Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 23 February 2023
71. Deputy Bríd Smith asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if he will support the progress to Committee Stage of the Industrial Relations (Provisions in Respect of Pension Entitlements of Retired Workers) Bill 2021; the proposals his Department has to enhance the representative rights of retired workers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9411/23]
View answerWill the Minister of State support the progress to Committee Stage of the Industrial Relations (Provisions in Respect of Pension Entitlements of Retired Workers) Bill 2021 and outline what proposals his Department has to enhance the representative rights of retired workers and will he make a statement on the matter?
I understand the Deputy has already engaged quite a bit with the Department in relation to this Bill, which is very welcome and I encourage that going forward.
As the Deputy is aware, the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment met in public session on 25 January to discuss detailed scrutiny of the Industrial Relations (Provisions in Respect of Pension Entitlements of Retired Workers) Bill 2021. Following this meeting, my Department was asked by the joint committee to provide a briefing in response to the issues raised, in order to assist the joint committee with its detailed scrutiny.
This detailed brief has been prepared and has issued to the joint committee. On Second Stage, my predecessor as Minister of State outlined the Department's concerns in respect of the proposed Bill. These concerns remain. The Bill, as introduced by the Deputy, seeks to create a third category in industrial relations, contrary to international practice, which recognises industrial relations as the management of work-related obligations and entitlements between employers and workers and their representatives. The introduction of a third party to collective bargaining procedures has the potential to create significant disharmony in the industrial relations system. Departmental officials have been unable to find another jurisdiction where such a third category has been introduced in industrial relations legislation.
Added to this concern, this third category would be unregulated and would not require a negotiating licence. This could cause a proliferation of representative groups, sometimes with competing demands. It would make it impossible for employers to identify whom they should be negotiating with. Moreover, the interests of a small group of retired workers would, for the first time, be put against those of current workers in the industrial relations sphere, potentially creating significant disharmony. A position could arise where certain retired workers' representatives were at odds with trade unions representing deferred members. If a person is in receipt of an occupational pension, he or she is no longer considered a worker and does not have an employment relationship with his or her former employer. Rather, the person's relationship lies with the trustees of the pension fund. Trustees have statutory and fiduciary duties to act in the best interests of all members of a fund and must always be consulted if a collective agreement refers to a pension matter.
In order to ensure that the views of all stakeholders were considered in respect of this issue, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment ran a consultation process in March 2022 and all submissions received have been published on the Department's website. While some were supportive, many showed significant concern about the proposal. In any event, it is up to the Deputy to progress the Bill to Committee Stage.
I note what the Minister of State said about the status of retired workers and the dangers of a third party coming into negotiations. Nevertheless, what these workers are seeking is that if they have a problem with their pensions after the six-month limitation of their having left work has passed, they would be able to go to the WRC. They want that six-month limitation to be lifted to allow them to go to the WRC at any stage after the six months if their pensions become the subject of negotiations. We have seen this happen time and again, in particular since - this has been a frequent bone of contention - the bank bailout and the austerity measures were adopted. Many of these people are workers who worked in the public sector or for semi-State bodies and built this State. Many of them have retired and have for 13 or 15 years been fighting to change this, but they are not going to live forever. Will the Minister of State give us some sense of the Government's attitude to the Bill? The committee's attitude will be determined by that.
As I said, serious concerns with the Bill were raised by my predecessor, and those concerns remain. While we are sympathetic to the plight and the case of the individuals who have been involved in drafting the Bill, many of whom I met as both a Senator and a Deputy, whether because they are my constituents or because they are members of other representative groups, there are several serious concerns with the legislation from the Government’s point of view. I touched on some of them in my initial response but I might highlight a few more. At present, the WRC negotiation mechanism works on a voluntary basis whereby parties come to the commission to resolve industrial disputes to their mutual benefit. It is not clear what would motivate an employer to attend such negotiations in this category.
It is also concerning that the entitlement of retired persons to engage in collective bargaining with employers would be a considerable disincentive to employers to offer voluntarily any pensions above the legal minimum obligation. Furthermore, the measures in the Bill could severely undermine the existing dispute resolution bodies, which are provided to retired workers to vindicate their rights, including the Pensions Authority, and would undermine the separation of powers between pension fund trustees and employers, which has been deliberately legislated for to protect retired workers.
I am talking about the lived experience of 500,000 retired workers who are represented by the people who met the previous Minister of State, Deputy English, with me. There are quite a few retired workers' organisations. They represent a significant cohort of retired workers, but these people are not retired voters. They paid into occupational pension schemes, which basically comprises their deferred wages. Whenever that is being tampered with in order for the Government or another party to achieve other means, they want to sit at the table to have their voices heard. Telling them they have access to an ombudsman, an equality officer or, within six months, the WRC is not going to cut the mustard because they have been down that alley and had negative experiences and it does not do it for them. I refer to people in their late 70s or 80s who are willing to fight this. If the Government cannot come up with the solution, it should let them know that and they will talk to one another and decide on their next steps.
As outlined, I have met the groups previously in my capacities as a Senator and a Deputy, and I would be more than willing to meet them again with the Deputy. There are serious concerns about this approach and the serious impact it would have on the industrial relations mechanism. It is in all our interest to work towards a solution relatively quickly, and I am prepared to do that with the Deputy. I am new to this brief but perhaps we can arrange a meeting in the coming weeks with that representative body before the next Stage, if she is interested in that. I hear her concerns, which are valid, but we believe that the Bill, as drafted, and the mechanisms proposed would not be appropriate.
