I think the record will show that Senator Hillery gave the impression that in some way trade unions might be opposed to high productivity. I think that will be quite clear in the nuances of what he said. However, we will read the record and discuss it at a later date. For the record, we are in favour of effective, tight participation and the highest levels of efficiency and productivity.
It always worries me when I hear people talking about the problem of the trade union structure being too close to the structure of the company and that management should always retain the right to communicate directly with workers. Those are words which we heard, I suppose, in the first place from Mr. Edwards and the coal board and from various other people over the last number of years. It did not get anybody on any side anywhere. Workers will choose like any other group the democratic structures which they want to be part of. This particular Bill makes that very clear in its reference on a number of occasions to 15 per cent of the work force.
In fact, if anything, this Bill is weighted against people who would wish not to participate in trade unions. I am saying, for the record, that they have allowed within this Bill workers to group outside trade unions and that where 15 per cent of them can get together they can nominate people for the elections. I think there is enough of protection, if that is what Professor Hillery is referring to, or what the State want in this particular case. I would, of course, differ entirely from that. I would say that the best possible voice for the workers is their trade union, that this is the democratic structure that they choose and this is the structure by which they will indeed be represented. I suppose any democratic structure is dependent on its efficiency in representing the common good while at the same time making sure that no offence is given and that in no way are the rights of the individuals or the minorities offended. That is really the strength of the democratic structure and whether it be a national structure or trade union structure the same thing applies.
It is imperative that the trade unions be involved in this. I think the Minister would agree with me that the preparatory work done voluntarily in this area by the trade unions indicates their commitment. Certainly the example referred to of Aer Lingus is not the only one; this commitment has been shown all the way through.
At this stage I would like to refer to the fantastic programme of education and training and experience being provided by the training section of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions for worker directors. Anybody participating in the boards of any of the State or semi-State industries would agree that this has been productive and positive and, certainly, in all our interests.
I will be coming back to various areas like the part-time workers and the 18 hours which I have great difficulty with. I would say in passing with regard to the idea referred to by the previous speaker about the dual work force with the core of permanent workers and the outer area of part-time people, I would have a slightly different view on that. What we need is to have a flexible work force so that people will work in different areas and when technology catches up with their own area, they can move on to another area. It is wrong to suggest that instead of having full-time workers we would have part-time workers, because part-time means insecurity of tenure; it means insecurity with all the tension and the stress that go with that. It is totally alien to the history of this country where we have fought for so long for security of tenure and security of employment et cetera. I would disagree very much with Senator Hillery in that matter.
The principal legislation as referred to by the Minister was the 1977 Worker Participation Act. That was the Act which initially envisaged worker directors in semi-State companies. That idea was developed over the years and extended.
One of the difficulties which I will be referrring to and which the Minister has touched on in his speech has been the fact that in the intervening period, since 1977 and before this new proposed legislation of 1988, there was also the Posts and Telecommunications Act, 1983. That Act dealt with the setting up of worker directors in those two companies, An Post and An Bord Telecom. That has certainly raised a number of difficulties for us.
One difficulty raised with me by the General Secretary of PTWU, David Begg, was the fact that under the Second Schedule of this Bill the Minister may add to or remove from the list of enterprises in Part III of the schedule. It seems to include Telecom and An Post as ones that may be added to the present legislation. I would like to have clarified whether or not that is proper in the context of the 1983 legislation, or whether some amending legislation needs to be introduced at that point.
The 1983 Communication and Services Act which of course is nearly identical to the 1977 Act with minor changes in the area of election — I will refer to them again — needs to be addressed. One of the difficulties with the legislation is that I believe it is incompatible with the 1983 Act. Perhaps the Minister could explain this to us. The Minister made reference to extending the period of office of the worker directors from three to four years. Does this apply to the people in An Post and in Telecom who are covered under the 1983 legislation? Does it mean the Minister would be prepared to look reasonably at the question of amending that legislation as part of this legislation? I will be putting that forward. I do not think there is any argument against having a uniform system through all the semi-State bodies in that it creates problems if one is going to be treated differently from all the others. I think it is something that slipped through the net as we were going along and just needs tidying up. I look forward to hearing the Minister's views on that. No adequate reasons have been put forward for maintaing the difference.
In that whole area one of the other difficulties that have arisen between the two pieces of legislation is that a number of anomalies will exist. The first one is the different periods of office but there is also the area of running the elections. The returning officer has clear duties outlined in the new legislation, and rightly so. They should also be extended to or included in the 1983 Act. In other words, I think we should go for uniformity, even if only in the sense of the interpretation of the law because I can see some judge down the road in nine or ten years time comparing both pieces of legislation and trying to play one off against the other, or to interpret one by virtue of the experience of the other. I want that problem to be addressed.
I am referring to the date of nomination day, the amount of time people have to return completed ballot papers, that type of detail; it is really tidying up, housekeeping, but it should be done. I agree that the enfranchising of subsidaries is important. Again I would raise the question: will this also apply to An Post and An Bord Telecom because it would appear at the moment it does not? They are some of the areas with which have a difficulty and they are creating a difficulty for the worker directors in those companies. I ask the Minister to consider that and to respond to it at the end of Second Stage and then we will consider whether or not amendments are necessary on Committee Stage.
Section 6 of the Bill deals with the provisions for and the terms of reference and the setting up of sub-board structures. There is one part of that which gives me some difficulty. I am not saying I can propose an amendment to make it any tighter, but it is the use of the phrase "in good time", in other words that information shall be given to workers in good time. I would like to have on record exactly what that means. I am not saying it is bad as it is written. I cannot think of a better form of words. The view and thinking behind it are right. We believe workers should have the information and have it in "good time", but what does that mean? I raise it with the best will in the world.
Going back to one of the points made by previous speakers, information is important but it is also important that information should find its own level among the workforce as they begin to assimilate it and begin to adjust and make judgments on it. Sudden judgments and surprises are not helpful in this area. I have some difficulty with that at the moment. It seems a bit vague and weak, and perhaps we could tighten it up in some way or make it easier to define.
Section 9 to me is the core of this legislation. It provides for the setting up of the sub-board structures. It deals with the participation of workers from subsidiaries of the main company in the election of worker directors. This is essential. Plants and workplaces differ widely within a company geographically. It is very important to have an input at various levels. I take on board the point that it must be a very serious input and a serious level of decision making. It is not just whether the canteen needs a coat of paint or the supply of toilet rolls is adequate etc. Serious discussion is needed. That can happen and will prove effective only when management accept, understand and are educated into an understanding that not all wisdom is invested purely in those who happen to be in management. Therefore, we have a clear duty in this area to provide education structures for people in management, not just for the workers, not just for the worker directors. Let us not for a minute consider that the only directors who need help and support in this field are the people who have just been elected as worker directors. Many who have been there for years could do with a lot of help and this might be the time to give it to them.
The Minister dealt very subtly with the problems of enfranchising the subsidiaries. I read it once and I am not quite clear on what he said. I suspect the Minister put it in a way that is not easy to interpret immediately, so I ask him to explain what precisely he means in terms of communicating with the Minister about any decision to give a franchise to the subsidiaries of a company. He will have to explain to us how that works. I suspect he believes correctly that there should be consultation on the issue. It must mean, I presume, some form of amendment to the legislation. Perhaps the Minister would indicate what that will mean.
Basically the problem is that in many cases the subsidiaries could over-run the main companies in terms of the number of employees. I am not saying that is a bad thing, but it could create problems. It could create a particular problem in a case where some of the subsidiaries are located outside the State. I would like the Minister to address that point and explain to me whether that creates any difficulty in this legislation. Are we talking about giving a vote to somebody perhaps who is working in Hong Kong in a subsidiary of an Irish semi-State company? I am not saying we have moved out to those far flung, distant shores yet, but one never knows. Many of our semi-State companies have subsidiaries.
Aer Lingus have a chain of hotels in the United States and we are now talking about electing a worker director to serve on the board of Aer Lingus who at the moment is working in a hotel in San Francisco. It seems to create some sort of logistical difficulties. I would like to know how it will work logistically and how he envisages it working. Are there any implications in the fact that we are talking about non-nationals as in this case? I do not think it does, but I would like to have it spelled out.
The system of the election of workers is the system of primaries in which people have to get a nomination before they get on the ballot paper. It is one which I am very well aware of because we use it in our own union all the time. Whereas some people consider it to be very cumbersome, I believe it is a very straight and honest way of setting up a ballot paper. The system of election is important. It will have to be cleared and explained to workforces in work places how that is going to work. That will take a fair amount of information and literature.
Does section 9 create difficulties for the 1983 legislation? Does it, in fact, allow the enfranchising of the workers in subsidiaries of An Post and Bord Telecom? I keep going back to these, not to harp on the issue but to point out that we must address this point, particularly when I am looking at what is happening with the similar services in Britain. Whether it is already done or not they certainly have it organised in such a way that the parcel service is separate from the postal service and they are producing counterservices under different headings. That would mean that they could well organise those as almost subsidiary companies. I can see something similar happening here and it is important if these people should, in fact, be included.
Mention has been made already of section 12 which deals with the disqualification of a worker director on resignation. I think the Minister was a bit flippant in dealing with this in his speech. He stated that it is reasonable to expect that worker directors should relinquish board membership when they leave the company. I agree with that. In general, the trade unions would agree with that as well. It is also reasonable to expect that they would give up board membership when they retire or resign from the enterprise. I would certainly go along with that. That is the whole spirit of the legislation. It was always meant to be people working who would represent people who were working.
The difficulty here is that it could happen that a board could conspire to sack a worker and, in sacking a worker who happened to be a worker director, they would in effect be sacking a director. That sounds like a very devious operation but, at that level, devious things can happen very easily. If the board are not happy with, let us say, one of the directors and they feel the only way to sort out the difficulty is to get rid of him or her for some period, they could, in fact, dismiss that person or arrange to have that person dismissed for whatever reason or on some pretext. The difficulty about doing that is that there is no redress; there is no remedy for that worker director because, as the Minister will be aware, the Unfair Dismissals Act can only be initiated when the person has been dismissed.
Therefore, a person who is dismissed from the company is immediately off the board and no matter what then takes place in terms of remedy, that person is off the board for a period of time. It also raises the question of whether during the period when that person is seeking a remedy through the unfair dismissals legislation a new director would have to be elected. A new director could be elected: the original director could win the case under the unfair dismissals legislation; and there would be no remedy because the second person would be duly and properly elected. I have a real difficulty there. I see a way around it. I think that what we could do in that case is to provide that there should be a period when the person might be dismissed from the employment but, if an appeal is going on, he would continue as director for the period of the appeal, or for the period of taking it through the appropriate legislation. I raise that particular point because it is a situation that could be abused. Therefore, if it could be abused — I am not saying that we should always legislate for the exceptional but this is a glaring case and I would be worried about it — we should legislate to prevent that. It is something that has been raised by many people. The ICTU have raised it and the worker directors themselves have raised it in various forms. I think we should address it.
The wording in the Bill is that the vacant position will be deemed to have occurred on the day following the day on which the person ceases to be an employee of the body. Let me say again that it is not that I am opposed to it, it is just that, in the case of a dismissal of a worker, in that narrow area of the dismissal of a worker who happened to be a worker director, it could get us into the difficulties I have talked about. Certainly what I am proposing is that that person should continue to be a director pending the hearing of the case, if a case were to be taken under the Unfair Dismissals Act, and if a case was not taken we should have a time period during which a person would have to lodge the appeal. That is in the legislation anyway but, perhaps, even a shorter period in this case to initiate the legislation could be allowed.
Section 20 of the Bill causes some difficulty. It is the area which deals with the conflict of interests of worker directors. I read this and I re-read it and I have gone through it again. There is something very patronising about this section which seems to say: "You can be a director of a company. We feel you have something to offer but we feel in particular areas there is going to be a conflict of interest". I really appeal to the Minister to respond to me and say what are the actual examples he can cite of conflict of interests. I cannot think of any conflict of interests except the one to which I referred at the beginning where the board might feel they wanted to lay off workers in order to increase their profit and the worker directors would feel they would prefer to continue people in employment with a reduced profit.
I am making the case purely from the point of view of the board. I have said what the workers want and I have said what the other directors might want. Is it not in the national interest that we should keep people in employment? It is not also in the national interest that our industries should be profitable? Therefore, is it either of these that we want? We want a middle line there. We will only get that middle line if all the arguments are brought into the discussion within the board structure. I do not see that as a conflict of interest that would be envisaged here. If the Minister can give me an example of where there would be a clear conflict of interest I will accept that, but I cannot think of anything.
A director might be on the board of a semi-State and be a director of company C which is offering supply services, or selling goods, or marketing on behalf of company A. That to me is a conflict of interests which could cause far more damage to the board than the worker who is seeking to protect some of the narrower interests of the workers in the work place. We should tease that out a little further.
I have asked people about it. I have had talks with people as to whether it has been used because it is in the 1977 legislation. I am talking about the section in the Principal Act which I am suggesting should be changed. I used the rule of thumb on it. Has this been abused at any stage? Can I present examples of where worker directors were told in the past ten years "that is a conflict of interest, you cannot vote on that. Get out while we discuss it"? In fact, I can come up with one example only. I am weakening my own case now and I hope the Minister does not take advantage of me.
The only one I could find was where the chairperson decided that the worker/director should not have a vote because what they were discussing was the proposed increase in pay, or the wage claim of the workers. I certainly would not agree that was a conflict of interest. I see nothing whatsoever wrong with the worker director being there and making the case to the board. It is important for the board to have that information. They can say at the end of the day: "We have listened; we have heard what you have to say. We do not agree with it and we are not going to give the rise." This is something that can be dealt with in another forum rather than the board, but it is the right that should be there.
This section could be used to discriminate against the contribution and vote or franchise of a worker director and it could be used now that we are expanding the area of sub-board activities. It becomes a difficulty now which we must address. I find it impossible to understand what area of work of a company or board would not be of real interest to the worker directors and would, in fact, create a conflict of interest between the workers' interests and the company's interests. It certainly is unacceptable that any of the matters being discussed about the company or the board should constitute a conflict of interests in the way some people have suggested worker directors cannot be trusted. Of course they can be trusted.
I note also that there are certain semi-State sectors such as the Central Bank, etc., which are not included in the legislation. I know all the reasons for this and I will not comment except to say that at the highest level of this State, what is said at the table Ministers sit around once a week, is very often reported in the newspapers. It is unfair to blame the workers for leaks. We have seen time and time again information coming from companies which did not come from the worker directors. As Senator Hillery said earlier, if it is information that is of value to the workers and is necessary for the workers, it is easily enough assessed. If it will damage them if it becomes public, the worker directors will be the last people to leak information of that type. I am saying that for the record. I am not making a case for the simple reason that I have not actually given it enough study. It would be quite helpful in the rarefied atmosphere of the Central Bank to get some of the workforce in there to consider what exactly they are talking about in lay person's terminology. That could be useful.
Section 13 of the Bill refers to section 1 of the Principal Act and the definition of an employee. Every speaker so far has referred to that matter. While Senator Hillery was absent I made it clear that I did not accept what he said about the great need in the future of the dual role workers. I am quite aware of what he is talking about and I have seen the diagrams of the different types of companies and the different elements and satellites, etc. but I do not agree with it. We need to look towards a more flexible workforce, to bear in mind changing technology and to say to a worker at age 20; "The job you are doing today will not be necessary at age 30". Let us start by knowing that so we will also plug into our system a system of re-education and retraining at age 29 so that at age 30, when this company has progressed into new areas, as it will with worker directors, you will be able to take over new areas of work. I object to changing permanent employment to part-time or temporary employment. It creates an unnecessary insecurity of tenure.
There is a difference of principle involved. I am not contradicting what was said by any previous speaker. I am saying that we should be going in a different direction. The work I am talking about here is the word "permanent". The question has come up about giving the vote in the election of worker directors to workers who are working in the company for 18 hours per week or longer. I am certain Senator Fennell is right and the only reason 18 hours was chosen is that that is the figure which has been used in so much of the labour legislation which has, in fact, excluded workers from their rights. At a time when more and more of the workforce is working in a part time and temporary capacity, we should be conscious of and sensitive to their needs and rights.
When discussing labour legislation we should bear in mind and always take cognisance of the fact that there are now huge numbers of workers in part time employment whether we like it or not and I do not like it. Because they are in part time employment is not an argument for excluding them and the Minister has not given the case for excluding them. Perhaps there is a case, but I do not see it. If we were to change the number of hours to 17 I do not see that it would make any great difference. I do not know why 18 hours was picked. I do not intend to suggest a number because the hours of work change from place to place but I will put a condition on it. I am not saying anybody who happens to be in the work-place on the day the vote is taken should have a vote. I am proposing that any permanent employee, whether he is working ten, 40 or 60 hours a week — if he is permanent in the company he has something to offer — should be represented and should have a vote.
Let us leave the hours aside and look at the matter from a different point of view. If the worker is a permanent worker in the company, perhaps part time but in so far as he is attending work week after week, this person should have a vote and should be allowed to participate in the election of the worker directors.
The point that strikes me — and I have discussed this matter with ICTU and the various unions, and it is also a point that has been made very forcibly to me by members of the women's committee of ICTU — is that with the huge number of women workers working part time there is a certain inequity between the sexes. I am not saying it is there deliberately, but it is there by virtue of the way things are. It is something that is against women's participation in industry. That is another reason the matter should be looked at in a different way. We are talking about permanent employees but many part time employees happen to be women and, in this sense, let us take a step towards equality and bring them into the net. We should bring them under the umbrella of labour legislation in this area and under the umbrella of worker participation and democratic structures which produce worker directors. This group of workers who are now left without the protection of labour legislation, which is bad enough, should not also be left without representation by the worker directors. I am not saying the worker directors would not represent their interests, having been elected, but they should also have a vote in that election.
There are no financial implications that I can think of. It will just mean a couple of extra ballot papers. If the people are on the books and in permanent employment it does not create a difficulty. If it does create a difficulty we should hear about it. I am making the case to forget about the number of hours and to talk about permanent employees.
There is a problem, in section 21 of the principal Act, with the appointment of elected worker directors by the Minister after the election. The election takes place and then the Minister makes the appointment. There is a lacuna there which is unnecessary and which should be filled by legislation. There should not be any gap. It has led to confusion and difficulties. As far as I know — and again I stand to be corrected on this because I did not check it out in the last number of days — there is one instance of that at the moment in B & I who are at a very critical time in terms of board meetings and meetings at which workers would like to be represented. If the worker directors have not been appointed in the last period, that is scandalous. They should be there. It is a matter of tidying up the legislation so that when a seat is vacated for whatever reason — there are a number of ways in which it could happen under the legislation — we should seek to have that seat filled as soon as possible. I use the words "as soon as possible" wisely because I am not saying you can fill them the following day. Seats can be vacated suddenly for many reasons like death or somebody changing employment very quickly. I am not saying seats can be filled in all cases without leaving a gap. In the case of a retirement, the person can be replaced without having a gap in the representation whereas in the case of somebody leaving suddenly without notice it means that we need to set the machinery in operation straight away.
I would like the Minister's views on one point. When filling a vacancy from the electoral list, I presume the highest person on the list who did not get elected will be the person who will fill the vacancy in that instance. That of course creates a difficulty for many of the groups who would put forward one person. In trying to operate the PR system they would lose representation. I have mixed views on that. I have thought about it and about the interests involved and the interests of democracy and I am not sure if there is a resolution to it, but I would like to hear the Minister's views. I notice he did not deal with it in his opening statement and perhaps he might come back to it at another time.
I have dealt with two areas: the filling of a casual vacancy and appointed people after the election. I would like those two areas to be addressed by the Minister to see whether they should be tied into legislation and whether a certain number of days or weeks should elapse following an election, which I presume would allow for appeals against the election, before the person would be appointed. There are other more detailed areas which I wish to address but the Second Stage of the Bill is not the appropriate place to do that. I will listen to the Minister's response to the general issues and then consider what amendments to put forward for Committee Stage.
I will finish as I began by putting it on record that the Minister for Labour has certainly shown himself to be committed in this area. I have many difficulties with the way Governments operate and in particular with the policies of this Government which I have been loud in articulating and voicing whenever I got the opportunity. In this legislation the Minister for Labour has shown his own personal commitment to improvements in the areas of industrial relations, to an improvement in the participation of workers in industry and, indeed, to taking a step which is positive and progressive and which will take us very far forward in a way that has been proven to be effective in many other countries.
I am glad the Minister, in all his dealings with problems in industry, has recognised the role of trade unions. He knows that in countries where the trade union movement have worked closely with the Government — I am talking here of the Government and the trade union movement having had serious negotiations over the past number of months — negotiations have been fruitful. He will see that it is important to have the trade unions always involved, always referred to and always included in the discussions and in any negotiations in this area. People in the trade union movement who have expertise in this area are always willing, as the Minister will confirm, to give of their time, of their expertise and of their energy. I thank the Minister for introducing this legislation. I will certainly be supporting it strongly and I will be putting forward minor changes as we go along.