Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 24 Mar 1977

Vol. 298 No. 3

Protection of Employment Bill, 1976: Report Stage.

SECTION 7.

Minister for Labour (Mr. M. O'Leary)

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, to delete lines 57 to 61, and substitute the following:

"(2) This Act does not apply to—

(a) dismissals of employees engaged under a contract of employment for a fixed term or for a specified purpose (being a purpose of such a kind that the duration of the contract was limited but was, at the time of its making, incapable of precise ascertainment) where the dismissals occurred only because of the expiry of the term or the cesser of the purpose,".

This is in accordance with the exceptions permitted in the directive on collective redundancies. It was represented during the drafting of paragraph (a) that there could be uncertainty in relation to the application of the Bill to some groups such as building operatives, short-term employees, seasonal workers. We discussed that on Committee Stage and I consider that this new formula here will bring increased clarity to the provision. It would be impossible to get a single formula which would meet all the diverse interests involved here, all categories of employers, but I am satisfied that this is the best formula we can devise to cater for the varying cases.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I have no objection to this amendment. I raised the question on Committee Stage and I believe that this formula is certainly an improvement on the original paragraph in section 7. This is an area in which we have seen many difficulties. The Minister has referred to the building operative situation and the building contract of specified duration. Our experience has been that nobody can be very sure of the duration of some major contracts. For example, we have seen a statement this morning by the chief executive of one of our very progressive State companies regarding the present situation at a Cork site. There are difficulties here and, obviously, the time schedule of this contract will be lengthened rather than shortened. Of course, work may be ahead of schedule in some contracts.

This amendment does improve the wording because there was certainly much concern in areas of the building and construction industry, especially in regard to the difficulty about fixed-time contracts. I have no complaints about this amendment. It will be one of the areas where difficulties will be encountered as this Bill is seen in operation. I agree with the Minister that it is difficult to get a completely acceptable formula or set of words to meet the difficult situations which can be encountered in this area from time to time. By and large, the amendment is an improvement and the fact that we discussed it on Committee Stage possibly helped to get this rewording. There will need to be a certain amount of flexibility in the operation of the Bill. There could be difficulties because of the uncertain period that has to be attached to many contracts.

The Minister has referred to seasonal work. I am somewhat concerned about the position of seasonal workers in all the legislation before us. I did refer to this in the Unfair Dismissals Bill, 1976. In the sugar beet sector the same seasonal workers are employed year after year for specified periods and are then laid off. There will be difficulties here under the Bill for people in that situation, though the main concern is the fixed-term contract for a period of a year or two years or whatever the time might be.

I support the amendment and the Bill is improved as a result of its introduction.

Amendment agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

Recommittal is necessary here.

Bill recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 6, lines 38 and 39, to delete "trade union or staff association officials (including shop stewards)" and substitute "employees' representatives".

The purpose of this amendment is to make it quite clear that the proposed consultations required under this section should take place with employees' representatives as defined in section 2. The latter definition indicates that the term means officials of the trade union or staff association with which it has been the practice of the employer to conduct collective bargaining negotiations.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

This amendment indicates a lack of consistency by the Minister in this legislation. The point he is making is one I have been making all the time. We are dealing here not with any bodies of people either on the employer or trade union side but with people working with business or industry whose jobs, conditions of work and opportunities may be affected. This is the most important aspect of legislation affecting these people. The term "employees' representatives" signifies to me that in the case of redundancy or forthcoming redundancy the spokesman or representatives of the group of employees concerned will be the people to be consulted, and rightly so, whether they are union or non-union and we must remember that they are entitled to that under the Constitution if they so wish.

This seems to be a turn-around by the Minister. I refer to the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Bill, 1976. I was rather amazed to read an article recently in a weekly magazine where the Minister, to a large extent, and I, to a lesser extent, were criticised. We were the targets of attack because of certain provisions in that Bill which were introduced by the Minister and not criticised by me, although the journalist did quote from my Second Stage speech, this being the only contribution he made in the article. He referred to the danger of a closed shop situation. I appealed to the Minister in that Bill to open it to the employees of the company rather than to the staff association or trade unions. Of course, they are entitled in all this legislation to act as spokesmen or representatives of the employees but the people mainly concerned are the employees themselves. During the past two or three years we have seen many cases of hardship, loss of morale and disappointment when firms have closed down and the employees were at a time of life when their opportunities for re-employment were slight. In that situation it is important that we as legislators have first regard for the people whose lives and conditions are changed as a result of closure and redundancy.

Our first priority is the people who are likely to suffer in the circumstances whoever their representatives are. That is of less importance than the employees who are the real sufferers. I am not quite clear why the Minister introduced employees' representatives in the Bill, nor has he explained it in proposing the amendment, but my party and I believe that the employees' representatives are the people to be concerned. Why there has not been consistency in all this legislation as regards the people rightly concerned who are strong enough to have their own representative whether in a staff association, a trade union or even in neither, I do not know. It is not the staff association or the trade union officials who will suffer in a redundancy situation; it is the individual or group of individuals who lose their jobs. I do not intend to oppose what I consider an improvement in the Bill, the introduction of employees' representatives. That is what we are talking about. We are mainly concerned about the people who can lose in that situation, the employees, and I believe their representatives are the people who should be first consulted since they represent those who are concerned for their own and their families' welfare. To me, this represents a change of heart or a change of face by the Minister in regard to this entire package of social legislation.

Mr. M. O'Leary

This amendment in no way alters the substance of the section as drafted. It is merely intended to make clear what is intended. The legal substance of the Bill is not altered by the amendment which is being proposed in response to representations by employer groups who wish to have it included. It is no departure from what is already there.

Amendment agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 4 is consequential on No. 3 and we might, therefore, take these two amendments together.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 7, to delete lines 25 to 28.

Section 13 provides that within 21 days of the original notification to me of proposed collective redundancies an employer should furnish me with a written report of the progress of negotiation with the employees' representatives. This requirement can be dispensed with as I can elicit all necessary information under section 16 under which I can request an employer to enter into consultations with me.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

It is rarely that an employer gets a concession under this package of social legislation. I have often said that employers have been regarded by this Government as people to be attacked, controlled, restricted and taxed and people to keep records. The approach of the Government has been one of suspicion regarding any employer. Concern is being expressed by both sides of industry, by employers and trade unions, that all this legislation taken together could be harmful to employment at a time when unemployment figures are continuing to rise with little improvement being seen and little progress towards the fulfilment of the forecasts of the Minister and his colleagues earlier this year. Admittedly, here we are talking of employers employing more than 20 people, but even an employer who has 30 or 40 workers is still a very small employer and the amount of extra administration, record keeping and communication being placed on him by all this legislation—I am speaking from experience—is inclined to be a deterrent against employment at present. I do not say the fears are justified; I do not think they are, but I believe there is genuine fear.

Here we have the Minister conceding that at least this section is superfluous, was over-taxing employers and was not required because of the powers available under section 16 and particularly since the Minister would already have been notified of redundancies. We are dealing with this measure more than two years since the European Directive was signed by the Minister for Finance and these years have seen many redundancies. This Bill is not designed to prevent redundancies; all it means is that there are now certain stipulations as regards notification and consultation and so on, and there can be no objection to the deletion of this section. An impression may be created that the Bill will prevent redundancies. In no way can it do that.

No employer large or small is anxious to make people redundant. They would prefer to see expansion rather than reduction of employment. One of the things that undoubtedly helped us has been the enthusiasm, the enterprise and ambition of many people in the private sector. We know the slogan of many Labour Party Members of the Government side, particularly backbenchers, who have now adopted a sort of double role by criticising—this can be said particularly of the former party general secretary—private enterprise. He has been most critical of private enterprise. Private enterprise has contributed handsomely to employment, and it could have contributed far more if the Government had adopted a responsible approach to redundancy at a time when redundancy was at its height. Let us hope, for the sake of industry and the workers, the young people especially, that the redundancy trend is falling rather than rising. We have had far too many redundancies already. I have always said that legislation should be as simple as possible to operate for the individuals affected, in this case the employee and the employer. If the Minister feels this section is superfluous, in my view its deletion will not be harmful. The consequential amendment is acceptable.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I would not agree that any of the proposals under this Bill can be seen in any sense as antimanagement. All these measures have been designed to provide a more constructive legal framework between both sides in industry, management and unions. It is obvious that for our prosperity and for the recovery of the economy a more constructive relationship should be developed between both sides in industry, and I see the legal framework under this legislation as adding to that development.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 7, lines 29 and 30, to delete "or fails to comply with section 13".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments reported and agreed to.

Agreed to take Fifth Stage today.