Skip to main content
Normal View

Workplace Relations Commission

Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 2 November 2021

Tuesday, 2 November 2021

Questions (1)

Louise O'Reilly

Question:

1. Deputy Louise O'Reilly asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, is not informing the relevant agencies and departments of breaches of the atypical work permit scheme in the fishing sector. [53072/21]

View answer

Oral answers (6 contributions)

The question is, like all of my questions, very straightforward. I hope that the answer will be forthcoming. It is simply to ask if the Minister of State's attention has been drawn to the fact that the WRC is not informing the relevant agencies and Departments of breaches in the atypical work permit scheme in the fishing sector. I am sure that the importance of this scheme is not lost on the Minister of State, Deputy English. The importance of using every opportunity to ensure that it is applied and applied fairly should also not be lost.

I thank the Deputy for the question. The WRC is one of a number of agencies that contribute to the enforcement of the atypical workers commission scheme for non-EEA fisheries workers employed in certain Irish-registered fishing vessels. The commission has a particular responsibility for checking compliance insofar as terms of employment, permission to work, payment of wages, annual leave, public holidays, and the national minimum wage entitlements are concerned.

Where contraventions are detected, WRC inspectors will engage with the vessel owner to achieve compliance and, where relevant, secure any associated unpaid wages. Prosecutions are, in general, initiated in all cases where non-EEA fishers are employed without an atypical worker permission or without another valid permission to work and where owners have failed to address contraventions following the issue of a contravention notice.

Some 490 inspections of fishing vessels have been undertaken by WRC inspectors between the launch of the scheme in February 2016 to the end of September this year. The vast majority of fishery inspections are unannounced and are undertaken in port. In addition to ongoing inspection and compliance activities, there have been eight specific target operations to date, the latest of which, Operation Palace, took place in September this year and involved 30 inspections. A total of 20 prosecutions have been brought against fishing vessel owners regarding offences under employment legislation, of which 16 have concluded and four are currently pending and awaiting a final hearing.

The memorandum of understanding on the monitoring and enforcement of the atypical worker permission scheme, which was signed by 11 Departments and agencies in May 2016, provides, among other matters, for the further co-ordination, co-operation and information exchange between the parties. The memorandum does not make specific provision in respect of the WRC notifying other parties of contraventions of employment legislation. However, details of convictions are published in the commission's annual report. In addition, in accordance with an agreement reached with the Department of Transport in April 2019, the WRC informs that Department's marine survey office of any contraventions or potential contraventions of fishery working time legislation. I am aware that this matter was raised on 20 October at a meeting of the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment regarding the capacity and resourcing of the WRC and its work in addressing issues relating to migrant workers. I am also aware that the director general of the commission gave a commitment to the committee to inform the Department of Justice, which administers the scheme, as soon as convictions against fishing vessels' owners are secured. I am advised by the director general that a schedule of such convictions was forwarded to the Department of Justice on 21 October and that arrangements are in place to inform the Department of further convictions as they arise. I would agree with that approach.

Is it suggested that every time notification does not happen, there has to be a meeting of the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment? That is not sustainable or fair, particularly to the workers in the fishing industry who are dependent on these arrangements. We are talking about breaches ranging from a failure to grant annual leave or a public holiday entitlement right up to unauthorised deductions from wages. What really worry me are the contraventions of the working time regulations. We have heard the stories in this regard.

The vast majority of employers in the sector are trying to do the right thing. They are the ones who want to ensure rigorous inspections. They do not fear an inspection; they welcome it, but they want a level playing field.

Is it the intention to include the mechanism I describe in a revised memorandum of understanding or to put it on a more sustainable footing? The Department of Justice was not being informed. We raised this on 20 October and now the WRC is informing the Department, but we cannot keep checking on it. It should be par for the course; it should be part of the memorandum.

We can certainly examine that. The memorandum was signed several years ago by 11 Departments and Government agencies. The working time directive is generally administered by the Department covering the marine, not necessarily my Department. This is the difficulty with the scheme. That responsibility for the scheme extends across Departments and agencies is the difficultly with it. Best practice is what has been done since October. I am glad the decision in this regard has been made. We can certainly carry out a review, including in respect of the memorandum of understanding.

I have had discussions with representatives of various Departments on the view that we should review the scheme overall. It has been in place for more than five year. Having spoken to various stakeholders, I believe it is timely to review it and make a decision on its future. That process will be led by the Department of Justice or the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine in conjunction with my Department because the scheme is administered by a range of Departments. We should take the opportunity now to review it and make some decisions. I am happy to involve all stakeholders in that. I have had discussions with officials and, therefore, it is a matter of putting the review in motion. The Deputy might agree it is timely.

I absolutely agree; it is past time. The Minister of State said an update is something to consider. I agree on that. Perhaps he will, at the next opportunity, create a timeline for the update because these things tend to drift if a robust timeframe is not put in place. I am thinking about the necessary work done by the WRC, but the fact that there is no follow-up regarding prosecutions means the deterrent does not exist. The majority of employers in this area are fine and want to do the right thing but tackling the rogue employers is necessary.

I welcome the fact that there is to be a review. I would like the Minister of State to give a timeframe. I would also like to hear him commit to speaking to representatives of the WRC and ensure the obligations will be met until such time as it is completed. Informing the Department should occur as a matter of course. This is not in the memorandum of understanding, but the opportunity now exists to ensure, between now and the completion of the review, that the Department will be informed in a timely manner.

I agree with the Deputy that the vast majority of employers in this area are good and genuine and treat their workers extremely well. The investigations cover the cases where there might be some rogue employers. They are dealt with and followed up on. The WRC has the inspectors in place and the additional resources following budget 2022 to complement and increase its work in this area.

The scheme covers 170 vessels and approximately 149 owners. We should be very clear on that. Over the period in question, nearly every vessel or owner has been investigated. We track the scheme quite well. It was put in place to try to deal with a difficulty arising in the courts in 2015.

If we are to have a review, it should be done quite quickly. I do not see why these things have to drag on. I looked into this several months ago. I had meetings with officials from one or two relevant Departments to try to make progress, but not all of them yet. I hope to see a review quite soon. When it is done, we can either keep the scheme, make changes to it or replace it with another. To me, that could be done quite quickly.

Top
Share