Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 5 June 2014
7. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if the intended reform of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2001 Bill fulfils the programme for Government commitment to reform the current law on employees' right to engage in collective bargaining to ensure compliance by the State with recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. [23803/14]
View answerYesterday, I met the representative of the Paris Bakery at a demonstration outside Leinster House. While I was listening to the speakers, I realised the Government is not friendly towards workers at all and those who thought that voting for Labour would take the extreme edges off Fine Gael have been sorely disappointed with regard to collective bargaining, which is a human right and is included in the programme for Government. Will the Government be clear about introducing collective bargaining?
I do not know whether the Deputy wants me to address the question he has just asked or the one he submitted.
The Government has responded to the needs of workers in many ways. We increased the minimum wage, introduced protections for agency workers and restored the system of wage setting for vulnerable workers that had been ruled unconstitutional by the courts. We continue to develop good labour relations legislation and will soon publish the WRC, workers rehabilitation and compensation Bill, a major reform which will deliver better conditions for both workers and employers. I do not accept, therefore, the premise of the Deputy's preamble to his question.
On 13 September last, I obtained Cabinet approval to develop legislative proposals to reform the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2001 to provide for an improved and modernised industrial relations framework that will provide more clarity for employers and more effectiveness for workers in employment where collective bargaining does not take place. When enacted, this legislation will mark the fulfilment of the commitment in the programme for Government to reform the current law on employees' right to engage in collective bargaining to ensure compliance by the State with recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.
The legislation will provide a clear and balanced mechanism by which the fairness of the employment conditions of workers in their totality can be assessed where collective bargaining does not take place. It will provide clarity and certainty for employers in managing their workplaces over the years ahead. It will also explicitly prohibit the use of inducements by employers to persuade employees to forgo collective bargaining representation and will provide strong protections for workers who invoke the provisions of the 2001 to 2004 Acts or who have acted as a witness or a comparator for the purposes of those Acts.
The proposals are derived from a lengthy consultation process involving extensive engagement with stakeholders with a view to arriving at broadly acceptable proposals that will operate effectively in practice. The proposals have been welcomed by stakeholders such as IBEC and ICTU. They will ensure the retention of our voluntary system of industrial relations, but also ensure workers have confidence that, where there is no collective bargaining, they have an effective system that ensures they can air problems about remuneration, terms and conditions and have these determined based on those in similar companies and not be victimised for doing so.
I tabled the Protection of Employees (Amendment) Bill in 2012, but Labour and Fine Gael voted against it. This Bill would have prevented the situation we now have in regard to the Paris Bakery. Under the current Government, we have seen an increase in part-time, short-term and zero hours contracts and seen a reduction in Sunday premiums. Workers, therefore, have suffered under the Government.
I note the Minister's promised reform on the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2001, but the proposal is convoluted. The concern is that if the legislation does not require employers to recognise trade unions, it will not deliver in regard to Ireland's international commitments or the programme for Government. If we do not have union recognition, we do not have collective bargaining. It is as simple as that. Does the Minister intend to retain the voluntary system of industrial relations? If so, he is reneging on the commitment in the programme for Government. Workers deserve better. They should not have to jump through hoops to get to lengthy procedures. They should not have to stage sit-ins in the likes of the Paris Bakery, Vita Cortex, Lagan Bricks or any other company. These are outstanding issues that could be resolved if the Government grasped the opportunity facing it.
What is happening here is that we are respecting the voluntary system which has been important and successful in Ireland. However, where a company chooses not to engage in collective bargaining, we are providing a mechanism whereby workers can ensure they will not be victimised as a result of that practice and they can take their case under these Acts. This will provide clarity and provide clear definitions for accepted bodies, the bodies that constitute collective bargaining. There have been disputes as to whether these accepted bodies are genuinely independent and the legislation will clarify that. It will also protect workers from victimisation and ensure that only trade unions can take action under this measure. It also prohibits inducements, which have been found in conflict under the Wilson case. Our approach is entirely in line with our obligations under the various legal judgments.
The key or crux is that if it is a voluntary system, we do not have collective bargaining. If, instead of having a voluntary system, the Minister is just substituting a convoluted, complex legal process through which workers are forced to use the courts to try to grab back their rights, this makes it more difficult for workers to ensure their rights are upheld. In all of this, there must be a fair balance between workers' and employers' rights. However, providing a voluntary system where employers can make the decision on whom they will negotiate with negates the heart of collective bargaining and of all the decisions taken by the International Labour Organization, the European Court of Human Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Constitution. All of these documents point to freedom of association, people being able to represent themselves as workers, and employers' recognition of workers in those efforts.
The Constitution of course respects freedom of association, but it also respects the voluntary nature of these processes. The Deputy will be aware that our system has been examined by the ILO and found to be in conformity with the requirements. I agree with the Deputy that this is a balanced approach and that it does not fulfil all of the ambitions of either the employers' groups or the workers' groups. My officials and I have engaged over a lengthy time with both sides to find a solution that is fair and balanced. That is what we are delivering. It is not possible for a solution to suit only one side or the other. What is arrived at must be a balanced measure, which is what we have delivered.
