asked the Minister for Labour if the draft proposals on reform of the Industrial Relations Act, 1906, will provide a right to strike, without conditions; if so will a secret ballot be a prerequisite of such a right, what the position will be on secondary picketing, one-man pickets and inter-union disputes, and the other amendments he considers necessary to achieve an improved industrial relations climate that is less strike prone.
Written Answers. - Reform of Industrial Relations.
30.
In March last year my Department published proposals for the reform of industrial relations. These proposals committed the Department to a fundamental review of trade dispute law. Since then the Department have had detailed discussions with both sides of industry, have completed their review and last month published detailed proposals for virtually the complete replacement of existing legislation.
The new system will be based on a positive right to strike. Under existing law all industrial action is presumed to be unlawful save where the 1906 Act confers immunity from liability for the unlawful actions involved. I believe that this approach is archaic and that the time is long overdue for the Oireachtas to recognise in a positive way the democratic rights of workers in the latter part of the 20th Century. The proposals envisage that new legislation would recognise the right to strike and to take industrial action. Where workers exercised these rights in accordance with the legislation they would enjoy a complete defence in all civil legal proceedings arising from the strike or other industrial action. The legislation would represent a radical departure from the present immunity-based approach where all strikes or other industrial action are at risk of being unlawful unless very specifically granted statutory immunity.
I am sure the Deputy will appreciate that, given the comprehensive nature of the proposed complete defence, limitations on its exercise are necessary given industrial relations, legal and public interest considerations. The proposed limitations are set out in full in the Department's proposals. Among the situations which would not be protected are the following:
—Cases involving personal injury, trespass, occupations or damage to property.
—Unlimited picketing.
—Industrial action or picketing by or concerning one individual worker where the agreed procedures normally availed of in the employment concerned had not been resorted to and exhausted and where the employer concerned had not acted in disregard of such procedures.
—Where a minority of workers took strike or industrial action after a majority in the trade union concerned had formally voted against such a course in a secret ballot.
—A strike or industrial action arising from a dispute between ‘workmen and workmen' would not enjoy the ‘complete defence' unless the dispute otherwise met the definition of ‘trade dispute' in the legislation.
A further important part of the reform proposals is that trade unions will have to include provisions on secret ballots in their rule books. Where a secret ballot is held and reasonable notice given, major advantage will result for unions in that there would be severe restrictions on the granting of both interim and interlocutory injunctions.
I would now like to turn to the specific points raised in the Deputy's question. The exercise of the right to strike would not be conditional on the prior holding of a secret ballot. Trade unions would be required to have a provision in their rule books requiring a secret ballot before strike or other industrial action was taken. As I have stated, a strike or other industrial action in defiance of the outcome of a secret ballot would not enjoy legal protection, and the main benefits of the proposed changes in injunction procedures would apply only where a secret ballot had been held by the union and strike notice of at least a week given. Secondary picketing would enjoy legal protection only where the second employer concerned had acted in a way calculated to frustrate the primary strike. One-man pickets would normally enjoy legal protection only where the relevant procedures had been resorted to and exhausted. Inter-union disputes would not enjoy legal protection unless the dispute otherwise met the definition of "trade dispute" in the legislation.
In response to the last point in the Deputy's question, I do not believe that there are other major changes in trade dispute law which could help to bring about an improved industrial relations climate. There is a great deal that could be done in other areas, however, in order to help achieve this objective. Among the other changes I have proposed are the establishment of a new labour relations commission with responsibility for the promotion of good industrial relations, the introduction of codes of practice in a range of areas and the provision of an improved set of incentives to encourage trade union rationalisation. Both the proposals for the reform of the 1906 Act and for major changes in our dispute-settling institutions will be the subject of consultation with both sides of industry.
In conclusion, I would like to state clearly that I remain convinced that the law, of itself, cannot improve industrial relations. Real and lasting improvements can only be brought about through the action and attitudes of managers and workers at workplace level. The State's role traditionally has been to ensure that the legal framework governing our system of industrial relations should be such as to help the parties enjoy sound, stable relations. I believe that my Department's proposals for the modernising of trade dispute law and the reform of dispute-settling agencies, will contribute significantly to the improvement of industrial relations in Ireland and hence employment prospects.