Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 27 Feb 1990

Vol. 396 No. 3

Private Members' Business. - Industrial Relations Bill, 1989: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Rabbitte

Before the Adjournment I had skipped to section 23 of the Bill and I appreciate that some of my colleagues have indicated they would wish me to be as brief as possible. I will try to comply with that wish.

Section 23 sets out the definition of "worker" and more specifically it deals with the categories of employment that are exempted. I was querying the Minister as to whether in the context of such major industrial relations reform he had given any thought to the desirability of rationalising this matter once and for all by including these workers within the remit of the various C and A schemes, or at least giving these workers the option of access to the machinery this Bill puts in place.

There is divided counsel within the public service unions on this question but more and more the view is emerging that at least they ought to be given the option of availing of the machinery — the Labour Court, the Labour Relations Commission and very specifically the Rights Commissioner. This view has accelerated since the Government now seem to believe that they can take action if necessary to abrogate awards under the arbitration scheme by bringing legislation into this House to set aside such awards or delay their implementation. Many workers now covered by the conciliation and arbitration schemes see little point if Governments can take that action. It certainly highlights the unfairness of the view on the street that there is some special arrangement for public servants because of the existence of the C and A scheme which gives them some kind of unfair advantage. If the Government want to create a de-industrial zone around the public service they ought at least to provide public servants with the procedures that could facilitate that objective. I would especially make a plea to the Minister to give access to the rights commissioners to this category of worker. It is a major bugbear. I cannot conceive of any reason for opposition to it. The rights commissioner is a sensible, flexible institution that has done untold good in industrial relations. I do not believe people other than practitioners of industrial relations appreciate the good work and the record of rights commissioners. Endless disputes have been resolved in an amicable fashion through the sensible approach of competent rights commissioners.

It is extraordinary that section 23 names psychiatric nurses as a category to which the Bill will apply but excludes general trained nurses. I know the background and why that is the case, but I suggest it is entirely anomalous in 1990 that we should have one provision for psychiatric nurses and a different one for general trained nurses, especially in an era when the traditional distinction between the two categories of public servant is being blurred. The anomaly is even more crazy in that it perpetuates a distinction between nurses who are employees of a health board hospital and nurses who are employees of a voluntary hospital or hospitals in the private sector. It is unsustainable to continue that kind of distinction. I will try to communicate to the Minister the urgency and desirability at a time of such friction in the health services of giving access to general trained nurses, at a minimum, to the rights commissioners.

General trained nurses are now joining trade unions in their thousands. Traditionally they had a staff association, a matron dominated, inhouse arrangement. That very staff association, the INO, has been accepted into the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. If it had not been accepted, its declining base would have declined further as SIPTU and the LGPSU recruit more and more general trained nurses. It is such an irritant in the system that no matter how minor or petty the grievance of a general nurse on the wards, there is no machinery to enable here to have her grievance dealt with in a fair fashion. Matrons are the last remnants of an authoritarian style of management which has died out elsewhere.

I am sure the Minister would agree that if there is one single category of worker in the health services who is stretched to the limits of human endurance and bears more than her fair share, it is the general trained nurse. I am not making a party political point about cutbacks. I am talking about the daily task of the general trained nurse. I do not know how many of us would be able to perform those duties. We owe a great debt to general trained nurses and the least we should be prepared to do is give them access to a rights commissioner. I would ask the Minister to consider that point before Committee Stage, when I intend to put down an amendment to give them such access.

We have a very good example of extending the rights commissioner facility outside the particular category of general trained nurses. Let me refer to the ushers' dispute in this House recently. What better example could have fallen into my lap? Here we had a disciplinary dispute but there was no access to any machinery to resolve it. Eventually common sense prevailed and the dispute ended up being resolved at precisely the kind of forum that would have resolved it initially or would have never allowed it to happen if the ushers had access to a rights commissioner. The rights commissioner system is invaluable and the ushers' dispute in microcosm demonstrates the importance and value of that institution and why the scope of those who may resort to it ought to be broadened and why public servants generally ought to be given access to a rights commissioner. Sometimes these disputes can become intractable as a result of not having access to that kind of machinery and sometimes the more intractable they become the more they become a vicious circle. I would ask the Minister to consider that.

I would also query, although the Minister says that further legislation is contemplated on this, whether it might not have been useful to include a reference to part-time workers in section 23 (1). I referred earlier to the desirability of perhaps now addressing the topical question of the Defence Forces, and I will let the point rest at that.

Section 24 deals with the setting up of an industrial relations commission and this is fast acquiring the status of something like Knock Shrine and one dare not even question anything that might arise about it and about its contribution. We are all in favour of good and against evil and it is apparently not proper to even suggest that this might be less than the ideal solution or that it is not quite as thought out as it might be.

I noticed that in the functions of the labour relations commission, A, B and D are functions that will be directly carried out by the staff. That presumably means that C, E, F, G, H and I will be done by someone other than the commission staff. Does it mean that the commission will carry out these functions, some of which are very onerous? I ask that question very deliberately because my understanding is that the commission will effectively be made up of six part-timers and a full-time chief executive cum chairman, at least initially and perhaps permanently. We have six part-timers taking on what seem to be very onerous duties indeed. It will certainly not be a situation where the appointment of jaded industrialists or retired trade union officials will be called for. A retired trade union official deserves his retirement and ought to be left rest in peace. Certainly, having regard to the parameters of this labour relations commission I do not see how part-timers with a full-time chief executive can carry out all these duties. I am sure the Minister agrees that if the labour relations commission is to realise its objectives, it is imperative that it comprise the most dynamic personnel that can be secured — people of calibre and experience in the business of industrial relations who will break new ground, who will be pioneers expected to take innovative measures and set out policy, because the Bill does not make any provision that I can see, on how the commission will function in paractice or set out any circumstances in which they may or may not intervene in disputes. Will this be decided by the commission itself? Are the commission expected to set down these guidelines and this policy? That would seem to be extremely onerous.

I am concerned that the aspirations that the trade union movement have for this labour relations commission will be entrusted effectively to two part-time trade union nominees who in the normal course of events will already have onerous responsibilities within their trade unions. I cannot readily see how part-time, busy trade union and business nominees who have other major and primary duties will take this commission by the scruff of the neck and improve on the performance of our existing institutions. Not everything that the Labour Court do is not to be commended. The Labour Court have acquired a lot of expertise and experience and have full-time personnel and it is not readily apparent to me how a commission of part-timers will improve on the years of expertise and experience accumulated by members of the Labour Court. It will be necessary for the Minister to change his mind on the question of nominating, in addition to the chairman and a chief executive, two independent members. It is imperative that the membership be drawn equally from the trade union movement and the employer nominating bodies, with the Minister nominating the chairman. I cannot see the trade union movement being willing to entrust such a range of responsibilities to two part-time nominees.

The provision with regard to the Labour Court is interesting, the more one reads it. There are three instances where the Labour Court may intervene: under section 24 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946, where the court is asked to make a report by the Minister for Labour of the day on the conditions of employment in a particular industry; under section 18 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, where the court may in exceptional circumstances intervene in a dispute on its own initiative; and of course under section 20 where the union may refer a particular issue — regardless of whether the employer attends — and are bound by the outcome of the decision.

Section 26 seems to reduce the role of the Labour Court to a subordinate position. Effectively the repeal of section 18 of the 1969 Act will weaken the right of the court to intervene in the kind of cases I have instanced. Section 26 also provides that, subject to a number of exceptions, the court may not investigate a trade dispute unless it receives a report from the commission stating that the commission are satisfied that no further effort on their part will advance the resolution of the dispute and that the parties to the dispute have requested the court to investigate. I would be very unhappy with that because I cannot readily envisage a situation where the commission would waive their function of conciliation, say that they have reached the end of the road and that the parties to the dispute should request the court to investigate. There are — and will be — circumstances where the parties will not agree to the matter going to the Labour Court. It will have gone to the conciliation stage and so on and in a good number of cases the employer would be quite happy to say that he would not agree to the matter going to the Labour Court.

Section 18 of the Industrial Relations Act is repealed and the Labour Court will, therefore, no longer be empowered to investigate a trade dispute on their own initiative in the absence of a request from both parties. I can only conclude that the rôle of the Labour Court will be weakened, certainly in respect of their right to intervene in cases where an employer is not prepared to attend a labour court. More important, from my point of view, the trade unions will be forced in that circumstance to rely on section 20 in order to get access to the Labour Court with all that that implies. It is an unacceptable situation to the trade union movement.

I know that the industrial relations committee are empowered to offer a conciliation service on their own initiative but there is no mechanism whereby an employer who is willing to go to the Labour Court can be forced to do so other than under section 20. That is an important area which we must address.

I intend to come back to this point on Committee Stage because some kind of amendment restoring the service offered by section 18 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, in exceptional circumstances will be necessary. This is probably connected in the Minister's mind with section 24 of the current Industrial Relations Act which gives the Minister for Labour the power to request the court to furnish him with a report on conditions prevailing in any given industry and this has frequently been used by Ministers of the day to get the court to intervene in an industrial dispute. If anything, the Minister's right to intervene is enhanced in this Bill corresponding to the diminution of the right of the court to intervene. I am not sure if that is a good thing, I think it means that more power will be arrogated to the officials in the Minister's Department. Undoubtedly, high as my regard is for the officials in the Department, I am not sure that it is desirable. I know the Department of Labour have long held the view that the powers of the Minister in this regard are inadequate. I recall that a fairly detailed submission was made to the Commission on Industrial Relations pointing out the Department's unhappiness with the powers of the Minister in this regard.

The Labour Court at the time opposed any change along the lines which the Department were seeking and made the point that there was no merit in a situation where the court were forced, against their better judgment, to intervene in a particular dispute. There is a great deal to be said for that view because intervening in a dispute for the sake of intervening is not necessarily desirable. Indeed intevention at the wrong time can do more harm than good. For example, what would happen if we had a Minister for Labour whose abilities in the industrial relations arena were less finely tuned than those of the present occupant of the office? Not all Ministers for Labour have the beside manner of the present Minister and their clumsy intervention at the wrong time could do more harm than good.

It is worth recording that the commission of inquiry into industrial relations agreed with the Labour Court and did not recommend the extension of the Minister's powers. I would not lightly throw away the accumulated wisdom of the Labour Court in expressing that view. The practise of industrial relations is one thing and the practise of politics is another. It is not always desirable to remove the power to intervene from the Labour Court and give it to the Minister. I am not happy about that and I should like to reflect on it. One of the difficulties about the way legislation is scheduled in the House is that although the Bill has been published for quite a while I only got down to examining it very recently, in the early hours of this morning.

What about the opposite situation where the political views of the Minister were in tune with those of his opposite number in the British Cabinet and where, far from wanting to intervene, he wanted to leave workers out until hell froze over? It is not all that fantastic because if the power structure of the present Cabinet was ever reversed it could well be that one of our colleagues from the Progressive Democrats might want to espouse that view. They might not——

Mr. Durkan

That would certainly be breaking new ground.

Mr. Rabbitte

Look at the ambulance dispute in Britain at present. You could have a dispute which would normally attract the intervention of the Labour Court who would want to get in knowing that the union would want to get off the hook or that there was a mood for settlement. A Minister of a particular political disposition may make certain that he does not intervene resulting in a deadlock dispute that would continue for longer than was necessary.

Mr. B. Ahern

I am glad to hear the Deputy say that in industrial disputes the Chair should not allow Private Notice Questions or motions on the Adjournment asking that the Minister for Labour should get involved because that call comes primarily from this House.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

The Minister called on a few occasions for such debates.

Mr. B. Ahern

Through pressure from the Deputy.

Mr. Rabbitte

I did not say what the Minister indicated. I said that the practise of industrial relations is one thing and the practice of politics is another thing.

Mr. Ferris

They are intrinsically linked at times.

Mr. Rabbitte

They are, inevitably.

Mr. B. Ahern

There is never an industrial dispute when one cannot separate them. I see the Deputy's point but I am saying that in modern-day industrial relations to try to say that the Minister for Labour can ignore the pressures is wrong. It is a call that the House has put forward for 20 years.

Mr. Rabbitte

The main point I am making is that it is not desirable that the powers of the Labour Court in this respect be diminished. I am not arguing that the Minister for Labour of the day should not have a rôle but I do not think this power should be taken away from the Labour Court, or, alternatively, that something like the present section 38 should be accorded to the Labour Relations Commission. That is an important point.

I would be obliged if the Minister when replying would refer to the purpose of section 41 which states that the Minister may amend or revoke an order made by him under section 8 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1976. I am curious to know why that provision was included. As far as I know, it relates to the divisions of the court. The 1976 Act it refers to empowers the Minister to make an order increasing the number of divisions of the court. As I understand it, there is no specific provision in that Act for reducing the number of divisions of the court. I do not know if that is what is envisaged by its inclusion in the Bill. I do not know if the Minister will have the right to reduce the number of divisions of the court when the Bill is passed.

I omitted to mention an important point when dealing with the obligation for secret ballots which was to comment on all-out pickets. All sides of the House will agree that nobody has any objection in principle to the requirement for a secret ballot. Indeed, it is practised widely in industrial relations at the moment but the extent to which the Minister has carried the requirement for a secret ballot goes far beyond what is required. What does the Minister consider will now be the position of the Congress all-out picket that has contributed so much to establishing good order in a climate of industrial conflict? Following on the events of 1969 it must be admitted that the Congress all-out picket has made a major contribution to good order but now it seems to me that the all out-picket is in jeopardy as a result of the measures proposed by the Minister.

I cannot see but that the all-out picket will become inoperable as a result of the requirements on the secret ballot. Not only are unions required to conduct a secret ballot before a strike can be called but they must do so before any other form of industrial action. The manner in which the all-out picket has operated up to now has been that the union seeking the all-out picket ballots its members and its executive seeks an all-out picket. The industrial relations executive of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, having heard the case, may grant the all-out picket, although that decision may be opposed by some of the other unions in the employment. That decision may be made for very good reasons in specific circumstances. However, under the Bill I do not think it will be possible for Congress to proceed to instruct any union to ensure that its members comply with the all-out picket.

Any trade union official who has learned his catechism will say, when asked this question when recruiting new workers, that in no circumstances will all workers be obliged to engage in a trade dispute if they do not ballot to do so except in the one instance of observing an all-out picket. That is the only occasion when workers would be directed by their union to support a trade dispute. As I read it, Congress may no longer give such an instruction. It is fanciful to expect that Congress could say to the other unions concerned, "ballot your members and if you get the necessary answer then they can come out as well". The whole business of the all-out picket is now up for grabs and I do not think that is a good thing.

Times have changed and the old collective principle that governed trade unions and the strong sense of solidarity is not as strong as it was 50 years ago, or even 30 years ago. Quite bluntly, there are circumstances where a certain type of worker can only be dragged kicking and screaming in support of an all-out picket but, nonetheless rules are rules and if people want to be members of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions they accept the rules of the institution. The rules of the institution are as I have set down. It seems to me that they will become inoperable now.

I would like to have dealt with a number of other matters but my colleagues are impatient to contribute to the debate. I should like to ask the Minister to address himself to the question of how he sees the new machinery he is putting in place operating in practice. Who will be subordinate to whom? Does the Minister not think it will invite friction and dispute as between the existing Labour Court, with their good track record, and the new Labour Relations Commission? It seems to me that the provisions of the Bill will diminish the rôle of the Labour Court and that is inviting internal friction. I know the Labour Relations Commission is opposed to subsuming the conciliation service but having thought about it I am not exactly clear on how it is automatically assumed that the conciliation service will perform more efficiently now that it is under the Labour Relations Commission than it did under the Labour Court. In all fairness, I do not go along with the casual criticism of the conciliation service that seems to have given birth to all of this. I think the conciliation service has a very good record. Individual industrial relations officers have applied themselves selflessly to the solution of many difficult disputes. There may well be a case for looking at an in-service training for conciliation officers or industrial relations officers but by and large they have done a very good job. I would not like us to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Many people following this debate more closely than others will want to know, for example, how it is proposed to recruit the staff for the Labour Relations Commission. I know it is proposed to use the Civil Service Commission but will there be an in-house competition or how widely can staff apply?

I am also interested in section 33 (3) which states that:

The Commission may appoint members of its staff, including industrial relations officers, to give advice on matters relating to industrial relations to management and workers or their representatives.

I would like to ask the Minister if that implies a consultancy service — I am not necessarily saying a consultancy service is a bad idea — is being established to give advice on industrial relations matters? If so, will it be an industrial relations consultancy service which will charge fees to industry or to whomever for the services being supplied? How is the budget for the Labour Relations Commission to be raised? Is it simply through a Vote in this House or is such a clause as that envisaged as making a revenue contribution? Is that service to which the trade union movement would be expected to give its allegiance going to be provided, for example, to non-union house? It would appear to me that the trade union movement would need to consider carefully the implications of present developments in industrial relations where the entire climate has changed, where the Industrial Development Authority at one time cautioned employers that they were effectively expected to have their workers in membership of trade unions but have now switched the shoe to the other foot and are saying to employers: "We will tell you what the situation is in Ireland but whether your workers end up in a trade union has nothing to do with us." I am not complaining about that. I do not think it is necessarily the job of an industrial relations authority to perform the functions of the trade union movement for the trade unions but it typifies the change in the climate, where all kinds of new style American fads about human resources and management, open door policy and all that kind of jargon is becoming the norm. An open door policy, in my experience, often means precisely that: workers who do not like it are shown the open door and they have very little recourse to any remedy. Are we setting up an institution here that will supply Texan-style union busters with advice on how they can duck their human resources policy and are trade unions expected to give direction on how this can be done most efficiently? I have some reservations about that and about the implications it will have for the trade union movement in this country in the longer term.

In approaching this Bill I have taken the old maxim that any good trade union official would take, that when employers start praising you it is time you looked to your laurels. When the employers made a benign response to the publication of this Bill and I looked at my own similarly benign response, I thought it was time to have another look at it and at the smaller print. The general thrust of the Bill is positive. I welcome things which I have not had the time to refer to, for example, the commitment to cause good standards of performance to be coded and to become the norm and which might be availed of in free collective bargaining and so on. That kind of development is positive. However, when one gets down to examining the provisions of the Bill in detail any mood of complacency very suddenly disappears. As I have said, the relatively neutral response of the trade union movement was motivated initially by the general thrust of the Bill, not so much by what is in the Bill but in what they believe they were successful in keeping out of the Bill.

Mr. B. Ahern

The Deputy will remember there were two years of discussion about it with both sides.

Mr. Rabbitte

I commend the Minister on his painstaking approach to ensuring that there was full consulation. I trust he is not saying to me that the outline of the Bill was made available to the trade unions before it was published. My understanding and my information is that it was not but that the general concepts — which I think we would all welcome — were discussed. I think also that the trade unions could very easily mislead themselves on the critical question of secondary picketing. The situation is not as it might appear at first glance. I have dealt with that at some length. I do not propose to come back to it now but I will come back to it on Committee Stage.

I am very concerned that the Bill goes out of its way to impose new obligations and responsibilities on trade unionists but there is no corresponding obligation or imposition on employers. Even in so far as the codes of practice, to which I have referred, under section 25 might create obligations on employers they are entirely voluntary, but in the trade union case they are statutorily enforceable. That is a shift in the balance of power and it is an undesirable shift since trade unionists have nothing to trade with except their labour. I regret that kind of development and the confusion I have talked about in relation to picketing and balloting in particular is likely to invite the involvement of the courts to an extent that is not desirable. In fairness to my many impatient colleagues I will leave it at that.

Mr. J. Bruton

A standing ovation.

Dr. Hillery

I welcome this Bill which I believe is designed to provide a better framework for collective bargaining and dispute settlement. Indeed it does contain a number of important provisions by way of change in trade union law and industrial relations law generally. At the outset one might ask why change and reform at all at this time; after all, strikes are at an all time low and industrial peace is the norm. The Programme for National Recovery has led to an unprecedented level of co-operation and consensus at national level. An argument could be made therefore to leave things alone and stick with the status quo. Incidentally, this is not a view I share. The Bill before us is designed to make improvements in the law to facilitate the better operation of our industrial relations system through the nineties and beyond. The prospects for acceptance of these legislative changes is all the better at a time when consensus prevails. Furthermore, and this is a point the Minister made a few moments ago, the Bill was preceded by exhaustive discussions between the Department of Labour on the one hand and the ICTU and the Federation of Irish Industries on the other.

Before referring very briefly to the specifics of the Bill I would like to make some comments on the rôle of trade union law in industrial relations. The present law relating to trade unions is mainly that enacted in the early years of the century at Westminster. It is in need of review and change. The Trade Disputes Act, 1906 which was very important in its time provided a framework which allowed trade unions to grow and develop. However the 1906 Act is still the definitive piece of trade union legislation which governs trade disputes in this country. The Act as it stands affords legal protection to almost any industrial action taken by a group in a trade dispute and also the funds of a trade union are protected from all actions for damages in tort, a matter which is addressed in the Bill.

It has to be said that time and circumstances have changed since the "Strumpet City" days. Today trade unions are relatively secure and are among the more important pressure groups in society. We live in a highly interdependent society where the degree of industrial interdependence continues to increase. All this leaves not only the State but also the individual citizen more vulnerable to the actions of trade unions. There are, however, some arguments against substantial changes in the law. Tradition is a powerful force and the traditional relationship between trade unions and the law has been mainly one of non-intervention. It is claimed that the law, which normally involves penalties for those who do not obey the legal rules, is an unsuitable instrument for resolving the human problems at the heart of industrial relations practice. There is a lot in this. In essence we are talking at base about human relations and problems. I can speak from some personal experience here having been involved in direct negotiations and in particular having been a mediator and arbitrator in labour disputes over many years.

Trade unions are very suspicious of the law. Their attitudes have been influenced by the struggle which characterised the days of their emergence in both Britain and Ireland. In the first instance they had to persuade Parliament to give them legal recognition which they secured as recently as 1871. Second, they had to cope with a prejudiced Judiciary who chose not to disguise their dislike of trade unions and strike action. As a result of that early experience trade unions view the law as oppressive and penal. Trade unions then are against the application of the law to industrial relations partly for historical reasons. Trade union confidence in the law has also been adversely affected by what trade unions view as the misuse of injunctions in trade disputes by employers supported by court decisions. I am referring of course to ex parte injunctions in particular. This problem is specifically addressed in the Bill before us but as matters stand legitimate picketing can be halted by the grant of an ex parte injunction.

It is important to draw a distinction here between trade union attitudes to the law on individual rights as opposed to collective rights. The individual rights legislation, for example, the Unfair Dismissals' Act, 1977, does not affect the basic principle of voluntarism which underlines our industrial relations system. Unions therefore are quite prepared to accept a rôle for the law in the case of individual rights but are suspicious for the reasons I mentioned of far reaching legal changes where collective rights are involved.

Those who would argue for stronger laws than the ones contained in the Bill should be reminded that the vast majority of industrial disputes are settled under the existing system of free collective bargaining by direct negotiation between the parties themselves. It has to be said that successive Governments have seen their rôle as providing supportive machinery, like the Labour Court, to help the parties resolve their problems when conflict cannot be contained within the voluntary collective bargaining system. The overriding objective of this Bill as I see it is to effect changes which will improve aspects of our industrial relations systems. That is what we are at.

Law is a technique for the regulation of social power but power is unevenly distributed in all societies, not alone in market economies but in all societies. I instance the recent developments in Eastern Europe. Central to the system of collective bargaining in this country is the balance of power between employers and unionised workers. The policy of the Legislature over many decades has been to maintain this balance between the collective strength of the two sides. That was the task which faced the Minister in formulating this Bill. It is abuses by a minority of either employers or employees or trade unions which can lead to changes in legislation. The changes in trade dispute law proposed in the Bill are designed to curb the risk of certain abuses. The Bill in addition aims to expand good industrial relations practices.

Let me turn to the Bill itself and I will be very brief as I want to get stuck into it on Committee Stage. Let me deal first with the question of the one man picket. The one man picket where it is in breach of agreed procedures and where other workers will not cross epitomises the abuse of power I suggest. Section 9 of the Bill tackles this problem by providing that immunities will no longer apply to disputes concerning one worker where procedures have not been followed.

No doubt we will have a detailed debate on secondary picketing on Commitee Stage. Section 1 tackles the unsatisfactory existing position concerning secondary picketing. It is my belief that the reason the Minister and the Government had to tackle this problem is that a clearer definition than that provided by the courts is necessary. Under the Bill the picketing of a second employer will be legal only where that employer assists in frustrating a primary strike. We can have a more detailed discussion on this matter on Commitee Stage.

Like Deputy Rabbitte, I too welcome the provision on worker versus worker disputes. As I see it, it does refer to inter-union disputes and demarcation issues. One of the most delicate problems in the area of industrial relations is that of inter-union disputes which I often encountered in my days as an arbitrator. Right now worker versus worker disputes enjoy legal protection under the 1906 Act. While inter-union disputes have been relatively few in number they can prove very disruptive and costly in financial terms. They can also act as a disincentive to investment in this country for badly needed jobs. The ICTU do have internal machinery and do the best they can in the circumstances to help resolve inter-union disputes but of course they are not always successful, not least because one or both parties can reject the congress decision. Furthermore, there is the additional complication of non-congress unions who are not party to congress machinery. The Bill addresses this problem by removing immunity from worker versus worker disputes. I think this is a good day's work.

I have referred to the influence of ex parte injunctions in undermining the confidence of trade unions in the law on a historical basis. The Bill restricts the granting of injunctions in trade disputes. As I said, trade unions have viewed the misuse of law in the case of ex parte injunctions. Section 19 of the Bill provides that if a secret ballot favours industrial action and the trade union gives at least one week's notice to the employer concerned the employer may not apply to any court for an ex parte injunction without giving notice to the union. A further merit of this section is that it underlines the desirability — in this instance the necessity — of a secret ballot which I believe to be both a democratic and a worthwhile practice. Overall it seems that this section will redress the justifiable concerns of trade unions over a long period about their grievance in respect of the one-sided ex parte injunction.

On the question of balloting procedures Deputy Rabbitte correctly pointed out that large unions in particular have secret ballot provisions and exercise them. The point is that it is not universal practice and it does not apply at all times, but I believe this practice is desirable.

Again, this is more a committee point that I want to make here but, if I understood Deputy Rabbitte, he raised the question of secret ballots before strikes but disagreed with such ballots before industrial action. It seems that what the Minister is faced with here is striking a balance between the two sides, the two major interest groups, and that in fact this is a restriction of a type. It is, however, intended to extend good practice and the law has to be seen to cut both ways, because there are points in this Bill that employers are unhappy with as well. The Minister is in the middle, acting in the public interest, to strike the best balance he can; and I think he has achieved that. Trade unions, as the Minister outlined, will have two years to give effect to the secret ballot requirement in their rule books and, as far as enforcement is concerned, a union who fails to comply with the requirement of the secret ballot will lose their negotiating rights; this, of course, is a hefty penalty but it is intended to ensure that the secret ballot provision will actually get into the rule books.

More generally in the area of secret ballots, for which I have long since had a personal preference, secret ballots remove the moral pressure that can be placed on workers when voting by a show of hands. The balloting procedures in the Bill should act as a stimulus to extending good industrial relations practice and, importantly, will help to ensure that trade union members can vote without interference and be given a fair opportunity of voting, which is a highly democractically desirable thing.

Turning then to Part III of the Bill on industrial relations generally I think it is worth noting that successive Governments have considered it the job of employers and trade unions to regulate wages, salaries and conditions of employment through collective bargaining and to resolve the differences between themselves. Disputes obviously can arise which are not solved through the collective bargaining process and it would be unrealistic — here I am echoing something that Deputy Rabbitte said — not to expect any dispute. That would be too idealistic as seen. It was precisely for that reason that the late Seán Lemass, with extensive consultation with both sides of industry, spearheaded the 1946 Act which introduced the Labour Court. The Labour Court was established in 1946 and the primary intention behind it was to help industry to help itself, not to supplant the negotiating function of either side. In line with the voluntarism which characterises the Irish industrial relations system, the parties are free to accept or reject the Labour Court recommendations; that is the intention of both parties and that should be continued. The Labour Court as we know it, despite the word "court" in its title — which I think in retrospect may be a bit regretable — does not enforce law. Its recommendations are not legally binding, unlike the position in some countries in continental Europe, and it cannot enforce penalties for failure to comply with its recommendations. What it does have, however, is very considerable moral authority and the combined efforts of its conciliation service. The court proper has succeeded in setting four out of every five disputes since it was founded in 1946. Here I would like to join with the Minister in commending and congratulating successive officers of the court since its foundation for the informality and for the sense of humanity and understanding of human relations they have brought to their work.

Turning to the court's more recent experience, in the seventies there was a significant increase in the number of disputes handled by the court. The terms of the national pay agreements and national understandings which specifically provided for reference to the court in the case of difficulty contributed to this increased load. This practice, however, of referring cases to the Labour Court continued into the eighties and there is an obvious need for the parties in dispute to settle their differences directly rather than relying unduly on third party machinery. The Labour Court, as originally envisaged, was to be a court of last resort and it was assumed that every effort would be made by the parties to resolve their differences through free collective bargaining. For many years past, however, disputes of a trivial character have been referred to the court for adjudication. In other words, they get that far, to the ultimate in machinery, which was never intended when the Act was passed in 1946. The disputes settling machinery provided by the State, therefore, needs to emphasise the responsibility of the parties to make every effort to resolve their differences directly. This the Bill deliberately sets out to do. Furthermore, the machinery should assist with dispute prevention as well as dispute resolution and this, too, the Bill sets out to do. If this can be achieved in our institutional framework, practice and I hope it can, the court's status as a court of last resort will be reinforced.

Turning to the Bill itself, in the context of the institutional changes the main proposal obviously is the transfer of existing conciliation services from the Labour Court to the new Labour Relations Commission. This transfer should enhance the authority of the court proper and help to make it a court of last resort. The main purpose of the commission, however, as the Minister has underlined, will be the promotion of good industrial relations. There is no existing body which has as its main purpose the promotion of good management and trade union practices and which, on a permanent basis, reviews and monitors developments in the area of industrial relations. Furthermore it will have a research function which obviously, given my professional work in UCD, I welcome in the sense that I believe that research and data collection and so on is a prerequisite for informed policy formulation.

The new advisory service of the Labour relations commission is a particularly interesting idea and one that I advocated myself in some published work as far back as a decade ago. It is a fact that both trade unions and employers already receive advice from their national federations, namely the Congress of Trade Unions, the Federation of Irish Employers and other employer organisations. What is being proposed in the Bill is the provision of a neutral advisory service which will earn, we hope, the trust of both employers and employees. Another layer of bureaucracy, however, should be avoided and this is a marker I would like to put down at this stage. It is worth highlighting, however, that in Britain the conciliation and arbitration service ACAS and the labour relations agency in Northern Ireland regard their advisory service as key elements in promoting good industrial relations. With regard to the reference to other jurisdictions, I do not want to make too big a deal of it, but I think where we can learn from experience elsewhere we should, and adapt where appropriate to our own system, especially now that we are in this review stage. I feel, however, that it will be very important in our case that this advisory service should be small, and flexible, and complementary to the existing institutions, and that will have to be monitored.

I want to say a brief word about the codes of practice. They will of course set out specific guidelines on an agreed basis between employers and unions. Again, these are common in Britain and in Northern Ireland but they do not exist here at all in the field of industrial relations for all practical purposes. The Bill assigns responsibility to the new Labour Relations Commission for the preparation of draft codes of practice which will be worked out after consultation with the relevant parties. It is not intended obviously, as I read the Bill, that such codes would be legally enforceable. Nonetheless every effort will need to be made to underline their standing and to ensure that their terms are upheld.

Among the areas to which these codes lend themselves would be an area of growing importance like disclosure of information. Quite clearly that is an area for the future; it is an employee need. Not alone that, it makes excellent management sense and I myself have observed companies on both sides of the Atlantic where a conscious policy of disclosing information to employees has led to an understanding and a commitment of what the business or organisation is trying to do. Furthermore, it is worth making the point that the most important stakeholders in any organisation are its employees. They have most to lose in a shut down. Therefore, not alone should they have a right to information but the ideas they have, especially in addressing problems facing companies, should be invited and adopted if appropriate. Far from being secretive, management should be more open in the interest of all concerned in the enterprise. Other examples of codes of practice could be in the area of disputes, procedures and grievances in disciplinary matters.

I want to touch on the question of trade union rationalisation and amalgamations. The multiplicity of trade unions in the Republic is a legacy of our history and the way trade unions grew, but it has been a source of considerable concern to Government and employers but especially to the trade union movement itself over the years. The trade union movement has made numerous attempts voluntarily to rationalise the movement but even to this day, despite the fact that the number of unions has dropped in the recent past, structural diversity characterises the Irish trade union movement. This, in turn, obviously leads to a multiplicity of unions, often with overlapping jurisdiction in the same industry or firm. As a result, competition among unions is common and inter-union rivalry is also evident. Despite several efforts by the trade union movement to rationalise its structures, the results have been modest enough. Not until recently, indeed very recently, has there been some significant progress in the area of rationalisation. The amalgamation of the ITGWU and the FWUI on 1 January this year to form SIPTU is a major step and I hope will act as a stimulus to other trade unions to consider and perhaps get down to negotiate mergers. A number of other amalgamations now have either been decided upon or are under examination.

That leads me to the change in the Bill where the Trade Union Act, 1975 provided grants towards expenses incurred by unions in the course of merger talks, but the money was paid only where a successful merger took place. Section 22 of this Bill goes further in that the Minister will be able to make grants to those unions who attempt to merge but who may fail in that attempt. Such unions may claim expenses relating to the two-year period prior to the failure. It seems this is a very sensible, rather enlightened step by the Minister and should help smaller unions in particular, who are very often working on the very edge of their resources, to survive. This will be an aid to them to contemplate more merger activity.

An unprecedented consensus has been achieved at national level through the Programme for National Recovery, and it is most desirable that this consensus reaches down to the enterprise, which has not yet happened in many organisations. It is at the level of the workplace that co-operation between management and employees and their representatives is most important, not alone in relation to jobs but in achieving a competitive edge as we face 1992 and beyond. Success in future will be strongly influenced by the capacity of organisations to formulate long-range policies, to devote attention to people policies and industrial relations policies that are now commonplace in the area of finance, production, technology and so on and to deal with change on a pro-active basis rather than waiting to react. Pro-active industrial relations strategies, which may not indeed be in any way threatening to employees or their unions, although evident in some companies are not yet the norm in Irish industry. The management of change and adaptation and the effective contribution of people in organisations will be a prerequisite for survival and growth in the future. Increased co-operation between employers and employees will call for an abandonment of the old authoritarian style of management and for a more participative style where information will become the norm rather than a secretive approach to the affairs of organisations and where management will be open and honest and upfront with their employees and adopt a genuinely caring approach.

The other side of what I am saying is that the traditional adversarial approach will need to be examined. Very often both sides are prisoners of past experience, of mistrust and maybe of abuse over a period which is only fuelling mistrust and working against change in the best interest of the enterprise. Therefore, increased trust and co-operation between management and employees must be attained in the interests of both. Here I am not talking for a one-sided achievement on the side of management; I am making a plea for co-operation, an increase of the cake and a sharing of the increased cake.

I want to refer to legislation more generally. It can have a significant impact on the conduct of collective bargaining and this Bill will have such an impact, but law on its own is no answer to our industrial relations problems. It is not a panacea. The development of good industrial relations at the level of the workplace depends on the knowledge, skill and commitment of management and employees and their trade unions. Our task here, a rather limited one really, is to ensure that as far as possible the legislative framework is designed to make the collective bargaining system work better with the over-riding objective of minimising conflict and maximising co-operation. I said there were exhaustive discussions with both sides and the Minister took great care to engage in such discussions, as did his officials who have considerable experience in this area.

Complete agreement by all concerned in the area of legal change in the field of industrial relations is impossible to achieve. However, the Bill before us is a compromise. By that I mean the Minister has to steer a middle course between two powerful interest groups, and it seems to me he has held centre stage in the public interest between the two sides. The Bill should make a positive contribution to improving our industrial relations and I hope it does so.

I congratulate the Minister on the patience and skill he has shown in bringing the Bill before the House. I look forward to a detailed discussion on it on Committee Stage.

Mr. Durkan

The Bill is a reasonable attempt to update the legislation relating to labour and industrial relations, and I hope when put into effect it proves to be satisfactory. As previous speakers have said, we are in a time of change in Europe generally and 1992 and all its implications must be taken into account now. Our legislation in this area needs to be updated simply because it has been quite some time since any major overhaul has been made. In that sense I welcome the Bill in the knowledge that it is a step in that direction.

However, In order to achieve industrial peace it requires the co-operation of the two sides. There are two sides to every story. One would hope that the parties concerned, the Government, the unions and the employers, would all have regard to their various responsibilities under the various Acts governing their operation. I say so in the hope — I make no political point in this — that we do not have situations like the one a couple of years ago when we had an agreement entered into by the trade unions, the employers and the Government. Scarcely was the ink dry on that agreement than there were obvious signs — whether the trade unions were hoodwinked I do not know — that somebody somewhere was welshing on the agreement. That was borne out by the numbers of people who came to attend our clinics. Whether they were in the health care areas, members of the teaching unions or whatever, there were obvious signs that an arrangement entered into, I presume in good faith by all parties, was fragmenting at a very early stage. It then seemed to fall on the politicians and the Members of this House to try to resolve the problem.

Such agreements should be entered into in the knowledge that all parties participating have a fairly important rôle to play. That applies equally to Government, employers and unions. On that occasion I do not think the employers, the Government in this case, were entirely fair to the people with whom they entered into an agreement. I am not going to labour that issue tonight because a number of other speakers also wish to be involved. However, I listened with considerable interest to the dissertation from Deputy Rabbitte who is obviously an expert in negotiations — I congratulate him on his speech — but it would not be in the interests of the Government, unions or employers to allow a repetition of that type of situation. It would have a serious and dangerous destabilising effect on the country generally. These are not my views alone but the views of trade unionists, politicians and employers.

I wish to refer to an interesting scenario in the dispute over the cleaning contract at UCD. I can understand and accept one situation he portrayed where a contractor wins the contract and displaces the existing contractor and his workers. In the case of both contractors having employees on their pay roll at the time, they are two equal competitors in a race for the contract, and competition must prevail. If contractor A had employees and contractor B had employees, both tendering for the same contract, then it is for management to decide who gets the contract. If one person loses the contract, obviously his or her employees will suffer, but I do not think we should involve ourselves in confrontation in that type of situation. If, on the other hand, a contractor with no employees wins the contract and displaces a contractor with employees, that is slightly different and I agree with the reservations expressed by Deputy Rabbitte. As we all know, that type of situation is open to all kinds of abuse where individuals can set about displacing another from a contract to the detriment of the contractor and his employees. I am sure the Minister and Deputy Rabbitte know the way that situation can be catered for, and rightly so.

The situation emerging in Eastern Europe can present either a threat or a challenge depending on how we respond to it. It is essential to have updated industrial relations, so that employees and management can respond quickly and effectively to the challenge which will come as Eastern Europe is democratised. Nobody should shirk from this challenge. It is open and fair competition in the market-place for which we have to be prepared. We have to encourage it, yet we have to complete, and there is a responsibility on unions and management equally and without exception to respond to it.

I am sure everybody has had experience in his constituency of disputes between unions and management. People can say that the unions were wrong, while others will say management was wrong. However, where there is a degree of co-operation between the unions and management, particularly in the larger industries, one sees that dialogue and negotiation reap the rewards, which are enjoyed by both parties, not just by one.

By the same token I can think of an industry which employed over 2,000 people when I was a younger man; it is no longer there. There were those who said it had gone because the unions got their way, the unions were too strong and so on and so forth. That may well be up to a point, but I do not think that is necessarily a criticism of the unions. I would regard it more so as a criticism of management. Management have a rôle to play in the bargaining process. I have seen that process operate as, I am sure, have most Members of the House. It is ironic that, in the aftermath of the closure, it was not uncommon to hear union negotiators, and particularly the union members, state that the union were doing their job, which they were quite entitled to do, but that they were negotiating on a one sided basis. There appeared to be no willingness on the part of management to do anything other than to concede everything that was requested. Obviously that was a union negotiator's paradise but even the union negotiators recognised that it was ridiculous that such a situation should develop.

I do not seek to arrive at confrontation where both sides are at sword point on every occasion. I believe there should be a high degree of dialogue, rapport and good relations but not to the extent that a decision taken by one side or the other is to the detriment of the firm or the employees. Most people in this House would agree with that. There are employees and I am sure employers who have outdated attitudes to ironing out disputes and resolving problems. In the so called enlightened era in which we live, it is not unreasonable to expect an evolution of the situation so that industrial disputes do not become the object of fire brigade action.

The Bill goes some way towards that, particularly the setting up of the Labour Relations Commission. If that commission do the job which is intended, they will serve a useful purpose as a trouble shooter by identifying situations and establishing a liaison in difficult areas and providing accord before a problem gets out of hand. That type of progress is in the interests of everybody concerned, certainly in the interests of Government which need good industrial relations for very good reasons. It is in the interests of the employer, even though he may not like it at the time, and in the interests of employees to get the best possible deal in terms of pay and working conditions, while at the same time having regard to the need to continue employment which is essential for the well being of everybody.

I hope the Bill will eliminate petty differences. Deputy Hillery has already referred to the one man picket. I know that in some situations right could be on the side of the man or woman who goes on the one man picket, but for one reason or another he or she cannot get the support of his colleagues, but generally speaking the interests of one person should not predominate over the interests of all others to the extent that the employees of a firm find that their future employment is in doubt.

Reference was made to the possibility of An Post being replaced by contract workers in the event of a strike. I would blame management in such a situation. Management is there to compete and in the open market which we are entering with gusto in 1992 we will have to expect that management will compete in a fashion in which they have never competed before. They must recognise that somebody else could be in a position to provide an alternative service.

Employees are involved in both types of situation, whether the service is provided by A or by B. All contracts are fulfilled by employees. In the open and harder competition we will have to face in coming years, management will have to be far sharper than in the past and must have regard to the need for good industrial relations if they expect to remain in business and maintain their labour force.

The Rights Commission has and will have a useful role to play in the future both in the case of employers with a large labour force and in the case of small industries and businesses where there is no union involved. That rôle is important and should not be lost sight of, even in the case of increased competition. People can be squeezed unnecessarily and it is important to retain this type of structure.

Section 14 proposes that no strike or industrial action should take place without a secret ballot. That is progressive and fair to all. It is fair to the employee who wants to make up his or her mind without pressure and it is fair to the employer who will know that the decision arrived at is by way of secret ballot and free from the type of pressures which can exist without such a ballot. It must be better than any other system, although I know there have been situations where it has not been possible to have the ideal secret ballot. It will pull management and unions into line in that they will have a better understanding of each other's position and will have greater respect for the decision than would be the case if there were something ambiguous about it or suspicious of excessive influence being brought to bear.

Mr. Wyse

It is opportune to inform our industrial relations system now that we are fast approaching 1992 and the nation is preparing for an assault on all commercial opportunities that are there for the taking. We cannot expect sympathy, concessions or protection when the floodgates open, affecting our whole commercial life.

No one can deny that our industrial relations in the past were disastrous for workers and employers and that they severely jeopardised the hope of foreign investment. We were plagued by industrial unrest and many unnecessary strikes which could have been avoided if common sense and understanding had prevailed on both sides. We have learned a lot and any reformed structure must reflect on the anomolies and the weakness which became apparent in our industrial disputes.

Those who are preparing new industrial relations legislation must be prepared to be positive and determined to find solutions and agreement on both sides, difficult though it may be but essential for our economy in the years ahead. Industrial peace can only become a reality when trade unions, employers and employees are convinced that our industrial relations structure is fair, efficient and above suspicion. It must have the utmost support from all sides to ensure the implementation of the principles enshrined in the new structure.

Labour relations must be seen as a very sensitive area, but there must be an authoritative status to its rulings, otherwise it will become something to be juggled around to satisfy the desire of one side or the other. This would be disastrous and a perpetuation of labour unrest in industry.

I am endeavouring to highlight existing anomalies in our labour relations system and the causes of strikes, so that we can all understand the magnitude of the task of establishing once and for all a workable structure. Only then can the effectiveness of the structure be seen and respected by all.

Unofficial strikes must be outlawed since such strikes flout the authority of trade unions and show complete disregard for the majority of workers who are not involved but must bear the brunt of loss of salary for a period. Workers and employers must be protected against such action and those responsible should be liable for suspension or dismissal from the union concerned.

I believe that personnel officers without the necessary experience are appointed by management. Such people should have available to them training courses and the means to secure a diploma in that field. They play a vital rôle in industry, yet they are not mentioned in the Bill. Company directors are far removed from the workforce and only come face to face with them during industrial disputes, at the wrong time and in the wrong atmosphere. Industry can only thrive successfully when barriers and distinctions are removed and the attitude of shared responsibility is given full recognition in the office and on the factory floor.

The picketing of private residences has recently become a feature of strike action. This is deplorable and must be condemned by all fair minded people. A family are not responsible for board of directors or trade union decisions in matters in dispute. Such a practice should be illegal. The right to strike must always be observed and respected but must always be subject to certain requirements. No one has a divine right to strike without first consulting and using the agreed machinery set up by the Government to adjudicate on the merits and demerits of disputes.

Simple unfair dismissal procedures must be established. I am talking about instant dismissal. Discrimination and blackmail are often used in dismissing a worker. The action may or may not be justified but it will cause anxiety among the workforce and that will be detrimental to good relations in the industry.

Agreements within industry where management and trade unions work out conditions of employment and procedures to be adopted in the case of disputes should be encouraged. There could be a legal agreement between all parties involved in that industry to that effect.

The main purpose of this Bill is to produce a better framework for collective bargaining and dispute settlement by making a number of important changes in trade union and industrial relations law. The law on trade unions and trade disputes applying here has developed from the establishment of statutory immunities against various common law liabilities. These were accomplished in a series of Acts passed between 1871 and 1906. The Trade Union Act, 1871, relieved trade unions of some of the criminal and civil disabilities they suffered as a result of the doctrine of restraint trade. Section 2 of that Act stated that the purpose of any trade union shall not, by reason merely that they are in restraint of trade, be deemed to be unlawful so as to render any member of such trade union liable to criminal prosecution, conspiracy or otherwise.

As case law developed in Britain, other statutes were necessary to protect workers from charges of conspiracy under common law. The Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, was enacted to nullify the effects of some of this case law. Section 3 of this Act stated that an agreement or combination by two or more persons to do or procure to be done any act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute shall not be indictable as a conspiracy, if such acts committed by one person would not be punishable as a crime. This Act also repealed the Master and Servants Act, 1867, and other statutes which made it a criminal offence for workers to break their contracts of employment in certain circumstances. While the Acts of 1871 and 1875 removed the law of criminal conspiracy from trade disputes, the development of liability conspiracy at civil law subsequently imposed an equal threat to trade unions. This threat to the trade union movement was again highlighted in British case law and was not completely removed until the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, was enacted. Proposals before the House for legal change concern primarily the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, the principal statute dealing with liabilities and civil law. I welcome the repeal of this Act as a starting point in any attempt to establish a more rational legal basis for the conduct of industrial relations. The Act was introduced when the trade union movement was numerically, organisationally, financially and politically weak and when its existence had been threatened by a number of common law judicial decisions. This is no longer the case. Other changes since then have been equally marked, such as, units of employment, for example, where smaller public ownership was not nearly so significant as it is now. The Act has now outlived its usefulness. It is clearly out of step with contemporary needs and conditions.

Other changes in this Bill to be welcomed are changes to amend the Trade Union Act, 1941, to amend the Industrial Relations Acts, 1946 and 1969, the Trade Union Act, 1971, and the Industrial Relations Act, 1976. I also welcome the repeal of the entire Trade Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982.

I now wish to make a special appeal to all employers, to all workers and to all trade union activists. As the Irish economy slowly recovers from the effects of prolonged recession, organisations are eagerly looking for means of establishing competitive advantage. The demands of the 1990s with more intense international competition and a more rapid pace of change, especially technological change, will highlight the need for a better trained and more flexible workforce. Tomorrow's needs, especially the technical, technological and white collar skills in new developing products and services will be greater than ever.

As our economy improves much ground has to be made up if we are to have the skills and a flexible labour force which we will need in the 1990s. By any measure there is a need for a radical reform of our industrial relations system. This Bill does not go far enough and I will outline my reasons later. The world of the 1990s and particularily as we approach 1992 will be one of increasingly rapid change, technological change, changing market opportunities and changing skill requirements. If we are to cope with these changes we must increase the flexibility with which industry, commerce and individuals respond. We must break down the barriers which inhibit progress and which hold back employment growth.

We must ensure that flexible pay arrangements and excessive pay increases do not threaten jobs and growth. We must counter out-dated attitudes and behaviour in industrial relations which can still inhibit change and constrain productivity. We must prevent discrimination in recruitment and employment on grounds of race, sex, disability or age which hinders the best use of the country's resources at a time when the population of working age is growing. We must tap the energies and develop the talents of people who live in our inner cities. We must further improve access to advice, information and support for people seeking to create their own jobs and businesses. We must tackle the barriers, some real and some perceived which hinder people from moving to taking up new jobs, which policies of this Government are geared towards generating. Above all we must invest in the skills and knowledge of our people and build up an industry skills base. The amount of new jobs this economy would provide for its people will depend on the partnership with employers and Government.

Mr. McCartan

You must have had the Bill formulated before the Programme for Government was agreed.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

This was after the Kanturk declaration.

Mr. Wyse

Government can set the framework for enterprise and economic progress and for the removal of impediments to job creation. It is up to employers and individuals by their action to ensure that jobs come about. The acknowledged deficiences in our industrial relations arrangements and the realism of our current economic situation demand an acceptance by all concerned. The promotion of improved industrial relations is a major priority and responsibility in itself.

The attainment of this objection could help in overcoming current difficulties and could increase Ireland's attractiveness as a suitable location for investment in a more competitive world. Similar aspirations have been expressed in the past but exchanges of views then did not lead to the implementation of substantial reforms. If this experience is to be avoided in the future, a level of open-mindedness from everybody involved will be required together with a willingness to compromise.

The number of strikes had dropped every year since 1983; 41,000 working days were lost in 1989 compared with 130,000 days in 1983, and fewer than in the previous 25 years. Two disputes in the public service accounted for 43 per cent of the number of days lost and this remarkable improvement in the industrial relations climate is widely attributed to the current intolerably high level of unemployment. However, there is a new realism among the workforce. They know that in an open economy — with 1992 fast approaching — the real opposition is not the employer who faces them across the bargaining table but the firms of foreign competitors who will steal their market and their jobs.

One of the biggest problems which many personnel managers and companies face today is a reduction in the working week from 40 hours to 39 hours, a move which all employers will have to make over the next three years as part of the Programme for National Recovery. I urge all employers and employees' representatives to get together to ensure that this transition in working hours is completed in the time-scale with the minimum disruption to production and services.

The present period of industrial peace has provided the Minister for Labour with a golden opportunity to reform present labour and industrial relations legislation. I hope the Bill will start such a reform process. The system of industrial relations is based on the principle of free collective bargaining. In general terms this means that there has been agreement on all sides and the statute law should not affect the freedom of workers to bargain collectively with employers in order to determine their terms and conditions of employment.

The rôle of the State is seen primarily as one of helping the parties to resolve their problems, for providing machinery to assist in settling disputes and by encouraging the parties to use that machinery. Legislation has also provided a floor of rights and entitlements to workers generally. These include redundancy payments, minimum notice in terms of employment, unfair dismissal, equality, holidays, safety and health at work, collective dismissal, maternity rights and a limited form of worker participation at board and sub-board level. While most of this legislation arrives from a recognition of changed economic and social conditions, several measures owe their origin to EC directives or international obligations. All are consistent with the tradition and promotion of free collective bargaining and none has posed any challenges to the fundamental legislation which underpins the system.

I believe that the absence of satisfactory and widely applicable dispute procedures is so fundamental an effect of current industrial relations practice as to make it necessary to introduce certain minimum changes as quickly as possible. Well defined and speedy dispute procedures are necessary to ensure that collective bargaining is conducted in an orderly manner, that claims are processed in a proper and reasonable standardised fashion, that decisions are arrived at through proper and democratic means and that unnecessary work stoppages are avoided.

At a minimum the following procedural sequence should be observed before there is a stoppage of work. I would have no hesitation in suggesting that the sequence which I am about to outline, which was contained in the commission on inquiry on industrial relations, should be embodied into positive law. There should be direct negotiations between the parties; there should be conciliation; adjudication; a secret ballot by all its members; authorisation of industrial action by unions and management and issue of notice of industrial action.

I believe that compliance with these procedures should be mandatory not only for strikes but for all types of industrial action. These recommendations constitute the basic nucleus of the procedures which should in future govern the initiation of industrial action by an employer or a trade union. The proposals which I have just outlined should be mandatory and incorporated in this Bill. Parties to disputes which do not get involved in direct negotiations, who are not prepared to go to conciliation and who are not prepared to have their case adjudicated upon, should not be given the right to go on strike even though they may hold a secret ballot by all of their members. They should have to prove that there was a genuine effort on their behalf to resolve the dispute without resorting to industrial action. The proposals which I have just outlined would have the effect of removing the legal immunities from all unofficial disputes and from any official dispute in breach of the recommended procedure as I have just stated.

In my own home city of Cork at present, Liebert, a computer components company with a total workforce of over 200 people are at present on official strike; 92 persons are affected by this dispute. It would appear that the dispute has nothing to do with working conditions or industrial relations policies, in so far as two employees, one a supervisor and one an ordinary worker had a dispute outside normal working hours, away from the company premises, while socialising. The action taken by management was extraordinary, to say the least.

Where were the negotiations between the parties in this instance? Was there conciliation or any other form of adjudication? I doubt it. If there was any wrongdoing on the part of the supervisor or the employee surely, this matter could have been resolved in civil law? The action taken by management in this case, which was subsequently responded to by the workforce with industrial action, has put the viability of this company in jeopardy and the livelihoods of those employed at risk. In these disputes, well defined procedures should be followed with the insistence of the Department of Labour, so that industrial action is avoided at all costs. I plead with the Minister to intervene in this case because it is unique. I cannot recall a strike involving a difference between two employees outside the premises resulting in one of those people being victimised. It should be dealt with forthwith to ensure that the firm remains in the city of Cork.

A notable development in our industrial relations to recent years has been the enactment of various statutes which have conferred on individuals rights which were previously attainable only through the collective bargaining system. These statutes include the Redundancy Payment Act, the Industrial Relations Act, Minimun Notice and Terms of Employment Act, Holiday Employees' Act, Anti-Discrimination Pay Act, Unfair Dismissals Act, Protection of Employment Act, Worker Participation Act and Maternity (Protection of Employees) Act.

Most of the legislation lays down certain minimum standards leaving entitlements above the minimum to be obtained by collective bargaining. Others, for example, the Anti-Discrimination Pay Act, the Employment Equality Act and the Unfair Dismissals Act, in addition to conferring certain rights, provide for independent machinery to rule in disputes concerning these rights and, where necessary, to provide redress in cases where these rights have not been granted or respected. Where an appropriate procedure exists for an agreed person to pursue cases to a peaceful solution, such persons should not be entitled to attempt to bypass these procedures or to overturn decisions lawfully taken by having recourse to industrial action. I would like to see in this Bill measures to prevent industrial action where workers are guaranteed certain minimum rights in positive law. I recommend, therefore, that the statutory definition of a trade dispute should exclude disputes arising under the Anti-Discrimination Pay Act, 1974, the Employment Equality Act, 1977, and the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.

Debate adjourned.