deserving of constant attention. The Taoiseach and the Minister for Labour in particular have repeatedly made it known that they regard better industrial relations as a top national priority. The Minister is to be commended for arranging with the European Foundation for Living and Working Conditions a monitoring exercise associated with the Irish Productivity Centre to assess the impact and effectiveness of this legislation. Particapative measures have the potential to reduce conflict and to promote co-operation in industry.
I wish to conclude by expressing the hope that in the longer-term the adoption of more participative structures will lead to improved industrial relations and more commitment by workers to their jobs with consequential improvements in productivity.
In his statement introducing the motion on this draft order, the Minister referred to the debate which took place in the Seanad on the Bill which then became Worker Participation (State Enterprise) Act, 1977. That Bill was passed through both Houses in March 1977, three years ago. I had hoped that the Minister might have some explanation to offer this House of why it has taken three full years for a draft order to come before this House for approval setting out the size of the boards and the number of worker directors who will be elected to them. I think an explanation is warranted. I am quite prepared to accept that there may have been a number of difficulties both on the management and on the worker side but we should know what is the Minister's attitude. I would say, frankly, that if the Minister had been Deputy Michael O'Leary there would have been definite pressure to see that the necessary agreement was reached between both sides of industry and to have the order brought before us at least when a previous order in relation to the other five State-sponsored bodies was brought in July 1978.
When this Bill was being debated in the Seanad, it is interesting to note that the then leader of the Fianna Fáil group, who is now the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Brian Lenihan, was critical of the Bill as only being a tentative step. I quote from that debate, in Volume 86, column 479 of the Seanad Official Report where the then Senator Lenihan said:
I go along fully with the thinking involved in worker participation. I would suggest only, and I appreciate that this is a start so far as Ireland is concerned, that this not be regarded as the conclusion in the matter, that this is really a very tentative, initial type of Bill, and that much more needs to be done in this area.
He went on then to emphasise the need for further development in worker participation, extension to the private sector, development of works councils and so on. If that were to be a widely shared view, surely more effort would have been made to implement the Act once it had been passed and to get agreement across the board in order that this draft order could have come before us not later than July 1978 when the order was made in relation to the other five enterprises. I say this because it appears to me from the Minister's brief speech that there is now going to be a further learning experience before any other steps may be taken in the area of worker participation.
The Minister referred to the fact that the operation of the Act and its developments are being monitored. He said he has arranged for a report from the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions and, like Senator Hillery, I welcome this. It is very appropriate and useful that that body should monitor it. The Minister says that this report will look at the impact and effectiveness of the legislation, that the information gained from this project will be particularly useful in developing future policy in this area and extending the scope of the Act to other State bodies. We have no experiences as yet of two of the seven State enterprises because they have not had a structure so that the worker-directors could be elected to the board. They are only at the beginning of that process now.
Apart from seeking more information from the Minister as to why it took three years to bring in this draft order, perhaps he might also tell us when he anticipates receiving the report of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Will it now have to wait until these two enterprises, Aer Lingus and CIE, have held elections of the worker-directors to the boards and nominated the other members of the boards? Will it have to wait until there is then a further year of experience of that, or can we expect that the report of the foundation will be available before that? When the report of the foundation is submitted to the Government, is it the intention to publish and make available to Members of the Oireachtas copies of that report?
It also would be appropriate to seek from the Minister some broader statement of his own attitude towards worker participation, not only towards a further extension of it in the public sector to further State enterprises, but also to know if it is his intention to introduce legislation seeking to create worker participation in the private sector. In this context it is extremely important to reflect on the kind of country we are, to reflect on the youth of our workers, and to realise that we need not only greater progress in industrial relations but also the kind of structures which will give to a younger and better educated and perhaps more demanding work force the opportunity to contribute much more actively to the development of the company structures and the enterprises to which they contribute through their labour. This is not something that can be put on the shelf for a number of years until there is a report from the European Foundation. It ought to be an active part of Government policy to monitor the experiences of this Act. Even when it was being debated in the Oireachtas, it was realised that it was only a tentative and limited first step.
It is disappointing that three years later we are still only considering an order for the board structures for two of those State enterprises. This has been very slow progress indeed and I hope it has been more because of unforeseen and particularly difficult circumstances in getting agreement on the boards and that it does not show a lack of political will by the Government to press ahead both in the State sector and the private sector with worker participation. In view of very long time lag I am disappointed that the Minister has not chosen in his opening statement to explain the circumstances. I hope that he will do so in his reply.
No one would quarrel with the basic principle underlying this legislation, the right of workers to participate in decision-making. But the question is, is this the right way to do it? Worker participation on the board is ineffective if the worker is not already represented at all levels in the structure of the enterprise. If he is not participating at all levels, then putting him on the board is merely putting him out on a limb in isolation.
The fact that the trade union members elect the candidates to the boards will not automatically ensure effective worker participation. It will not have this effect unless we can create conditions which will ensure the best possible leadership at all levels of the trade union structure and also ensure that these leaders will have available to them expert technological assistance and economic, statistical, legal and other data to enable them to discharge their functions in a way that will ensure the greatest benefits, first of all to their members, then to the enterprise or service in which they are employed and, finally and consequentially, to the society in which they function. However, the development of effective worker participation on corporate boards is encouraging, as is the trend towards detailed discussions on social, economic and fiscal policies at the highest level between trade union leaders and members of the Government. This will increasingly give to the trade union the power they should wield effectively in our society.
Finally, it is necessary to monitor and examine the effect of worker participation on the boards of semi-State bodies, in particular to see if it has had any effect on industrial relations within those companies. Effective worker participation on the board and at all levels should lead to an improvement in industrial relations. It should also lead to a basic reappraisal of the role and function of semi-State bodies in our society.
I welcome this draft order which in effect merely completes the Government's role for the present in the Worker Participation Act. The election of worker-directors will add a new dimension to the work and activities of these boards. It should result in a far greater understanding and co-operation between all interests which would be, of course, to the benefit not only of workers and management but the public at large.
As the order relates only to the numerical strength of worker-directors, I take it it is not in order at this stage to refer to other provisions of the Principal Act but perhaps I can ask the Minister when he intends to consider the extension of the Worker Participation Act to all State companies. The extension of the Act to all State companies and semi-State companies would be good for the community at large and for management-labour relations. In particular, the extension of the Act to the RTE Authority will produce more than normal results. I do not want to go into this in detail but the impartiality of RTE has been questioned in political quarters from time to time.
That does not arise on this motion.
I merely want to say that as a former member of the Authority, I never experienced any partiality or any question of the Government of the day attempting to dictate to RTE. However, perhaps I am out of order in discussing this. I would like to hear from the Minister if he intends at an early date to extend the operation of the Act to other State interests.
During the course of his speech the Minister made reference to the role of the Irish Productivity Centre and perhaps I am in order in asking for a little information about this aspect of the matter. The national understanding provided that certain additional moneys would be forthcoming to the Irish Productivity Centre in order to enable them to develop their work and expand their activities in this direction. It may well be that there is some misunderstanding about the actual terms of the national understanding in this respect but no additional funds have been forthcoming. I am not asking the Minister to reply to this at the moment because I understand that the centre will be taking it up with him by way of correspondence and otherwise. I am simply giving notice that the matter is under examination and I would welcome any observations he has to make at a later date if he is unable to reply positively at this stage.
Naturally this measure must be welcomed. Unlike my colleague, I would not quibble too much about the time factor because there has not been any great pressure from the trade union movement to have it extended very rapidly. Possibly they wanted to see whether a pattern would develop. To some extent I think that some of the delay is understandable.
Whether we like it or not, the existing attitude of management and labour towards each other is still very much one of mistrust in many cases. Therefore, we must encourage any measure that will go towards changing this attitude to one of trust. Certainly it will not remove the antagonism, the coercion and the resistance that exists on both sides, but it will go a long way towards it. Mutual confidence, real justice and constructive goodwill can emerge eventually but not just by worker participation at board level alone. The order will lead to progress, and indeed progress has been made already. We can look forward to some progress towards changing the militancy of both sides, of the bosses and the workers, because the militancy is there on both sides. Hopefully this will turn to co-operation.
It is a very good beginning but it is a small step when one thinks of the major tasks ahead with regard to worker participation. We will never get near to solving or dealing with the problems of industrial relations merely by putting a few people on the board of a company because the board is still remote from the shop floor. The other structures, as Senator Cassidy pointed out, have to be taken care of as well. Many changes in organisation and so on will have to be considered. If we want to give industrial relations a real chance of developing, and to develop an in-dwelling spirit everywhere about this matter, it will take a lot more than just a few people from the shop floor participating at board level. Welcome though the move is, I must make that point very strongly. I say that because to infuse a new spirit into industry or producers of any kind, all levels will have to participate at shop floor level in an informative, consultative and decision-making way. There is nothing extraordinary about having somebody at board level if there is not somebody in the decision-making process at management level or if there is not some effective role at middle management level.
We hear a lot of people sounding off about industrial relations. This is a many sided thing. It is not as simple a subject as people seem to imagine. The problems did not grow up easily and they will not go away easily by putting somebody on a board. If we are to get an intelligent understanding of industrial relations there are a great number of factors to be considered. They are of great magnitude, and a lot of forces have to be taken into account.
We have the Government involved, we have education, opinion, discovery and invention, all of which affect industrial relations. Placing one or two workers on the boards of State companies will not, even though it is a significant development, bring about the desired effects in industrial relations. However, it is a significant step in recognising that the work force must be involved in the decision-making process. I hope that the extra appointments now will, in fact, develop a pattern that has been shown by the participation in the ESB and so forth, where they have already been appointed for the past few years.
I want to say something on a point that Senator Hillery raised. There may be some confusion about it. He made the point about the workers on the board taking up workers' interests as well as board interests. If you are on the board you are on the board and you are dealing with the board's interests and it is a joint function. I know that is what the Senator meant, but the fact is that it could be misinterpreted. The reason I say there is a danger of it being misinterpreted is that somebody may say that the only people who have the right to negotiate with the companies are the trade unions and not the people on the board from the trade unions. It is a small point but nevertheless it can be taken out of context. I welcome the Bill. It is a step in the right direction. We have a long, hard road ahead of us but the sooner we get started on it the better.
I also welcome this order providing for worker participation on the boards of two State companies. I imagine it will be three because Aerlínte are involved with Aer Lingus as well. I believe that it is a positive step in the right direction and time will show that benefits will flow from this arrangement. I accept that it is useful and satisfactory that we have the number standardised at 12 on the boards concerned and that there is a guarantee of one-third of the directors being drawn from the workers through an election machinery.
I believe there will be very many good advantages from having worker participation on the boards of the companies concerned. The involvement the work force will feel, through having direct representations on the boards, must be beneficial. There will be a better understanding of the problems that face certain companies and the resolution of these problems will be shared by a greater body of people. I hope that it will lead to a smoother arrangement all around and, certainly, a better relationship between all the elements that compose the companies that are involved.
I hope also that it will lead to a more open attitude by the management of the State bodies concerned, because some of the problems that we have seen arise on various occasions in the past have partly been caused by the failure of management to be more open in relation to situations and problems that affect their companies. For that reason, I hope that the mistrust and the antagonism that from time to time have arisen will be replaced by a measure of goodwill and that this arrangement will assist in creating that atmosphere of goodwill.
I hope that this move will be successful and I also sincerely hope that once its success is shown that it will be extended to other companies and to other bodies in the private sector. I feel that in time, through the workers' participation in the management and directorships of these companies—I am not referring solely to the companies we are speaking of here, but companies in the private sector as well—a better understanding will develop and, in fact, that there will be a better development of the opportunities, activities and possibilities that exist for the companies concerned.
I would like to end by expressing one particular hope. One of the bodies to which this order applies is Aer Lingus. I hope that the arrival of worker-directors on the board of Aer Lingus will in one particular area bring about a more positive attitude to the future role and the development of Shannon Airport as being the only designated trans-Atlantic airport in this State.
I would like, briefly, to welcome this order and to welcome the fact that when this motion has been passed we will have seven of our semi-State companies with some members of the boards elected by the workers. We need a far greater degree of co-operation between management and workers in the public area. In this case I hope I am not wrong in saying that already there appears to be a modicum of improvement. I wish we could have some such helpful formula in the case of Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council so that perhaps one could look forward to a better atmosphere between management and workers in that area also. I commend the Minister on the introduction of this order and wish the efforts of the different boards well in bringing about a greater degree of co-operation between the managers and the workers of these companies.
We are all agreed on the principle of worker participation. This was clear in the debate in 1977 in which the original Bill was introduced by the Minister's predecessor in the Coalition Government. There are, however, doubts about the actual mechanics of the way in which the principle is put into effect and some of those doubts were expressed in the debate on the Bill. Alternative methods of putting workers on boards of companies, particularly in the situation of our State-sponsored bodies, were discussed in that debate and it is disappointing to me that the Minister in introducing this order makes just the bland statement:
I believe that the introduction of employee directors has brought some positive element into the operation of those companies where elections have already taken place.
That could be interpreted to mean anything you wanted it to mean, it is so bland. It is not right that something more concrete has not been said. We ought to have had some idea of the embryo scheme that has been in operation and I think the Minister is at fault in not giving us even some indication of what has happened so far and the possibility that problems have emerged. Obviously there are very good reasons for Ministers to play things close to their chests but it is the function of the Opposition and particularly of the Independents, who play such an important role in the Seanad, to try to elucidate some of this information; to try to get behind the Minister and have a look at the poker hand he has and see what problems there are and see what difficulties may have arisen; to see how the scheme in its operation up to now has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the hopes we expressed when the Worker Participation Bill was before this House in March 1977. I would join with Senator Robinson in saying that I do not think the Minister has given an adequate presentation of the scheme so far, even though it is an embryo scheme. I do not say this in a critical way because there are problems when one introduces worker participation. There may be people who would argue against the principle but nobody did in 1977 in this House and nobody has done so today. So let us accept the principle and think about some of the problems.
I am pleased to note that Senators Harte and Kennedy have welcomed the order because they are people on the ground. As trade union officials they know the difficulties. If I were a worker in some semi-State body and one of my colleagues on the floor was elected to the board, we would both be represented by a union, preferably a union which submitted to the ICTU. We would have a representation which was putting forward our claims and our feelings about working conditions, wages, and so on. However, I would be somewhat suspicious of the gentleman who had been working side by side with me and who suddenly was made a board member. How would he be working in my interest in the overall picture? This sort of feeling is bound to emerge. What are the consequences? It is a matter that has to be handled with some care.
I am sorry that the Minister has not referred to any of the problems that have arisen and I have no doubt they have arisen. The sort of idea that Ministers like to give us—I am not referring to the Minister present—Ministers from all quarters, from every party holding any portfolio, is that the legislation which has emanated from their Department is perfect and without flaws. I think that there may well be flaws in this method of putting workers on State bodies and it might be no harm to wash a little of the dirty linen every now and then. I am trying to be constructive in my comments, not destructive. I am certainly not saying the idea is wrong but most certainly there have been problems and it is a pity we do not know more about them.
In the debate on the Second Stage of this Bill I put forward the view that the method of dealing with this problem was not the right one and that there should have been a two-tier structure rather than a single-tier board. This is the philosophy behind the fifth EEC Directive on the Harmonisation of Company Law, as the Minister will know, and there it is very clearly spelt out. Companies which are referred to in that EEC directive have two organs, the management body and the supervisory body, an executive or management board responsible for managing the company's affairs and representing the company in negotiating contracts, and a supervisory board responsible for supervising and controlling the management board. I said at that time that there was a lot to be said for this arrangement. I thought it was a better set-up than the one we have adopted.
It would seem to be that there is a problem separating the executive and advisory functions and perhaps the Minister in his reply would refer to the separation of executive and advisory functions in our semi-State bodies. The definition of the function which board members have to undertake needs to be absolutely clear if it is going to dispel the sort of suspicion which the other members of the work force might have about their colleagues who have been elected to the board. These functions need to be very carefully defined and delineated.
The EEC Commission is keen to extend this whole principle to a much wider class of industry and I believe that in many of our European partners private companies have worker participation in their management structure as a matter of course. Does the Minister foresee, in the future, an extension of our legislation to cover private companies? Here I would disagree with Senator Robinson that there may well be a good argument for doing this rather slowly. The Minister has given us a bland statement, and it would be a good idea to find out if the system is really working.
This order relates only to semi-State bodies and we cannot go beyond that.
I am talking about special State bodies. I want to know if worker participation in these State bodies has been successful so far or if it has made a difference.
The Chair appreciates that but the Senator has already been referring to private companies.
That was only in passing. I do not want to talk about them. It is a delicate area and I am sure the Minister does not want to talk about them either.
The Senator would be surprised.
There is a very clear distinction between the semi-State and the private companies. Our semi-State bodies which we are discussing in this order play a very distinctive and special role. They have been absolutely fundamental in the development of the State. They come in for what I believe to be unfounded criticism on many occasions. One of the hopes we expressed when this Bill was being discussed at the Second Stage was that this sort of move would help to dispel that criticism and that worker participation was important because it helped to improve the company's image among the work force, to, perhaps, give people on the shop floor a wider understanding of how the company operated.
Perhaps, this problem is one that could be looked at by the Joint Committee on semi-State Bodies, which have been doing excellent work and producing some very useful reports. The Leader of the House is the chairman. The committee have obviously helped Members of this House to realise the problems which semi-State bodies face. The problems which are raised by worker participation and, indeed, the benefits which will flow from extending the scheme might well be looked at by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on semi-State Bodies.
I want to thank those Senators who contributed to the debate. With the exception of two, they were reasonably to the point and generally welcomed the making of the order. Some questions were posed to me which I will try to answer. Before doing so, perhaps I could start with what Senator West had to say. I would like to say to him that the blandness appears to be his. Obviously he is not over familiar with the situation as it exists. The order that was made was in respect of the five companies where worker participation is now active. The longest would be about 15 months and it is less than that in most cases. Despite his lack of experience of the industrial scene, the Senator will know that at this stage, after one year or so, it would be very difficult to give a positive studied opinion to this House or indeed to any House.
I asked for some comments.
It shows either the Senator's lack of experience of the situation within companies of that nature or perhaps his lack of experience of the work place. Certainly the experience of one year, particularly the first year, will hardly be a positive indicator and study is very important.
I would like to make a few points on that. In addition to the monitoring, which I believe is very important, being carried out by the Irish Productivity Centre on behalf of the foundation, my Department too, naturally like to make their own enquiries and keep in touch with the situation.
It has been suggested to us already that there should be improved communications upwards and downwards. I welcome that in any industry. It was Senator Harte who referred to industrial relations being a difficult area, subject to many forces, and any help in that direction is worthwhile and useful. I agree entirely with what he said.
There appears to be improved communications. Obviously, the employee directors know a lot about the companies and I believe it improves decision-making when persons are involved who are on the shop floor and know, perhaps better than anybody else, where the problems are, where improvements can be effected. This is some of the playback we are having. I believe participation on the boards—this is the information coming through to us—gives workers the knowledge that their interests also are being looked after by the boards.
Senator Harte and Senator Hillery made the point that, of course, a board work in the interests of the company which is in the interests of all aspects of the company, including, of course, the workers concerned, the most important resource of the company. We have some evidence also that this has acted as a stimulus to the development of interunion co-operation. Sometimes in craft areas we have some difficulties. All these are positive indicators we have had. It would be unreal of me at this stage to say to this House that this is a positive result after such a short time.
Senator Robinson was critical, as she normally is when I am in this House. I should first say to her that obviously she has not studied the situation very clearly. Surely she realises it would have been so much easier for me to bring in an order covering all the seven State boards if I could have done that when I brought in the five in 1978? It was impossible. Obviously the delay was not mine. We did, of course, at my level and at the Department level prompt and keep prompting for results in that area. In fact, close liaison has been maintained with both companies since 1977 in order to assist the prospects for arranging the elections. In 1978, when an order was made fixing the other five companies that I referred to, I decided that consultations in Aer Lingus and CIE had not reached the stage where decisions could be taken on the appropriate size. It is now opportune and obviously is desirable that elections should be held because, I should explain to the House, in the case of Aer Lingus, a worker participation study group, which had been formed by the trade unions, had lapsed in the period since 1978 as a result of industrial unrest. The study group have been reconvened for some months and are preparing proposals on participation structures appropriate to below board levels. I agree with those Senators who referred to the importance of that area also. I believe that the establishment of the board level representation itself tends to encourage structures at other levels. I agree with those Senators who say that they are, of course, important too.
Senator Harte made the point about participation or consultative bodies below board level. I believe in some of these companies there is a tendency. This is something I welcome. I agree with Senator Hillery. In some of these companies there is such a tendency which I welcome.
I agree with Senator Hillery that more information needs to be given to workers. This is very important and we have indications that there is an improvement in the flow of information and communication. I will arrange for discussions with the social partners in the near future about the possibility of a draft code of practice on information disclosure. That whole area is important to the work force today. They should have access to information in their own interests and in the company's interest as this gives them a greater appreciation of difficulties.
I and the Department are keeping in touch with the companies, apart from the work of the European foundation. I can go ahead at any stage with an extension of the Act. I would point out to Senator West that the seven boards were in the original Bill and that this is merely making an order establishing the number of directors now on those two bodies. I could not realistically go ahead with an extension at this point and I do not intend to, when workers have, on average, been on the boards for less than 12 months. Preliminary studies have already been carried out in the companies where they are operational and we will get interim reports later on this year. The first year of a new operation would not give, in a study, the complete answers as to whether it is the right way, how successful it has been or if there is room for change. I cannot go ahead with an extension to the Act because the arrangements within the companies had not been completed.
Senator Cassidy raised a point about training for the employee-directors. I am pleased that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions have developed a close liaison with the directors so as to provide backup facilities for them. This is very desirable. I hope at the invitation of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to be able to meet some of these worker-directors at a seminar in the not too distant future.
Senator West said that I did not want to talk about private companies. I am sure many Members of the House know that the discussion document on worker participation generally is almost ready. It has been a Government commitment for some time; it was part of the national understanding and I am pleased to inform the Senators now that I will lay that document on worker participation in the private sector before both Houses tomorrow. When Senator West reads it, I will welcome any comments on it. Obviously both sides of industry will take a particular interest in it but that does not mean that the community as a whole should not study it, discuss it, and make submissions on it. We would welcome them in the Department of Labour.
I thank the Senators who contributed. There seemed to be a positive combined approach across the House about the advantages of worker participation and I welcome that.
Senator Robinson asked about my commitment. My commitment does not have to be questioned. If this order has been somewhat longer in coming than the others, it was not my fault. The fact that a discussion document is coming out tomorrow further indicates the position. This area needs very careful study, discussion on what is the best way forward and what sort of structure would suit us best. That is all for the future and I thank Senators for the quick and speedy passage of the order through the House.
Question put and agreed to.