Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 18 Feb 1998

Vol. 487 No. 4

Private Members' Business. - Trade Union Recognition Bill, 1998: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. Perry

I support the voluntary aspect of the Trade Union Recognition Bill. Trade unions and their members have made a major contribution to the economy and to society. Competitiveness is crucial to wealth and job creation. Effective protection is available to people who voluntarily wish to join a union in the workplace. Very effective developments under national law further regulate the labour market and include new legislation on paternity protection, adoptive leave and the extension of equal pay. We have employment equality legislation, equal status legislation, a review of holiday legislation, the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, the Pension Act, 1990 and the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

A very effective body of protective legislation exists for the private sector and others who wish to have trade union recognition. It is very important that the voluntary aspect of this Bill is recognised as the regulatory burden currently placed on businesses is quite extensive. It is also proposed to introduce a minimum wage Bill, a subject which will come up for discussion in coming weeks.

Compulsory trade union recognition could be seen to act as a disincentive to employers and prevent them from taking on new employees. Compulsory trade union recognition will introduce even more regulation to the workforce and create a volume of law which could impede or adversely affect business.

I applaud the work trade unions have done and I hope it will continue but it must be left solely to employers and employees to decide what is in their best interests in this area. The biggest investment any employer makes is in his or her staff, most of whom are very well protected by the current regulatory reforms.

Minister of State at the Department of Public Enterprise (Mr. Jacob)

I wish to share my time with Deputies Carey and Martin Brady.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Briscoe)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Jacob

The subject of trade union recognition and, specifically, the question of mandatory forms of recognition is undoubtedly a very emotive issue and gives rise to considerable passion on either side of the debate. It is important, therefore, to maintain a proper perspective on the issue.

Ireland has one of the healthiest and most influential trade union movements in the western world. Trade unions are an integral part of our economic and social fabric and have made an enormous contribution to progress over the decades. I have no doubt they will continue to play a key role in society for many years to come.

While some countries have experienced catastrophic declines in trade union membership levels, Ireland continues to experience very high union density levels. Granted, overall trade union membership dropped in the 1980s but much of this loss has been recovered in the past few years as employment began to grow again. At the end of 1996, total trade union membership was in the region of 540,000, which was close to the peak membership figure of 552,000 achieved in 1981. Approximately 53 per cent of all employees in employment are members of unions. Indications are that the rising trend in union membership levels has continued in 1997. I believe Deputies will agree this shows, certainly in overall terms, that trade unions are still a major force in Ireland.

The position in Ireland contrasts very much with that in many other countries which have experienced a major decline in membership levels over the past 25 years. Data released by the International Labour Office in November last year revealed that, in the decade to 1995, trade union membership had dropped to less than 20 per cent of workers in 48 out of 92 countries surveyed. Only in 14 countries did the union membership rate exceed 50 per cent of employees at work. The decline in some countries has occurred in spite of the fact that they have provisions for mandatory union recognition in certain circumstances. The United States is a case in point where union membership had dropped to only 14 per cent of workers by 1995. In France, where unions have statutory involvement in works councils, only 9 per cent of workers are union members.

To look more directly at the issue of union recognition, one indication of the extent of the problem is the number of recognition disputes being referred to the Labour Court. Trade unions commonly refer recognition cases unilaterally to the court for a recommendation on whether a union should be recognised by an employer. The number of recommendations issued by the court in such disputes increased significantly in the early 1990s, although it was not very large at any time, but has again declined in the last three years. In 1997, only eight recommendations were issued. This would not suggest a major union recognition problem exists.

A strong legislative remedy, which this Bill represents, is really not the answer to the union recognition problem. It flies in the face of our voluntarist approach to industrial relations and could have untoward consequences for the whole of our industrial relations and social partnership system. We must look for other solutions to the union recognition problem. Any solution must have the support of the social partners. As suggested last night by my colleague Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, the continuance of deliberations in the high level group on union recognition offer the best prospect of finding a solution that will be generally acceptable. I doubt that anybody who has reflected on this subject has any illusions about the difficulty in finding the right formula. There is no quick fix. Last summer, when the matter was on the agenda of the annual conference of the ICTU in Belfast, delegates were warned that they should not underestimate the difficulties the newly established high level group on trade union recognition would face. On this Kevin Duffy was right and we must await the outcome of the group's deliberations.

There is no doubt that mandatory trade union recognition and changed policies that are capable of being represented as mandatory would impact adversely and substantially on inward investment in employment. Like it or not, the consequences that a changed policy on trade union recognition would have in relation to this country's primary standing in certain sectors would be most damaging.

Many new overseas companies choose not to recognise trade unions. The way to tackle this problem is not to introduce policies which would discourage, and possible prevent, such companies from setting up or expanding here. It is a matter of developing solutions within our voluntarist model and it is a matter for the trade union movement to make itself more attractive to these companies. Not every trade union sees this as an impossibility. In a broadly similar context recently, I was struck by the remarks of an official of the ATGWU who said: "it is the job of unions themselves to recruit members, not the IDA". In elaborating the point further, the official added that "unions are chasing up the wrong tree" in blaming bodies such as the IDA for not promoting the role of trade unions as it did in the past.

The principle of free collective bargaining has been enshrined in industrial relations legislation since the Industrial Relations Act, 1946, under which the Labour Court was established. Since then the Labour Court has applied this principle consistently, seeking to achieve consensus in industrial disputes by promoting the spirit of compromise. The question of making Labour Court recommendations legally binding in relation to any aspect of industrial relations is one that should be approached with great caution. To make such recommendations binding, as this Bill proposes in certain instances, would run contrary to the present system of free collective bargaining.

The voluntarist approach has been the cornerstone of our industrial relations system for the past 50 years. It is central to the social partnership of the past decade which has made an enormous contribution to the unprecedented levels of economic growth of recent years. We tamper with the system at our peril. What is proposed in the Bill would lead to litigation and could bring union recognition disputes before the courts. Such developments could undermine the voluntarist system of industrial relations and could threaten the voluntary social partnership process.

The high level group was mandated to report to the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment by the end of last year, and it did so. It is clear we have not had the last word from the group and I am pleased the Government and social partners have agreed to finalise its work. The group sought to move matters forward, not through legislation but by the social partners and the Government working together in the context of the existing industrial relations system. This is the only way we will find a solution we can live and work with after the dust of the initial confrontation has settled.

The Government cannot accept this Bill.

Mr. P. Carey

This Bill, which was introduced by a Member for whom I have great regard, Deputy Broughan, appears to be stuck in the time warp of another industrial relations era. I cannot but surmise there is a degree of opportunism in its introduction. However, that is politics. Members of the Governments parties propose simply to outline the inconsistencies in the proposed legislation.

As the Minister of State said, there is agreement on all sides of the House about the importance of social partnership. We are aware of the contribution the Taoiseach made to this partnership when he was Minister for Labour by coaxing, persuading and cajoling sectors that are now regarded as social partners but which were, in those early days, adversaries in the workplace. They were coaxed to look at the broader picture of industrial relations. The gains for workers, management and, primarily, for the strength, health and growth of the economy are now obvious.

The concepts of free collective bargaining and voluntarism are fundamentally important. Trade unionists for whom I have much admiration, such as Jackie Brosnan, the former general secretary of my union, Ruairí Roberts and Paddy Donegan, who was with the ITGWU for a long time, spent many long hours and days in smoke filled rooms trying to encourage this process. As a result, there are effective joint labour committees in various sectors of industry. Clearly, partnership and voluntarism have worked.

It has been pointed out that difficulties with trade union recognition are not new and that the position of Governments has been that no major change should be made to industrial relations law and machinery unless there is agreement on such changes. Everybody remembers the confrontations of the 1970s when pickets were placed for weeks and months at a time. There was no meeting of minds about how major changes in work practices and management could be processed.

The proposals in this Bill would have profound side effects. It is a legislative approach while the process which has given rise to the Labour Relations Commission, the Labour Court and its refinements, arbitration proceedings and so forth has inherent flexibility. I caution against a return to old rigid stand-offs and refusals to engage. We encourage parties in Northern Ireland to participate in an exchange of ideas. Time moves on and industrial relations, trade unions and management practices also move on. We have seen how effective that process can be.

Measures which are perceived to favour one side, whether it is unions or management, will lead to the unfavoured side increasing the ante. If the unions are short changed, they will believe it is their function to increase the ante against management. Management will react in the same way if it is short changed. There is a danger, at a time when we are trying to attract investment, that there might be a backlash among indigenous industrialists and foreign investors against trade unions. That is the last thing we want. We are proud of the role which the unions have played and we want that to continue.

Restrictive and rigid practices runs counter to the approach in Partnership 2000. I read some of the recommendations of the high level report and it strikes me that we should await the wisdom of those significant thinkers on trade union and management legislation who are contributing to the high level committee before we rush in and make laws we may regret.

Unfortunately, much as I would like to support Deputy Broughan's Bill, it is flawed and harks back to another era. We cannot support it.

Mr. M. Brady

If one did not have much knowledge of the trade union movement — which I do having been a negotiator for the past 22 years — one could probably see some merits in this Bill, given the dispute in Ryanair which brought it about. However, this Bill should be a last resort. Other recourse can be taken, such as sanctions on an employer like Ryanair, which has acted in a disgraceful manner that is not conducive to good industrial relations. Dictatorship, discrimination and victimisation is the order of the day and that is not linked to Partnership 2000. Ryanair cannot be allowed to spoil the party for everyone.

I support the constitutional right of free association, particularly the right to form a trade union to protect the living standards of members and achieve acceptable conditions of employment. From the 1970s onwards trade unions, employers and workers rejected confrontational labour relations in favour of a voluntary approach. The Celtic tiger is proof of the wisdom of that approach. The Government, IBEC and the trade union movement must come together and work out what action needs to be taken. Recognition will be the biggest threat to partnership in business. I spoke to the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, about this matter and a group is working vigorously on it.

The voluntary code has worked well. In 1996, 81 per cent of recommendations by the Labour Relations Commission were settled at conciliation stage. Over 2,000 collective bargaining cases per annum were dealt with by the LRC and noncompulsory or voluntary settlements were issued. The chairperson of the Labour Court has confirmed it is keeping the matter of Ryanair under review and is prepared to facilitate the parties in any way. I urge Ryanair, as Deputy Tom Kitt has, to take up the Labour Court's offer. I am satisfied the Government will use its powers to contribute to the settlement of the Ryanair dispute. We should not deal with the issue in the context of a localised dispute in an indigenous company, no matter how much we dislike the situation.

The trade union movement has made an invaluable contribution to economic and social development, particularly under Partnership 2000. The same cannot be said for employers as exploitation is widespread and "yellow pack" workers on low pay are common. The development of social partnership is based on a long tradition of free collective bargaining in the industrial relations area. It is in this context that progress on trade union recognition is made. As a trade union negotiator, I found the gun to the head approach seldom works. An element of goodwill and trust is essential.

This Bill will do the opposite and create a "them" and "us" situation where "coercion" and "mandatory" will become part of the language of industrial relations. As a trade union activist, I will not support any move which will undermine the Labour Court and the LRC and create major difficulties for the trade union movement, which provides valuable assistance in the resolution of industrial relations disputes.

The Bill is ill-timed and appears to be a knee-jerk reaction to a particular dispute. It will seriously threaten the continuation of the voluntary social partnership which has contributed substantially to economic and social life and benefits all our citizens as well as future generations. This Bill, if adopted, will plunge the trade union movement into turmoil. I spoke to members of my trade union who believe we should hold fire and not be too hasty. As Deputy Pat Carey and Deputy Jacob said, it is a broader issue which is not as simple as that. We must encourage foreign investment and there must not be a perception that we cannot lift a pen or close a door without the involvement of a trade union. The trade union movement is well aware of how multinationals operate.

The members of my trade union are concerned about another issue which I have raised with the Minister and which we should debate. Trade union members should have freedom of choice but in many cases they do not. Many trade union members who, in some cases, subscribe 1 per cent of their basic salary or 1 per cent of their gross salary including overtime, are concerned that this money is transferred to a political party without their approval or consent. Large donations were made by trade unions to a political party in the last general election without the consent of the trade union members.

Mr. Broughan

We did not get Ben Dunne's money.

Mr. M. Brady

It smacks of dictatorship and it is time the matter was looked at.

Mr. Broughan

We did not get big business money like Fianna Fáil.

Acting Chairman

Everyone is confined to a certain time and they will lose that if it is taken up by interruptions. Deputy Broughan will have an opportunity to speak. I ask him to allow the debate to continue in an orderly manner.

Mr. M. Brady

I am speaking about facts. If Deputy Broughan wants to dispute them, he should do so.

Mr. Ferris

They are not correct.

Mr. M. Brady

That is not freedom of choice. It smacks of dictatorship and it should be looked at and amended.

Mr. Broughan

The Deputy should tell us about Ben Dunne and his former leader.

Mr. M. Brady

I am a trade union member and I do not have the freedom to disagree regarding a proportion of my subscription going to a political party I do not support.

Mr. Broughan

The Deputy should tell us about Ben Dunne and the rest of them.

Acting Chairman

Deputy Broughan's interruptions are taking time from the Opposition.

Mr. M. Brady

As a trade unionist I have never passed a picket, which cannot be said of some of the Members in this House acting in a hypocritical way.

Mr. O'Shea

Ba mhaith liom mo chuid ama a roinnt leis an Teachta Ferris agus an Teachta Rabbitte.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. O'Shea

Tá áthas agus bród orm labhairt sa díospóireacht thábhachtach seo ar an mBille seo.

As a member of the Irish labour movement, it gives me great pleasure to speak on the Bill. The Trade Union Recognition Bill is comprehensive and prudent. It was researched over many months by my colleague, Deputy Broughan, and presented to the House at a time when the issue of trade union recognition is at the heart of a serious industrial dispute at Ryanair. The Bill is an important measure towards deepening social partnership.

Social partnership will not continue in the long-term unless it is underpinned and deepened by industrial relations legislation to deal with a number of key issues facing workers in the trade union movement today. While trade union recognition is one of these issues, it is by no means the only one. Issues such as equality in the workplace, working hours, child care leave, low pay, the introduction of a minimum wage and Sunday trading are also of concern to our labour force and need to be addressed. However, given the

Government's head-in-the-sand attitude to the Trade Union Recognition Bill espoused by the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, last night I hold out little hope of progress in these areas under the current Administration.

Some Members believe social partnership has been achieved and that nothing more needs to be done to ensure its continued contribution to our economic well-being. They could not be more wrong. Social partnership has been a cornerstone of our economic success in recent years. Since 1987 workers have had the discipline and foresight to agree to moderate pay increases and changed work practices that have made our economy increasingly competitive and more attractive to indigenous and international commercial enterprises. During the negotiations for Partnership 2000 workers and trade unionists made it abundantly clear that social partnership needed to be developed and deepened to ensure the continued support of the labour force.

The Trade Union Recognition Bill develops and deepens social partnership at a time when it is under great strain. The Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, and the rest of the Government are aware of the serious concerns of the trade union movement which have been expressed in the Ryanair dispute. The behaviour of the airline's management is threatening the basis of our economic success and demands action from the Government as a matter of urgency. The Government does not seem to understand the difference between actions and words. Well meaning words by the Taoiseach will not resolve the current crisis.

My party colleague, Deputy Broughan, has presented the Government with a golden opportunity to restore equilibrium to social partnership in the form of the Trade Union Recognition Bill, but the Government rejected it out of hand. By its actions, the current Administration is contributing to the current unease. The Government has chosen to deepen the crisis rather than take steps to resolve it. That course of action — or, more accurately, inaction — is incomprehensible and inept.

Regarding the Taoiseach's attitude to the Trade Union Recognition Bill, Brendan Hayes of SIPTU stated today that "the future of partnership depends on the choice he makes". We know the choice the Government and the Taoiseach have made and they must now face the serious consequences of the short-sighted rejection of the Bill. How can the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste expect the Minister of State with responsibility for labour affairs to retain the confidence of the trade union movement after his rejection of this Bill and his humiliating and hypocritical rejection of another Bill introduced by Deputy Broughan to give statutory rights to workers in respect of Sunday trading. Those actions send out the strong message that the continued development of social partnership is not a concern for the Government. It is a dangerous and worrying signal that has serious repercussions for industrial relations. I am dismayed the Government does not appreciate the effect of its actions. After the débacle involving credit unions, initiated by the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, it should come as no surprise that this Government does not care a whit for the concerns of ordinary working people.

I will address some of the points made by the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt. When one looks beyond the invective and political point scoring in which he indulged, there was little substance to his speech. In relation to the Ryanair dispute we yet again got fine words and no action from the Government. The Minister of State stated "For the Government's part, we will not hesitate to use such powers as we have to contribute to the settlement of the dispute". Does he not realise the Government has no powers to resolve this dispute? When faced with a truculent and stubborn employer like Ryanair, the Government or the workers have no legislative recourse to action. Deputy Broughan's Bill would resolve this legislative lacuna.

Will the Minister of State explain why, when presented with a Bill that would enable the Labour Court to impose a rational and measured solution to a long running and bitter industrial dispute, he rejects it? Given the attitude of the Minister of State to this Bill, what alternative strategy does he intend to introduce to address our current legislative vacuum?

Last night the Minister of State stated that trade union disputes were not "a perpetual problem". He quoted figures regarding the number of such disputes that have appeared before the Labour Court in recent years to support his claim that trade union recognition is not a pressing issue. He reported that at least 43 disputes involving trade union recognition were before the Labour Court in recent years and yet he still maintains the nonsense that this does not need legislative action. How many more workers does the Minister of State want on strike or engaged in other industrial action before he will give this matter the priority it deserves? I am dismayed that a Minister of State with responsibility for labour affairs can so lightly cast aside the serious issue of trade union recognition disputes. It points to a Minister seriously out of touch with the trade union movement.

I also draw the Minister of State's attention to the statement issued today by Brendan Hayes of SIPTU who criticised him for misrepresenting the trade unions movement's position on the question of trade union recognition in his speech last night. Mr. Hayes stated:

SIPTU supports the terms and the spirit of the Trade Union Recognition Bill. The Minister's claims to the contrary are quite simply wrong.

We find it unacceptable that the Minister is rejecting the contents of the Bill and consider this action a betrayal of the spirit of Partnership. To present his stance as representative of the Trade Union movement's position is insulting but hardly surprising from a Minister who reneged on a promise to Retail Trade Workers to deal with the question of Sunday Trading.

This is one of the most stinging rebukes of a Minister that I can recall from a senior trade unionist. It follows statements by Des Geraghty, SIPTU's vice president, regarding the future of Partnership 2000 after the carve-up the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevey, had the temerity to call a budget last December. Let there be no doubt that the slashing of capital gains tax, the bias towards high income earners in the budget, the Finance Bill déba cle and the rejection of the Trade Union Recognition Bill have established a serious stand-off between this Government and workers. I am dismayed that the Government fails to recognise the damage it is doing and am equally disappointed action is not contemplated to redress the situation.

This is a timely and comprehensive Bill. It should be accepted by the Government as a progressive development in our industrial relations law. That the Government has refused to do so represents a lost opportunity to give statutory recognition to the rights of workers to be represented by a trade union if they choose. The Government's decision also places at risk the future of social partnership. At the conclusion of this debate ordinary Irish workers will know of the Government's disregard for their concerns.

Mr. Ferris

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate. Like Deputy O'Shea, I congratulate Deputy Broughan on the time and effort he has invested in this work. This is not a knee-jerk reaction to a particular situation. This matter has been of concern to trade unionists and workers for years and has come to a head because of the Ryanair déba cle.

Deputy Broughan has produced this legislation following the most extensive consultations with the social partners, including officials of SIPTU, and other trade unions. He has also had group meetings with people to whom we are responsible. It is up to the Government to show some measure of generosity and accept the Bill. Following the contribution by the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, it appears the Government is set against the concept of what we are trying to do. From the contributions it is clear they have not taken the time to understand what Deputy Broughan is trying to do. This is a softly softly approach and is not regressive or archaic given that some of the older workers in Dublin almost went on hunger strike for the right to be represented some 75 years ago. I hope we are not returning to those days.

The Taoiseach has always claimed to be an ardent supporter of one of the trade unions and their role in the economy. I implore him to prove that his support for the trade union movement as a whole is genuine and not just lip service. To date the Government has a poor track record with the trade union movement. Hot on the heels of voting down his own Bill to regulate working hours for shop workers, the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Kitt, the erstwhile friend of the trade union movement had the audacity to reject the Labour Party Bill introduced by Deputy Broughan. In Opposition Fianna Fáil has always curried favour with the trade unions especially in the run up to general elections. Indeed the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, was adept at turning up at every photocall organised by the trade union movement, by MANDATE, in particular, and getting plenty of publicity as a friend of the trade unions. In Government the story is always somewhat different with Fianna Fáil. The Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, is no longer considered the friend and ally of the trade unions. He has betrayed and deceived the whole movement and it resents it strongly. His mischievous misrepresentation of the Labour Party Bill has been condemned, and rightly so, by the country's biggest union, SIPTU. I welcome the supportive comments of SIPTU's Brendan Hayes on the Labour Party Bill. SIPTU has rejected the Minister's comments. The union firmly believes the Government's response is a betrayal of the spirit of Partnership 2000.

The Government's first budget which was weighted heavily in favour of Partnership 2000, has placed it in jeopardy and the Government's behaviour on this Bill will put it under further strain.

When the débâcle took place at Seagate everybody, including representatives of the Government, indicated that what happened there would not have happened if a consultative procedure had been available either through works councils or a trade union representative. While I was in the House the Tánaiste spoke to representatives of the workers and said I was responsible for leaking information to the media at a time when I did not know about the closure. I ask John Drennan and others who write about these matters without knowing anything about them to remember that in the meantime the Tánaiste has had the good grace to formally apologise to me for the inaccuracies in her statement that misled the workers. The point is the Minister knew about the closure but did not tell the workers until their relatives had heard it on the radio while the workers were on their way to work. It is not right to tell 1,400 workers overnight that their jobs are no longer available. We do not want to force trade unions on anybody but when people join a trade union and want it to negotiate on their behalf, what is wrong with that in a free and open society where everyone is involved in trying to help one another?

Some of the best employers are in my constituency. They insist on trade unions representing their workers and take subscriptions for them. When there is trouble on the shop floor they do not try to sort it out. Instead, they telephone the trade union official and ask him to deal perhaps with a member who is creating problems. In that way there is a spirit of partnership which is what the whole concept of trade unions is about.

I refute another statement by a Fianna Fáil Deputy that trade unionists are forced to subscribe to political parties. That is totally incorrect. Any trade unionist who does not want to subscribe to the Labour Party is given the opportunity to opt out. It is not obligatory for anybody to contribute through the trade union movement to any political party. I resent the inference that in some way we are forcing Fianna Fáil workers in trade unions to subscribe to the Labour Party. Fianna Fáil tried to get the whole trade union movement to opt out but failed. Even Fianna Fáil workers want to be represented by trade unions. That the Government wants to shy away from its responsibility will not excuse the Ryanair déba cle. Why should workers, whose only offering to the employer is their labour, not be properly represented when they want to negotiate or discuss their terms of employment? If the trade unions believe there is a danger to a company they are the first to confide in their workers and pull back from the precipice and play an active committed role as they have done through Partnership 2000.

This Bill only requires the setting up a procedure to be used in times of dispute. The Minister gave fractions and percentages for various countries including America and France. At least she recognised that workers in France had the legal right to be in works councils. They did not have to be in a trade union because they had somebody who was prepared to negotiate for them. That is what Ryanair workers want. The Labour Court said it was available if the employers would use the procedure.

I do not want to take up the time of the House because Deputy Rabbitte has a major contribution to make on behalf of his party. We have been reasonable in the preparation of this Bill by way of consultation. Those who have spoken from the Government side have indicated they had been representatives of trade unions for 25 years, that they have negotiated with their unions and had been in several unions. This is all about people having the right to be in a union and for that union to be in a negotiating position with the employer. What is wrong with that in 1998 when the whole trade union movement is such a vital part of Partnership 2000 which has contributed to the economic boom?

Without stability and partnership the country would be in a poor state. The Labour Party is proud of its relationship with the trade union movement and the contribution the trade union movement has made. In suggesting that procedures should be laid down, complicated though they may be, no company should be frightened off. We are not asking Ryanair management to agree — no employer automatically agrees to the demands of their workers — but to sit down and talk. I compliment Deputy Broughan on his initiative.

Mr. Rabbitte

I thank Deputy O'Shea for allowing me to contribute and compliment Deputy Broughan and his party for provoking this timely debate. This is a modest and balanced legislative effort to focus on a difficulty — this is not an exaggeration — that threatens the continuation of social partnership. It is undisputed that companies have benefited hugely and disproportionately from a decade of social partnership. Workers have lived with moderate pay increases during that time, while unprecedented profits have been enjoyed by companies, their owners and directors. If social partnership is to continue, it cannot be a one-way street or about a pact at national level that generates pay restraint for workers and greater profits for companies and their managers. Unless social partnership can be translated to the shop floor in a meaningful way, the concept will run out of steam.

Active hostility to the desire of workers to be represented by the union of their choice is the most extreme threat to social partnership. That is the reason the Ryanair dispute is so unfortunate and significant in that tens of thousands of trade unionists are watching the outcome. This is a company on whose behalf the Government made partisan and decisive interventions to help it get off the ground. Now that Ryanair is an immensely successful company, thanks to timely and partisan Government intervention as well as the workforce which has helped to build it up, it responds to the modest request for bargaining rights from a specific category of the workforce by denigrating their efforts and spurning the industrial relations machinery of the State. Let us make no mistake: Ryanair is an old-fashioned, anti-union employer — an airborne Dunnes Stores.

I am reliably advised that a decision has been taken at the most senior level in the company not just to resist recognition of SIPTU for baggage handlers but to contract out this service in the future. This would be a viciously provocative act and would, if Ryanair proceeds with it, have negative implications far outside the company. It would represent an escalation that would not be acceptable. I challenge Mr. O'Leary to deny publicly that such a vindictive course of action has been decided. I call on the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, who has been ineffectual in this dispute to date, to intervene and leave Mr. O'Leary in no doubt that if he proceeds with this vindictive course of action, he will be resisted by the full weight of Government.

Resort, for example, to the EU transfer of undertakings alone would not be sufficient in these circumstances. This may require the Government amending certain sections of the 1990 Industrial Relations Act to permit solidarity action at Dublin Airport within normal democratic procedures without the unions involved being exposed or deprived of the usual immunities.

Restiveness in the trade union movement is due primarily to two factors: the manner in which the 1990 Act has constrained normal trade union activity and the low level of trade union organisation in hi-tech international companies locating here. The 1990 Act was a decisive intervention on the side of the employer in the delicately balanced dynamic that is the industrial relations process. It has had the effect that I predicted in this House in 1990 of removing much of the bargaining power of workers in an already uneven relationship with employers. It will only serve to damage the industrial relations process and, ultimately, our country's reputation as a location for investment if the Ryanair example in exploiting the 1990 Act is to be followed elsewhere.

The old style, anti-union character of Ryanair is not directly comparable with certain international companies locating here from a nonunion environment and culture. Usually, these companies put considerable investment into their human resources policies and deliberately contrive to pay the going rate or better. The great challenge of the new century for the trade union movement is whether it can enhance its appeal to the new worker in these hi-tech companies.

Companies enjoying buoyant profits must recognise that they must provide for fuller participation by their workers if social partnership is to prevail. Trade unions, for their part, must appreciate that many of the new workers are not demanding that the law be used as a recruiting sergeant to keep trade union numbers up. The Bill does not propose that and the Minister of State is wrong in seeking to leave that impression. The trade union movement, as instanced by its response to the report of the high level group, does not demand that. It expects no more than that the voluntarist character of industrial relations be protected by reasonable legislation, if necessary. The trade unions have no vested interest in frightening away foreign investment. The Congress paper makes that clear. If the Bill proceeds to Committee Stage, as I sincerely hope it will, there are certain amendments that I would like to bring forward on behalf of my party.

I regret that elements of the then leadership of the trade unions forced Congress in 1990 to acquiesce on certain sections of the 1990 Bill which were, plainly, not in the interests of the trade union movement. It is now reaping the whirlwind of that acquiescence and the majority of reasonable employers, as Deputy Ferris said, would make common cause with trade union leaders that it is in the interests of neither to destabalise the delicately balanced dynamic that is the industrial relations process. Deputy Gilmore and I made that clear at the time but, unfortunately, it was not until the subsequent year's conference that our objections were espoused by the wider trade union movement.

I regret, although I am not surprised, that the Minister of State has indicated, on behalf of the Government, that he intends to vote down the Bill. He has taken no effective action since the dispute at Ryanair began despite the fact that the company has spurned the industrial relations machinery of the State. Deputy Broughan has brought forward the Bill to provoke this timely debate on the wider issues which, indisputably, surround the Ryanair dispute. If the management of Ryanair continues along the path it has chosen, it will have implications far outside the company and Dublin Airport. A great many other employers who have benefited from social partnership during the past decade will live to rue the day. It is extremely regrettable that this is the Government's response. I ask it to think again and allow Deputy Broughan's measure to proceed to Committee Stage.

Mr. N. Ahern

I wish to share my time with Deputies Hanafin and McGennis.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. N. Ahern

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Like other speakers, I was going to start by saying I was a trade unionist but Deputy Ferris has chosen to slag us——

Mr. Broughan

The Deputy was a trade unionist.

Mr. N. Ahern

I never bothered to stop paying my contribution to the political fund. I was branch treasurer at one time.

Mr. Broughan

The Deputy joined the wrong party.

Mr. Treacy

He was born into the right one.

Mr. N. Ahern

A small number of members stopped paying their political contributions, but most members let their contributions build up in the welfare fund. When declarations were made by the Labour Party and some of its defeated candidates after the June election, I noted that my old union, the TSSA, was the biggest contributor to a defeated candidate.

Mr. Ferris

We can depend on it.

Mr. N. Ahern

That defeated candidate is now running for the Labour Party in the forthcoming by-election in Dublin North and I am sure that union will make a contribution to his campaign. However, I doubt if any of my contributions are in the fund to assist him because my membership contributions were suspended.

Mr. Rabbitte

The Deputy can rest assured they are all on shore.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Let us hear Deputy Ahern without interruption.

Mr. N. Ahern

Deputy Broughan deserves to be commended for introducing this Bill. It is probably his first Private Members' Bill and I am sure he put a good deal of time and effort into its preparation. Even if I do not agree with all that is in it, the Deputy should be commended for his work and effort.

Mr. Broughan

So vote for it.

Mr. N. Ahern

I will not do that. Disputes on union recognition can be nasty and can give rise to major problems. That has been the case in the past and will be the case in the future. Legislation might seem to be a quick-fix solution, but it is not the recommended course for dealing with such disputes. I know from my previous employment that some union recognition disputes were almost exclusively about inter-union disputes, which can lead to a much nastier and bigger problem. I note the provisions of the Bill will not extend to inter-union disputes or to workers who are already represented by a union, but life is not that simple. A solution may be provided in law, which might or might not be, as in the case of Ryanair dispute, geared towards solving a dispute. If this legislation was enacted and viewed by employers and others to be the solution the Labour Party and others claim it would be, what would happen in the case of inter-union disputes or union recognition disputes at the bottom of which lies a trade union, usually a maverick trade union, not covered by the ICTU? There is talk about the Labour Court having rights and a quasi-judicial role where its findings would be binding.

Mr. Rabbitte

That is no way to refer to the Garda Federation. It is the only one that is outside now.

Mr. N. Ahern

There are quite a number outside. I am sure from his previous experience the Deputy would know of and have dealt with many such disputes. When I was involved in the trade union movement it was always interested in the Labour Court, but it absolutely refused to accept any third party labour relations commission or the Labour Court could issue a finding that would be binding. If the Labour Party is saying it has talked this out in detail with the unions, has it looked beyond the short-term quick-fix solution to the problem in Ryanair? Has it considered how that matter might develop? Is the Labour Party saying the ICTU and the general trade union movement are now in favour of findings issued by the Labour Court or some other agency being binding? That is an interesting point. If that is the case, people will view these matters in a different light, but I do not believe that is the position. Trade unions have always zealously guarded their right to refer a matter to the Labour Court for its consideration and then to accept or reject its finding depending on the mood of its members at that time.

The Bill was not cobbled together in a week because it appears Deputy Broughan has done some work on it, but it has been introduced to cash in on the emotive atmosphere surrounding the Ryanair dispute.

Mr. Broughan

It was drafted last September.

Mr. N. Ahern

Many documents are drafted and left on the top shelf; it is a case of when they are taken off it because timing is everything. This Bill might be seen to be a simplistic solution to the problem. I know a major issue has arisen because of the Ryanair dispute although there is a good deal of politically correct talk about it because it is an issue in Dublin North where there is a forthcoming by-election.

I hold no brief for any private company whose chief executive earns £17 million. That figure is obscene and workers in such an organisation must find it very difficult to motivate themselves to do an honest day's work. Neither do I hold much truck with trade union officials who might earn salaries of up to £100,000. Membership figures were mentioned earlier. There has been a decline in trade union membership throughout the country. If some trade union officials were paid on a bonus system, they would not earn some of the exalted salaries they are reported to earn.

I am mainly concerned about the members, the workers. There are different battles going on and sometimes workers are used and abused by management who are fighting for their livelihoods and their recruitment campaigns. Sometimes workers are also used and abused by trade union officials. That applies in the case of a dispute involving the employer looking for union recognition and, having regard to some of the inter-union recognition disputes in which I have been involved, it was very much a case of unions and union officials fighting for their patch, to keep up their numbers and not being so concerned about their members.

Mr. Broughan

That has nothing to do with this Bill. The Deputy has not read it.

Mr. N. Ahern

I read it. The trade union movement was necessary and relevant in the past and still is today, but of course that depends on the employer. The fight for trade union membership and survival must go on and unions, like every other organisation, must adjust and make themselves more meaningful and relevant. They have done that and co-operated fully in the drive towards social partnership in recent years. In many union disputes, including Ryanair, much of the problem arises because the union involved is a maverick union and not affiliated ICTU. I understand the employer in the Ryanair case falls into the same category. It is a maverick employer. It is not a member of IBEC. The ICTU has difficulty trying to build bridges to get some of its wild men to come on board and the same applies to the business world.

Deputy Broughan did not spell matters out in his Bill. An old colleague of ours when talking about politics used to say it was a numbers game. If an employee is demanding trade union recognition from his or her employer, the same game applies. People might ask whether 30 employees out of 900 justify trade union recognition? The Deputy has not spelt out the numbers required. I am not giving my deep thoughts on this but neither has the Deputy given his. The answer to that is not simple because 30 out of 900 or 30 out of 50 might want trade union recognition. One could take that to ridiculous lengths and ask whether three out of five employees in a specialist grade suffice for trade union recognition?

It is unfortunate that Ryanair has adopted such a tone in the present dispute and that it did not accept the invitation made by the Labour Court. Ryanair is a good company and has done a good deal to build up our aviation industry in recent years. It has contributed greatly to the growth of tourism in the Dublin area. Maybe we are all victims of our environment and conditioning. It keeps referring to SIPTU as the Aer Lingus union and while Ryanair is now a big company perhaps it found it difficult to compete with its big brother over the years. They may be living in their own little time warp based on the hassle they had over the last ten years.

Mr. Rabbitte

Does the Deputy think they should negotiate with the baggage handlers?

Mr. N. Ahern

Of course I do. I sincerely hope they will come on board and act in the spirit of social partnership, which has been fostered by all Governments for the past ten years. Listening to earlier Opposition speakers, one would think that this Government had nothing to do with developing and fostering social partnership over the past ten or 11 years.

Mr. Broughan

They are threatening its existence.

Mr. N. Ahern

Some of the comments were unfair. I accept that all Governments in those years helped to develop, build and keep the social partnership going. There is a difficulty, however. There has been a lot of Ryanair bashing and perhaps most of it has been well deserved. I wish they would do the decent thing for their own good as well as for everybody else's and sit down and talk to the people concerned. That is the only sensible way forward.

The Bill would bring in words like "mandatory" and "coercion".

Mr. Broughan

They are not in the Bill.

Mr. N. Ahern

They are implied in it, even if they are not written there, as are "binding agreements".

Mr. Broughan

It strengthens the labour force.

Mr. N. Ahern

No. All those things are binding agreements which go to the heart of trade union disputes. The Deputy is putting forward a scenario which is grand from one perspective, but if it was accepted it would cause major hassle in the trade union movement. If they have changed their views they should come forward and say they are prepared to accept a world where there are binding agreements. I am sure IBEC and Ryanair would look on life in a totally different way if that was the situation. There are some good ideas in the Deputy's Bill, but it is the easy, quick fix solution.

Mr. McGuinness

The Bill before the House is a knee jerk reaction to the Ryanair dispute. It ignores the real position on the ground where there is positive co-operation between the trade union movement and employers. The overall employee-employer relationship, as reflected daily in the Partnership 2000 agreement, is a positive one. The new position on all sides involving a proactive approach towards a partnership with shared vision runs contrary to the position taken by Ryanair.

I commend the trade union movement and employers alike for their positive contribution towards economic development. We all share in the success we collectively created. Given this stated position, it is wrong to introduce a Bill which seeks to reintroduce the language of coercion and mandatory sanctions to industrial relations.

The position expounded in the Bill is outdated and has no place in a modern developing economy. The obvious points of difference in the Bill relate to the degree of erosion of the principles of free collective bargaining and the voluntarism that underpins industrial relations today.

In recent years there has been a significant strengthening of the laws governing industrial relations. In a dispute, when the industrial relations machinery is used to its full the outcome is usually positive and serves both sides of the argument. There is a consensus of support for the present position. Any legislation covering trade union involvement must take note of the voluntary position of membership. There are companies and commercial activities that are not unionised because that is the wish of the workforce. Most progressive, non-unionised companies have a strong employee-employer management structure, which gives them the edge in the market place. This type of position must always be recognised. In fact, this structure is almost modelled on the trade union ethos itself.

Overseas investment is critical to the future development of our economy. Future growth plans lay a heavy emphasis on attracting overseas investment. One of the many attractions of Ireland for foreign investors is the voluntary nature of our trade union and industrial relations structure. As this is a successful formula we should not tamper with it by way of new legislation of the kind proposed by Deputy Broughan. Rather, we should strengthen what we have in a positive way in the interests of all concerned. This would give a clear signal to outside investors that we have a formula for success and that we understand the needs of employees and employers alike — the civilised point of view. As regards the Ryanair situation, in this context it is fair to say that one swallow never made a summer.

Union density is growing in multinational corporations. It may be a slow procedure, but the economic situation does not demand a frenetic pace. We should also consider legislation in other jurisdictions. We must not create a situation that gives any other country a favourable position in the market place because of our trade union and industrial relations legislation.

A relevant consideration regarding the impact of any possible change in the framework for trade union recognition is the likelihood of changes in relation to recognition in the UK, for example. This, and the more general topic of international practice in relation to dispute recognition and resolution, were considered by the high level group mentioned earlier. It remains to be seen what changes may occur in the UK. It was in this context that the group examined the experience in the 1970s in the UK, the USA, Canada and Australia. Complex procedures for ballots to establish membership levels, for example, were a feature of these systems. It was noted in the Canadian model that recourse to ballots was minimised with a view to avoiding potentially divisive campaigns which could damage the climate for subsequent employer-union negotiations.

Suggestions have been made by a number of unions that State agencies, such as the IDA, should pay grants or subsidies in relation to the location of greenfield sites for companies that are prepared to recognise trade unions. I do not believe, and I do not think the Government believes, that this is the way forward. I presume it is something the IDA would be against. Setting any such preconditions would, in effect, severely handicap agencies like the IDA in its efforts to secure overseas investment in the face of competition from development agencies elsewhere.

There is no doubt that mandatory trade union recognition and changed policies that are perceived as mandatory would have a substantially adverse impact upon inward investment and future employment opportunities. In particular, the mandatory recognition policy would have consequences in relation to this country's primary standing in such niche markets as electronics. All this must be borne in mind in relation to any legislation that the House might consider or pass in future. A Bill of this nature needs a far more in depth study of the possible consequences, at home and abroad, of its implementation.

Many new overseas companies choose not to recognise trade unions. If they take that position, the way to tackle the problem is not to introduce policies to legislate in this regard, but to encourage the trade union movement to work with the incoming overseas investor or indigenous investors. They should encourage the development of a trade union system within. The partnership that would grow from that discussion would strengthen the company and the trade union far more than any action we might take in this House. With regard to trade unions, it comes down to personal relationships, building a company, helping to manage and assist it, and adopting a unique individual approach to each company. In that way a conclusion can be reached by way of agreement.

A certain amount of confrontation with management is built into this legislation, along with language that is no longer recognised in the modern industrial relations scene. The proposals in the Bill will lead to legal changes and changes in the way the institutions work. It will have a profound effect. The highly legislative and adversarial procedure proposed will pose not only operational difficulties for the Labour Court but also will impart a new character to those bodies. Their strength is in their autonomy and their flexibility and they work well at present.

All this leads to the point about support for the Bill. As a former member of a trade union and now as an employer dealing with the situation, I cannot support this Bill. My experience has been, as has been the experience of many small businesses, that the best way forward is in co-operation with the trade union, by way of a voluntary discussion with it and an understanding of where the company is going. Regardless of whether the trade union is big or small, it interacts with the company in a positive way. It can have a positive effect on the overall development of that company. Surely that is the way we should go and we should constantly reiterate that point. From both sides of the fence, I see the situation as it has developed in terms of Partnership 2000 as the only way forward. This Bill does not recognise the positive work of previous Administrations and Ministers, of the trade union movement and of some of its individual members, not to speak of the positive contribution to the overall movement by employers. I support the Government's position on this Bill.

Ms Hanafin

Tá stair dleathach agus mí-dhlea-thach, réabhlóideach agus trioblóideach ag na ceardchumainn le céad bliain anuas ag teacht go dtí an lá atá inniu ann in a bhfuil meas an phobail as an fostaí agus meas an fhostitheora tuillte acu.

It is the century long tradition of unionisation which has led to the situation where the unions are respected so well that I regret a Bill such as this being before the House.

Labour historians recognise that, over the past century and a half, trade unions have come through three stages: oppression, toleration and privilege.

Mr. Broughan

We are back at oppression.

Ms Hanafin

We will be should we accept the wording of the Deputy's Bill, which is the one thing we are trying to avoid tonight.

Mr. Treacy

It is more like depression.

Ms Hanafin

We have witnessed strong personalities throughout the century, such as Connolly, Larkin and O'Brien, fight to bring us to the position of privilege trade unions and employers' unions have in today's society. That is witnessed in the fact they are now the social partners. They are supporters of social stability, an integral part of the establishment and work on the basis of consensus.

It is a far cry from a century ago when the Irish Trade Union Congress was formed and when each individual town had to build up its own trade union council until the Irish Trade Union Congress was formed. Employers early in the century ignored trade unions and condemned them. It was left to people like Larkin who organised strikes in difficult situations: a Dublin of 305,000 people which dealt in commercial distribution and shipping, where people earned 15 shillings a week and where conditions were dreadful. It was left to the Irish Women Workers' Union, under Delia Larkin, who managed to grow her union from 1,000 to 60,000 members——

Mr. Rabbitte

Does this history lesson have any relevance?

Mr. U. Burke

It is avoiding the issues.

Ms Hanafin

I am recognising the contribution many men and women have made to the development of the trade union movement in this century, and for that reason, I will not allow it be scuppered by the Labour Party Bill.

Mr. Rabbitte

If Deputy Healy-Rae were a trade unionist, the Deputy would say otherwise.

Ms Hanafin

I am also a trade unionist and work on the basis of consensus, partnership and freedom of association.

Mr. Rabbitte

We are all trade unionists now.

Ms Hanafin

I resent the words in this Bill which move away from the type of policy decisions and activity participated in by the unions which has led to national pay agreements, national understanding, the Programme for National Recovery, the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, the PCW and Partnership 2000. This Bill contains the words "shall do", "summon", "examine" and "require". It deals with convictions and requirement.

Mr. Broughan

We are dealing with the Labour Court.

Ms Hanafin

Where is the partnership and the consensus which people have fought for over the century. It is for those reasons I resent and reject this Bill. Having reached a situation where employers and employees can work together — it was not that long ago the employers were on the opposite side of the fence — it would be a pity to introduce the level of coercion I see in this Bill.

We should also take cognisance of the Constitution which grants freedom of association under Article 40.6.1. It is a freedom which allows people to join or not to join a union or for people to recognise a union. It has been recognised by numerous cases in the courts——

Mr. Broughan

What about "being recognised"?

Ms Hanafin

——and it is not something which we, the Legislature, can afford to ignore. It is worth quoting one of the early cases:

I do not see that a trade union stands at present on a different footing from any other voluntary organisation as regards the free choice of new members.

Members have the choice to join or not to join. For example, in the case of the Educational Company of Ireland v Fitzpatrick, the plaintiff had been subjected to picketing by a number of its employees who were members of a trade union to force other employees who were not members to join. Notice the word “force”, something we are witnessing in this Bill. The plaintiff successfully brought their case. Mr. Justice Budd said:

I hold.that under the Constitution a citizen is free to join or not to join an association or union as he pleases. Further, that he cannot be deprived of the right to join or not to join such association or union as he pleases. . That is tantamount to saying that he may not be compelled to join any association or union against his will. Those are the type of words we see again in this Bill which speaks of compulsion.

Mr. Broughan

No we are not. It is a completely separate issue. The Deputy is being disingenuous.

Ms Hanafin

This Bill forces an employer to recognise unions, something which has already been dealt with by the courts which said an employer is not bound to negotiate with any specific union. The right of association of employees does not imply any duty on the employer beyond respecting that right in itself and discharging his side of any agreement with employees. This has been proven in various cases. There is no obligation on anyone to recognise the associations or unions. It is important in the spirit of consultation, partnership and agreement that we keep in mind laws which have been passed previously, the development of unions over the past century and the interpretation of different cases by the courts. Everything we in this House do is based on ultimate agreement. Everything in the workplace is based on consensus and agreement so as to gain progress. There cannot be progress if we force a situation where people must do something.

Reference was made to Sunday trading. I am aware the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, has set up a working group on this matter under the chairmanship of a well recognised industrial relations expert, Mr. Seán Healy.

Mr. Broughan

The Minister of State voted against his own Bill.

Ms Hanafin

Both representatives of IBEC and ICTU are on this working group and they must report before the end of April on proposals to deal with Sunday work in the retail sector. Surely the correct way to proceed——

Mr. Broughan

The Minister made a show of himself.

Ms Hanafin

——is to have both sides negotiate proposals which the Minister can then implement with their agreement.

Mr. Broughan

What happened to his Bill?

Ms Hanafin

He knows how partnership can proceed. We know how the partnership of employers and employees has proceeded over recent years. We do not want to revert to a situation of a strike and lock out where employers chose not to deal with their workers under any circumstances. For that reason, it is important we reject a Bill which is aggressive in its attitude.

Debate adjourned.