Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 11 Jul 1990

Vol. 126 No. 1

Industrial Relations Bill, 1989: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Acting Chairman

I would like to welcome the Minister to the House.

I would like to extend my welcome again to the Minister and thank him for being with us. He sets a headline in his approach to the Seanad which could be followed by some of his colleagues. He is to be complimented on that.

During my contribution on Second Stage last evening I referred to the context in which the Bill is introduced against a background of rising unemployment and massive emigration. I also referred to the effect the economic climate has vis-á-vis the aims of the employers and the employees, and the employers and the unions. It is necessary to identify the importance these elements have in the industrial relations milieu and in the context of operating the provisions of the Bill.

I would now like to turn to the industrial relations scene. The management of industrial relations should not be seen in isolation from the personnel managment function. Personnel management is synonymous in too many organisations with industrial relations and is seen as a fire fighting function to head off union trouble or to settle it. Irish industry and commerce has too often seen personnel management in this way rather than as a function concerned with obtaining, organising and motivating the human resources required by the enterprise, with developing a management style that will promote co-operation and trust between all the people working in the organisation and in helping the enterprise to meet its legal obligations and social responsibilities towards its employees with regard to there conditions of employment and to their quality of life in the firm. It recognises that the effectiveness of the organisation is directly related to the physical and psychological well-being of its employees.

Personnel management achieves its objectives by an organised and systematic approach to the management of the human resources including, but not exclusively, industrial relations. The popular misconception that personel management is solely dealing with industrial relations problems must be dispelled. Management have suffered because of this. Industrial relations and the role of this Bill must be seen as part of the professional approach to enterprise, to managing and motivating the people. Industrial relations is part of and complementary to the work of the whole personnel function. Personnel management ensures that the qualifications of employees recruited meet the identified manpower needs of the organisation. Too often this is done in a haphazard and unprofessional manner.

Good industrial relations cannot be achieved if people suitable to fill the vacancies are not recruited. Personnel management must facilitate the proper introduction of such employees into the organisation by suitable induction programmes and thereafter to administer the training and development function of the organisation. Not enough emphasis is placed by industry on training and development in the area of Personal relationships.

A systematic approach must be taken to identify the training needs of an organisation, to organise plans to suit those needs and to review and evaluate the success of such plans. A proper management approach to the whole area of training and development should be the cornerstone of every organisation's personnel policies. I pay tribute to the Irish Management Institute, to FÁS — formerly AnCO — and our own personnel at the Plassey Management and Technology Centre at the University of Limerick with which I am involved, and to many others who have contributed to the development of the Irish people.

People like to know how well they are doing in an organisation. Organisations should have in place performance appraisal systems to review on a regular basis on individual's performance and progress on the job and to assess his or her potential for future promotion. Organisations must be concerned about the personal welfare of their employees, not a popular thing to say today. Advice should be available for assistance with health problems. Preparation for retirement is very important and so on. This recognises that in exchange for work an employee is entitled to rather more than his pay. It also recognises his entitlement to be considered as a human being.

I have endeavoured to outline the organisational climate which should be developed to create a climate of trust and understanding which will prepare the ground for good industrial relations in which the Bill before us has a role.

Section 11 of the Bill changes the approaches to picketing. Picketing "at or near" is changed to "at, or where that is not practicable, at the approaches to, a place where their employers works or carries on business,". The Minister has not on this occasion taken the opportunity to deal with the effect of picketing outside multi-employer establishments, such as ports, shopping centres, airports and industrial estates. Serious disruption can take place when pickets are placed on the entrances to these estates in furtherance of a dispute between the union and just one employer in that estate. "Attend at" the place of picketing under the Act should accommodate picketing outside the entrance to the place of employment if it is a place used by the public but is in private ownership. We suggest that the exception to this should be where the owner of the private property indicates in writing that he objects to such attendance on his property. This will satisfy the constitutional problem which would rise if direct access to picketing on private property was granted.

I welcome section 14 which says that the rules of every union will contain a provision for secret ballots for strike or industrial action. Too often we have seen strikes take place following a vote which took place in an emotive and intimidating atmosphere. Pseudo-secret ballots were conducted around a table with intense pressure to vote in favour, and people were forced to do so under the threat of social sanctions. This was hyped up on many occasions by a strong vocal minority within the organisation. In flash disputes a properly organised secret ballot will sideline the often highly vocal minority and allow the true wish of the work-force to take precedence. This is to be welcomed.

However, section 14 as worded is a minefield for potential problems for managers and trade union officials. Under this section a secret ballot is required for a strike or other industrial action. This is too broad and can be interpreted too loosely. Small insignificant problems that arise on the shop floor can be interpreted on many occasions as industrial action in the broadest sense. I will give some examples to illustrate this. If employees complain that the quality of food has been lowered in the canteen and refuse to use it, can the employer interpret this as industrial action? Must the unions insist on a secret ballot without sanctioning or agreeing to such action? Under the Act, as I see it, this may be the case. I will give another example I experienced during my days when I may involved in industrial relations. During a severe frost employees complained to their supervisor that they were unable to work because of the cold. It was a genuine complaint. The supervisor refused to listen because of the usual pressures of production. On investigation it was accepted that no human being should be asked to work under the conditions. The employees, in frustration informed the supervisor that they could not physically work in the environment and told him that after lunch they would refuse to do so. The supervisor responded by introducing a temporary heating arrangement. Under the Act before us will this supervisor who is hard pressed to achieve production targets be less than responsive because he realises that a secret ballot must be arranged by the union before the action is taken?

Senator O'Toole referred to a very important and interesting area with regard to the interpretation of industrial action. Work to rule and overtime bans are without doubt industrial action. Will the result of this section be that workers will take action against the advice of their union? Will they be alienated from their representatives? Will management find that the control exercised by the union over their members will be undermined? This section will be counterproductive. The Minister must consider amending it on Committee Stage to have secret ballots before strikes or other major industrial actions, such as overtime bans, go-slows and so on.

I am also concerned about the reference that all members concerned must ballot before strike and on this I should like to quote from the Irish Conference of Professional and Services Association who state:

This section also states "that all members whom it is reasonable for the Union concerned to believe at the time of the ballot will be called upon to engage in the strike or industrial action be given a fair opportunity of voting." The interpretation of "reasonable" would most definitely lead to problems for Trade Unions.

This was discussed in the Dáil and I would like the Minister's view on the concerns of the unions and of general bodies like the ICPSA on this. Concern is also expressed at the fact that the result of the ballot must be released and the Act states "as soon as practicable after the conduct of a secret ballot the trade union shall take reasonable steps to make known" the result. The unions are very concerned about this because it shows their hand to the employer or the employer's representative. For example, where there is an almost a 90 per cent majority in favour of strike action and where there is 51 per cent majority for a strike, an employer may have a totally different approach to the negotiating process in those two cases. Section 14 (f) should be closely looked at in the context of negotiation.

Section 14 (e) caters for the involvement of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in sanctioning strikes. This is welcome in that it addresses the freedom of ICTU members to take action outside the policy of Congress. The section, however, is defective in not addressing itself to the involvement of non-Congress unions. This is especially the case where non-Congress and Congress unions represent workers in the same firm. Non-Congress unions have a right under the Constitution to the same recognition by the Minister as Congress unions. They have a right not to organise themselves or organise themselves in a different body to ICTU and the Minister should recognise this in the Bill.

The Bill is also clearly defective in its failure to address the problem of inter-union disputes. Under the Constitution, workers have a right to associate or not to associate. It is conducive to good industrial relations that all employees in the same category of employment should be members of the same trade union. This, however, is unconstitutional but in practice in most organisations employees are organised in the same union. However, where this is not the case, serious disputes between unions can arise and I believe the Bill fails to address this. There is need for clear provisions to deal with inter-union disputes as well as for balloting in multi-union employments where non-Congress unions are involved.

Under section 19 where the union gives one week's notice to the employer, the employer may not apply to the court for an ex-parte injunction. The court should play as small a role as possible in the management of disputes. A period of one week's notice is a bit short and a longer period would provide an opportunity for contacts to be made in an endeavour to head off the dispute. In this respect, the Institute of Personnel Management states that a period of one month should apply. I believe this may be a little long, but certainly there should be more than a week. I found two weeks to be effective. A month is too long because if a strike is inevitable and nothing can be done about it, it is better to commence negotiation and resolve the dispute.

I have problems also with section 21 which increases the maximum membership for the grant of a negotiating licence to a trade union from 500 to 1,000. While the concept of union rationalisation is welcome, the provision excludes the granting of licences to small, unique groups whose positions would be buried in a larger union. There has been a long tradition of employees organised in staff associations who do not have a negotiating licence but who are recognised by their employers as representing their members. These tend to be small in number and represent a section of the workforce who choose not to be in the mainstream union area. With present developments in organisations, such groups may need in the future protection under the Bill while maintaining their independence. The Bill does not allow for that. The Minister should consider including a provision in the Bill to cater for the registration of staff associations as unions under section 21 which are in existence at the time of the passing of the Bill. Proof of operation and of their existence prior to the passing of this Bill can be easily ascertained by minutes of negotiations, correspondence with employers and so on. I ask the Minister to consider this on Committee Stage.

I should like to ask a question with regard to section 23 on the definition of a worker. It is a simple question and one that has been asked in the other House. Why is a psychiatric nurse employed by a health board included but a general hospital nurses is excluded. Why should general hospital nurses be excluded from protection under the Bill?

I welcome the establishment of a Labour Relations Commission under section 24. The proposed body will have six members — two employer nominees, two worker nominees and two ministerial nominees. The two worker nominees will be appointed following negotiations by organisations representative of trade unions. Will the Irish Conference of Professional Services Association be represented? This body represents a significant number of non-Congress associations, including the Irish Bank Officials Association and a comprehensive body of staff associations. If the reply is that Congress represents a majority of employees nationally, the Bill should be amended to allow the Minister to nominate three member's from workers' associations, from the ICPSA.

I wish to place in record my tribute to the Labour Court. Since its establishment in 1946, it has responded well to the changing times, likewise, the conciliation service of the court. The industrial relations officers of the service have done marvellous, often unrecognised, work in the industrial relations area. The new commission must immediately embark on a comprehensive training programme to be available to new entrants to the service. This will assist in maintaining consistency of approach between officers of the service. One can often find inconsistency of approach, and, indeed performance, between conciliation officers. A comprehensive training programme, leading to an official qualification, should be considered by the commission.

The increased use over the years of the Labour Court service reflects two aspects of the involvement of the court: first the consolidation of the service as an integral institution with employers and employee associations and secondly, the misuse by employers and trade unions of the role of the court in industrial relations. The court was established as a court of last resort but too often it is used now as an easy option when a dispute arises over an issue. Trade union officials are inclinced too often to refer matters to the court rather than attempting to solve the problem and convey unpalatable information to their members. They go to the court knowing that the outcome cannot be in their favour but get the recommendation from the court as a tool to sell the unpalatable message to their members. It is an easy option rather than telling their members the facts of life. Similarly, employers when faced with a grievance too often send it off to the court rather than deal with it. The attitude can be to get if off the local agenda, refer it to the employers organisation representative and let it take its course from there. This often causes frustration on the shop floor or in the office and leads to unofficial disputes.

Section 25 of the Bill attempts to address the problem by providing an industrial relations advisory service, which I assume will be free of charge to employers and unions. It also provides for a code of practice relevant to industrial relations. While this is welcome, I wish to ask the Minister if this is to be a general document referring to all industry and commerce or will different codes of practice apply to different industries? Cognisance must be taken of the structural determinants of industrial relations. Not all organisations are the same.

The industrial relations climate is determined by many influences, including the history of relationships within the organisation, the levels of management and the physical environment of the enterprise. There are different climates of industrial relations between, say, a factory or an organisation in the centre of Dublin and a factory or organisation based in a rural area. Similarly, the type of enterprise affects the industrial relations climate. The climate of industrial relations and inter-personal relationships are different; for example, between an office environment in a bank or insurance company and that on the factory floor of a company manufacturing wire products involving furnaces with a high level of temperature and heavy work. The commission must be careful that it does not over-generalise when outlining codes of practice.

There is in existence a code of practice from the Institute of Personnel Management and I would like to place it on the record for the attention of the commission when it discusses this.

The IPM believes that the management of people must form part of every manager's job. Personnel practitioners who are IPM members provide professional knowledge, advice and support to their employers on the most effective use of human resources. Their concern is for the achievement of the goals of the organisation as an industrial, commercial or public enterprise and as a social entity. They must have a clear understanding of the economic, financial, political and other factors which affect the success of an organisation so that, as members of the management team, they can take an active part in decision making.

The primary responsibility of personnel practitioners is to their employer, though they also have obligations to the employees in respect of their working conditions, rewards and development. They are the privileged recipients and guardians of personal information and confidences.

In carrying out their responsibilities, IPM members are expected to adhere to the following principles of behaviour. Personnel practitioners will respect their employer's requirements for the confidentiality of information entrusted to them, including the safeguarding of information about current, past and prospective employees. They will also ensure the privacy and confidentiality of personnel information to which they have access or for which they are responsible, subject to any legal rights of employees in respect of information relating to themselves.

Personnel practitioners will promote non-discrimination employment practices in line with current legislation.

Personnel practitioners will establish and maintain fair, reasonable and equitable standards of treatment of individuals by their employer.

Personnel practitioners will continuously update their skills and knowledge in respect of developments and legislation in the personnel field and the impact of technical, economic and social change on people at work.

Personnel practitioners will seek to achieve the fullest possible development of the capabilities of individual employees to meet present and future requirements of the organisation and encourage others to develop themselves.

Personnel practitioners will maintain high standards of accuracy in the advice and information given to the employer and employees in the fields for which they are responsible.

Personnel practitioners will be prepared to act in a counselling role to individual employees, pensioners and the dependants of deceased employees in fields where they have competence and, where appropriate, refer to other professionals or helping agencies.

Personnel practitioners will at all times act in accordance with this code of conduct and the duties that they owe to employers and employees. Where there is a conflict between those obligations, the practitioners will make a personal decision after considering the options, of which resignation may be one.

Personnel practitioners will not act in any way which would knowingly countenance, encourage or assist unlawful conduct by either employer or employees.

Personnel practitioners will at all time endeavour to enhance the standing and good name of the profession. Adherence to the principles of the Institute's codes of practice is a prerequisite of this aim.

I should like to briefly refer to the employment appeals tribunal and its role. I will make very little reference to this because, as a member of the tribunal, it is fair that I would just deal very briefly with it and not go into detail. In relation to the tribunal, is the promised legislation onstream? Will the Minister comment on that? The Labour Relations Commission will have responsibility for providing an advisory service on industrial relations. This service at the moment is provided by private consultants and, in particular, the Irish Productivity Centre. This is a body which has done excellent work over the years for industry and commerce and indeed the public sector. Will the Labour Relations Commission now provide that service and will it also include in that an industrial engineering service which is supplied by the Irish Productivity Centre in the whole area of industrial relations? Industrial engineering and the whole area of work study, work measurement and work systems is very close to industrial relations and I would like to hear the Minister's view on that.

There is considerable concern with the proposals to alter the position of the Labour Court under section 26. Both the Institute of Personnel Management and the Federation of Irish Employers have been very forthright in expressing their concern on this issue. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions, while publicly supporting the Labour Relations Commission and the changed role of the Labour Court, have also expressed reservations, and I quote briefly from the Institute of Personnel Management:

In regard to structure the institute welcomes the intention to unite all services in the area under one body, the Labour Relations Commission, but sincerely believe that the structure proposed will not be effective unless the Labour Court itself is at the core of the Labour Relations Commission and is the directing force. It is critical that the court and the conciliation service retain that link which has been the bedrock of their mutual success in the past. The institute believes that a breaking of that link will operate to the detriment of the overall intention of the Minister's proposals which must be the improvement of the industrial relations/dispute avoidance dispute resolution machinery.

The Labour Court should retain its exclusive power to investigate a dispute where the parties request a court investigation and where a conciliation conference has been held at which the parties made a genuine effort and a genuine attempt to resolve the issue in dispute.

There is concern that separation of the conciliation service from the Labour Court and coming now under the Labour Relations Commission will cause friction between the two bodies. The conciliation and Labour Court service has been complementary and operated effectively to date. Care must be taken that such good working arrangements are not interfered with or put at risk.

I welcome the inclusion in section 11.5 which gives official recognition to the non-paid facilitators of the industrial relations process, the shop steward. The popular opinion of the role of the shop steward is that of a trouble maker who thwarts management's work at every stage. That concept could not be further from the truth. In fact, the shop steward in 90 per cent of the occasions in my experience, is the lubricant that ensures good industrial relations on the factory floor.

The future of good industrial relations in a more complex organisational environment will depend on the level of trust developed between the parties. The Labour Relations Commission must be given adequate resources to carry out its work and must not be hindered in its development by lack of resources. The Minister has a duty to ensure this. The commission must assist industry, commerce and the public service to identify the support and contribution that a strong personnel management function can give to an organisation, irrespective of size. Concepts which as have been lying on the shelf since the economic recession must be resurrected — like job enrichment and worker participation, on which we had a debate on 14 June, to which I contributed but I will not refer to it now because of the time factor. The subject of communications, which was high on the agenda, is also on the shelf and should be brought down and dusted off by the Labour Relations Commission. There are many other areas of industrial employment which should be considered in the changed economic situation.

I would like again to welcome the Bill and compliment the Minister on introducing it. While it is the role of Opposition to highlight differences, I do not want to take from the positive aspects of the Bill. I thank the Minister for his time.

It is obvious that we must agree with the main thrust of the Bill, particularly when we read that the purpose of the Bill is to bring about a number of important changes in trade dispute law, to establish the new Labour Relations Commission, to make changes in the procedures for reference of disputes to the Labour Court and, of course, in the procedures and constitution of the joint labour committees. All those things are very encouraging and constitute the main thrust of the Bill. Therefore, the Bill has to be welcomed.

We must also pay tribute to the fact that changes are also proposed in the method of enforcing employment regulation orders in relation to the terms of registered agreements. That too is something we must welcome. The proposed changes in the conditions for the granting of negotiating licences, the grants towards expansion, transfer of engagements, merging of unions, etc., are all very welcome. As I have said, the main thrust of the Bill must be welcomed but the real arguments will arise on amendments and will deal with detail and emphasis.

We consider that section 11, which deals with the provisions for picketing should be amended because we consider it to be unduly restrictive. I will not go into detail because we intend to table amendments to this section. That is where the main thrust of the argument will be.

The range of activity covered by the definition of "industrial action" in section 8 needs clarification. We will deal with this in detail on Committee Stage. Section 8 provides protection for workers in disputes who are seeking employment with a new employer, particularly where the ownership of a business is being transferred. This is another matter that we would be concerned about. What is meant by mandatory procedures? I would like that clarified. Section 19, prescribing the length of notice to be given to a trade union of an application for an injunction, is another area about which we would have some reservations. The provisions in the Bill for balloting are extremely broad and would affect all-out picketing, and possibly make it impossible. There is need for clarification here. The terms "organise, participate in sanction or support" are somewhat vague and too broad. Like a good negotiator, it is using the safety of generalities. We are worried about that. The power conferred on the Registrar of Friendly Societies to investigate the requirement to hold pre-strike ballots on the part of the trade union needs further consideration.

I am not so sure about the power of the Minister to revoke an negotiating licence. However we might need to take another look at that. On Committee Stage we will get into that kind of detail. As to the functions of the commission as set out in section 25, it is encouraging in the circumstances that we will have a commission which will assist in the provision of conciliation services, industrial relations advisory services, the nomination of rights commissioners and the appointment of equality officers. In order to deal with the circumstances in which we find ourselves, the establishment of the commission should be given a broad welcome but not necessarily accepted in total as the Bill is drafted.

This brings me to the question whether this legislation would be necessary if we had done our work properly during the years. The germ of discontent is like any other germ: it grows, reproduces, multiplies. The most virulent germ develops when somebody feels a wrong has not been addressed, irrespective of whether the wrong is real or imaginary. This can be the commencement of many disputes, particularly where there is indifference or neglect. That provokes irritation and like any long, continuing oppression, it aggravates discontent and causes people to bide their time until they can get revenge. That is what has been happening during the years.

If a worker indicated discontent with conditions that could be the cause of discontent and if the matter was not investigated that sense of discontent became aggravated. That is why we now need more structures to deal with the effects of bad industrial relations. That is what we are dealing with; we are not dealing with causes. Causes are something else. Had there been encouragement by respective Governments or parties in industry during the years to deal with minor matters there would not be the necessity now to have a major settlement on a multitude of complaints that have accumulated. Therein lies the problem. If complaints are allowed to accumulate over a number of years, when there is a question of trying to improve industrial relations, new structures have to be provided. We should have had a better attitude to industrial relations down through the years and injustices should have been dealt with.

It is easy enough to introduce legislation to lay down rules and regulations. There is a reluctance on the part of the private sector to deal with problems in industry. For years we have been trying to develop an industrial society. The private sector should seriously consider the matter of dealing with problems as they arise instead of allowing them to develop to the point where new structures are required in order to settle disputes.

On legislation like this there is an underlying assumption that there will always be two parties lined up against each other, that there is will always be conflict of interest. As a young trade union official I had one fixed principle — to protect the wages and conditions of the people for whom I worked. My attitude was to let the manager manage and the union would consider and would deal with it in whatever way they saw fit. My other attitude was to take the gains and fight the losses. I am not pointing the finger at management. I am simply trying to pinpoint some of the causes of problems. We had a fixed principle, that we were there to fight for the wages and conditions of the workers. The employers at the time, who had a lot more expertise, made no effort to involve their employees in the operation of the industry.

One cannot tell people that they have certain rights and democracy if that democracy does not extend into industry. We should look in a much more concentrated way at the reasons for the structures proposed in the Bill. The community is excluded from industrial management despite the money they put into industry by way of grants. By excluding representation of community interests we deny people who have gained knowledge on the shop floor, the right to work their way up. The employers fail to recognise the important investment of skill and labour made by the workers. There is an equal investment and therefore, an equal right. We talk about social partners but as long as we have to bring in legislation in order to appease people who feel they will always be in trouble, not much will happen. The initiative has to come from the employers. They must realise that times have changed, that they need to involve workers in education, in the science of management, in policy, in export trade, etc. If this were done workers generally could play a much more effective role in the operation of the company. This would eliminate to a great extent the need for much of the machinery which is there only because we have not been doing these things.

Management and capital investors receive representation on the basis of a right to a share in corporate control and workers should be included in this. They will not run away with the plant or machinery. They will not be able to maintain a company if it is decided to close it down, but they can make a greater contribution to production and productivity levels. They can understand the difficulties the company faces and accept that it is not always necessary to have a row in order to get things sorted out. I must congratulate the Minister on his initiative in resolving disputes but we must work towards eliminating the causes of disputes.

I do not wish to delay the House because Senator O'Toole covered the subject extensively. It would be wrong to suggest that he did not mention the teachers once, but I was not present when he did. Senator Neville covered a substantial part of the ground and of course, my colleague, Senator Costello, dealt last night with a considerable number of items that I would like to talk about but it would be superfluous if I were to burden the Seanad with them now.

As I said, we have reservations about this Bill but I will wait until Committee Stage to speak on them. Then the Minister can decide whether there are grounds for extension, alteration or amendment of the legislation. However, I hope we will have an opportunity to table amendments.

I consider today a very significant day in industrial relations negotiations, welcoming the successful outcome of the Waterford Glass dispute and the phased return to work of 2,300 workers. It is fitting when debating the Second Stage of the Industrial Relation Bill to look towards the proposed Labour Relations Commission as being the forum for discussing disputes, making recommendations, developing work practices etc. which will be needed in order to prevent disputes arising. It is a good cross-section of trade unions, management and independent representation and will be in a position to investigate and, hopefully, resolve thorny disputes in the future. I welcome this Bill.

This Bill is a landmark Bill since it is the most important and significant piece of industrial relations legislation since 1906. It comes at a time of extraordinary industrial peace when one could say that most of the adversarial attitudes of past decades have gone, where the right to join trade unions is no longer disputed and where there is the constitutional right to associate, which also carries the converse, to dissociate if one wishes.

There are areas that I would like addressed. We will go back to the definition of "employer" in the Bill, which is, "a person for whom one or more workers work or have worked or normally work or seek to work having previously worked for that person". On Committee Stage we will be seeking to have that amended to provide that a person who acquires an undertaking which had been an employer will be deemed to be an employer for the purposes of the legislation. Many Senators have referred to the situation where the owners of a pub in dispute with the union actually suited themselves by forming a new company for the purpose of defeating a strike. That is a loophole which the Minister might close.

Another concern relates to the definition of "industrial action". I am sure the Minister put a lot of thought into that definition but it is very wide. Section 14 provides that any form of industrial action must be proceeded by secret ballot. The definition provides in effect that any action which effects or is likely to effect in any way any form of contract, not just contracts of employment taken for the purpose of putting pressure on employers is to be regarded as industrial action. It has been cited already that various areas — the work to rule, the overtime ban, refusal to undertake certain duties — would all come under that definition. As an ASTI member and one who undertook voluntary duties within her school, if I were told to desist from such voluntary duties I wonder would it merit a secret ballot. I could assure the Minister that the whole of the voluntary secondary schools in the country would close down if we decided we were having a secret ballot on all the voluntary work we do, that sometimes does not get sufficient recognition from religious orders who can take us for granted, or from members of the public who are not job friendly towards teachers, who believe we have too long holidays and are permanently in dispute. At times they forget the huge amount of voluntary work that is done. Other teachers in the House would agree with me on that.

There are other areas where it might be necessary to have a secret ballot which I would not agree should come under that definition: a refusal to handle blacked goods or to undertake work which would lessen the effect of a strike in which other workers are engaged. Because they would come under that definition I am worried about this but on Committee Stage I shall be pressing again for the deletion of "industrial action" and the substitution of "major industrial action which would have the effect of significantly disrupting the business". That is the essence of the amendment.

I welcome very much the concession in the case of primary picketing where the Minister is moving away from the present definition which permits picketing at or near a house or place where a person resides or works or carries out business or happens to be, where he has given the concession to "at or, where this is not practical, at the approach to a place where their employer carries on a business". The intention there is to ensure that in future picketing will be at the employer's place of business. The Minister cites the case of multi-employer locations. I presume he intends including ports and airports as well as shopping centres and industrial complexes and that it should be possible to secure agreement that the picket be placed at the individual employer's business rather than at the entry to the complex. I am glad the Minister has included this as it was stressed very strongly in the other House in Deputy Mitchell's amendment.

Who is entitled to vote in any ballot? I am not clear whether it is just one union in a multi-union employment or whether it is the union that it is in dispute, although all trade unions could be affected by the pickets. I would like clarification of that.

As regards inter-union disputes, again there are problems which are difficult to surmount in the workplace where unions are not Congress unions. The Constitution allows this and I can see why the Minister would be blocked in this area. Perhaps there is some way of addressing this, because these are the thorny disputes where unions who have been part of Congress have moved out — and in many cases have moved back in again — or perhaps are more militant. They generally end up as being the thorny disputes. I had hoped the Minister could have done something about this. I understand the difficulties as regards constitutionality, but it is an area he might look at again.

I come now to the area of employers and management and education training. Because of cutbacks and recession, which hopefully we are getting out of, personnel departments are a rarity. Because of the current industrial peace, I would hope that the emphasis that should be there would be restored through requiring employers to have a well trained personnel function. Bad management is still cited as being a cause of strikes. Industries and businesses employ high-flying, highly qualified graduates who are young and untrained in work practices. Except for the University of Limerick where they have a co-op, in many cases the "traditional" universities may not have the resources to provide the experience the University of Limerick can offer to the young graduates. I would hope that when they take up their top level job in many cases they would have an opportunity for a short period of time to work through the different sections and departments of the business or industry to ensure that they are au fait with the structures, the relationships, the needs etc. If they get that opportunity they can assist in creating better relations between employer and employees and eliminate poor relations that often emerge when the high-flying young person does not have the opportunity, like many people who work their way to the top have, of familiarising themselves with the business or industry they are entering.

Many Senators referred to education and training. The advisory committee on worker participation in their report state — and it is very close to the point I have been making — that third level institutions might be encouraged to develop short course modules in relevant disciplines. I suppose it is all right in theory, but I would hope that, having done that, the students would have an opportunity when they become employees, and in many cases employers straight away, to marry the theoretical with the practical.

In second level there are modules which have been funded from Europe through the project dealing with the transition from school to adult working life. Unfortunately, those modules — I suppose I should not say "unfortunately"— have been implemented in programmes for the less academic student and the reality is that the less academic student is today more likely to be unemployed. Hopefully, that will change; but I hope that those modules would be directed at the academic student as well. There is such a race for points that sometimes it is forgotten that practical modules as regards the rights and responsibilities of workers, proper relationships between employer and employees and an emphasis on the work ethic are modules to which all students would have access.

Speaking of education and the role of women in the workplace, it is very important to place on record my plea to the Minister that the Industrial Relations Bill be given adequate resources through the Labour Relations Commission to set up structures to retrain women for entry into the workplace, whether it is full-time, part-time or whether they are involved in job sharing. It is 15 years since the introduction of equality legislation and we are all familiar with the fact that women still earn only 68 per cent of the average yearly earnings of men. Much needs to be done in that area.

I congratulate the Minister on the efforts he has made in the area of equal opportunities, in the involvement of women in FAS training courses and also in trying to promote child care facilities, the lack of which is one of the greatest drawbacks to women entering the workforce. It is interesting that women are being looked on to enter the workforce only when demographic trends dictate; it is not through love of equality, I can assure you. Businesses are never into making charitable gestures towards the female gender.

Seeing that the demographic trends throughout Europe have created opportunities for women to enter, and in many cases to re-enter the workforce, it is important that management notes, that the Minister notes — and I am sure he has noted — the positive contribution women have made when they have been given the opportunity to train. They actually go up the ladder of promotion. Many of them are involved in trade unions and with more involvement in trade unions I believe they would be less entrenched in traditional attitudes and would be far more positive towards technological change. They would not be into the old shop steward attitude of job retention and job security at all costs. They would look to the future and realise that technological advancement would be such that they would move forward even faster than men, because they are not curtailed by entrenched attitudes developed over centuries — you could say since the Industrial Revolution. They would tend to be less adversarial and less inclined to retain the status quo.

I would welcome the participation of women on the new Labour Relations Commission. We know the breakdown of that. There are six ordinary members to be appointed by the Minister, the line up being two worker members from trade unions, two employer members and two other members appointed directly by the Minister. I appeal to the Minister today that it is in his hands to give representation to women in his own personal capacity, or else he would emphasise to the other nominating bodies that they include women. I am not just looking for the token woman; I am looking for equal participation at a time when women are quite a sizeable percentage of the workforce in this country, but unfortunately in the part-time category.

Rationalisation has been referred to. Being a member of the ASTI I welcome the flag flying of SIPTU — the ITGWU and the Federated Workers Union of Ireland. They are now well established as a single union. They are stable at this stage and other unions will follow suit. As I said the ASTI, the INTO and the TUI have now agreed they will work towards a council of teacher unions. That is to be welcomed at a time when teachers have always been shown in the more negative aspect of trade unionism. I do not accept that view at all. I think when they are called upon they will fly the flag of rationalisation as good as any other sector. The Minister referred in his introduction to the fact that there is still great need to rationalise trade unions. We are familiar with the figures: 20 unions represent a small number of workers, less than 500. We have a small number of unions representing approximately 85 per cent. and the remainder represent the other 15 per cent. It is a slow process but it is one I am sure the Minister will try to speed up.

I welcome the Bill for its thoroughness. It has been long overdue and is long awaited. I hope the Minister will take the recommendations and the comments into account to make it more effective.

This is an excellent Bill and I am very pleased to welcome it. I welcome it, of course, as a Senator nominated by the Confederation of Irish Industry. The reality today is that we are all in this together. Whether one is management, so-called, or employee, so-called, or shareholders or whatever one's role in a company or industry, we are in it together; the old-fashioned lines of separation between management and employees are rapidly blurring, and quite rightly so. Also, the lines of demarcation between shareholders and employees are rapidly blurring. More and more it is becoming a question of people having a share in a company and also working in it. With present-day standards of education there is a far greater interface, far greater intercommunication, between everyone working in industry or in a company. If a company is to be successful, if an industry is to be successful, if indeed this country is to be successful in a highly competitive world, with the present-day speed of communications, it is essential that we work together.

Those companies in which management and those involved in the workforce work together at all levels, or those countries, such as Japan and until recently West Germany, where you have had an effective working relationship between everyone involved, are the companies and the countries which are successful. If there are a series of industrial disputes and so on, in my view that reflects just as much, if not more, on management than on those people who are involved directly in the industrial action. I would have great sympathy with the philosophy expressed by Senator Harte in this matter, because basically what he is saying is: we are all one integral part. If we are to succeed we will succeed together; if we are to fail we will certainly fail together.

I agree with what Senator Jackman said about the role of women in modernday industry and in the business world but I disagree with her where she suggests that it should be a question of having equal numbers. I agree with her in being against the idea of the token woman. That is an insult to women — that a token women should be put on this or that board. Equally, people should be judged on their merits. If there is a good woman she should get promotion on that basis; if there is a good man he should get promotion on that basis. There are plenty of good women. Indeed, in my own company one of the senior executive directors is a woman and on the technical side the senior geologist is a woman. They both earned it on merit. If a man happened to be better he would get that place.

I welcome the Bill from an employer's point of view and again suggest that we should be passing beyond the stage of thinking of ourselves either solely as employers or solely as employees. We are in this together; we will sink ar swim together.

I want to thank Senators who have contributed to this Second Stage debate. I am pleased that the remarks have been constructive and that the questions raised were fair. The Bill itself has been through a long debate in the other House. I thank Senators for coming directly to the point and picking up the major issues of the Bill. We had for one reason or another a very long Second Stage debate and a three times longer Committee Stage debate in the other House. The Senators have been following the arguments very well because between yesterday evening, last night and this morning they have come to the core points for or against.

In thanking Senators for their constructive and broadly supportive comments, I think we can all agree that what we want to see is a better industrial relations climate with the minimum of industrial disputes. The Bill before the House is designed to put in place a legislative framework which will contribute to the achievement of this aim. Deputy Harte this morning, in a practical presentation of his life experiences in this area, said it is a pity we have to talk about a continuation of disputes and of disruption. One of the central parts of this whole Bill is the Labour Relations Commission, which, as a number of Senators has said during the course of this debate goes, really to the heart of the matter, because it gives us the opportunity to do something we have not addressed since the foundation of the State.

It is a fact, as many Senators have said, that this Bill is the first real change in industrial relations since the foundation of the State. The 1969 Act sought to have a more preventative role played by the conciliation service, that they should try to prevent disputes and to follow on where disputes arose. However, that has not happened. That is why the whole new structure as envisaged in the Labour Relations Commission is essential.

I would like to reiterate what I said in my opening remarks because it is a very important point. Legislation is brought forward to the Houses of the Oireachtas by Government Ministers, having been discussed within their Departments with senior officials, with the State Solicitor in some cases, and always with the Parliamentary Draftsman. This legislation, however, is unique and I will explain why. Since 1965-66 Governments of all persuasions have had on the agenda industrial relations reform, and all of them were consistent in that they all failed. Since I was taking up the challenge of bringing forward legislation in this area, I carefully read what all Ministers, starting with our President, who was Minister Hillery in the first Department of Labour, set about in undertaking the task. After some time the Bill was withdrawn from the Order Paper and every subsequent Minister did the same thing. I think it was Senator O'Toole — if I am wrong I apologise to the Senator — who commented that perhaps we should not say that it was in the Programme for National Recovery that this started. While there was work done in the period from 1965 until the 1987 Government, the fact was that when I came into office there has been no meetings for over a year and there had been no agreement on anything.

I accept that.

This legislation at this stage would not have been possible, and I want to give the credit to the Programme for National Recovery, not to myself, because the difference between this and all the other Bills was that this was the collective view of both employers and trade unions. I do not think they put this on the record of the other House, but it is important for historians, who will no doubt be following this record. Being a historian of industrial relations debates in the Oireachtas is a fairly hard job, because you have to go back to 1906 in another administration and then to 1946, 1969, 1982 and now 1990. The debates in 1969 and 1982 are fairly short. Senator O'Toole, like myself, has read the 1946 debate. There are probably not many people in either House who have read it; but it was fairly acrimonious in a number of respects, for a number of reasons, not just the one referred to by Senator O'Toole. The point I wanted to make was that it was the very last point in the negotiations for the Programme for National Recovery That was written in by joint agreement between the trade union movement, led by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and by the Federation of Irish Employers, that these discussions should take place. That will be important for people in future who have been studying industrial relations since the foundation of the State in 1922.

The next important thing is this. I then got permission under the Programme for National Recovery, because of the strength of that programme and the commitments to it, that we would not have to take this legislation in the normal format, that I would be free to discuss the contents paragraph by paragraph with the social partners. That, as Senators will appreciate, is unique. If it has a parallel anywhere, I am not aware of it but I am sure it has somewhere along the way because I was not confined to the normal secrecy. We had perhaps the secrecy of the legal format of wording, but not the secrecy of the contents of the bilateral and trilateral discussions that took place.

Another key point is this. This legislation is not ideal from any one point of view. It is not legislation that has an employer stand or a trade union stand. As a result of experiences and the record of failures, the fact that the social partners committed themselves to go through the legislation in this way resulted in compromise on the Labour Relations Commission. The House will be aware that employers started this debate saying they did not think this advisory service was necessary, but they ended the debate supporting it. The employers started the debate saying that secondary picketing had to be banned and that they could not see any compromise in that position but they also changed substantially from that. The employers also made the point I made last night to Senator Costello: they saw the position arising that if unions were not following the rules in the legislation all and sundry would have the legal right to go about taking action against them. That did not happen in the legislation. It is only a trade union member directly involved who has a right to challenge what is in the Act. That is a very important distinction. It removes again a large amount of the need for legal recourse. I agree with all the Senators who made the point, particularly Senator O'Toole, that wherever we can we should remove the legal profession from industrial relations. It is not that I have anything against the legal profession — it would be for another day if I was to give all my comments on the legal profession — but particularly in industrial relations it is a dangerous matter.

Again, a question was asked today about unfair dismissals and the Employment Appeals Tribunal. It is my intention to bring in amending legislation. We are at an advanced stage in amending that legislation also. We have had experiences of a simple case of an individual who is being fairly or unfairly dismissed and you require large numbers of the legal profession to come and argue it out in legal format. That creates great difficulty, not least for the individual. If a person feels they were doing their best in their day's work, but a supervisor unduly harasses them and, following the argy-bargy, they are dismissed, when they bring a case to try to prove that they were unfairly dismissed they are met by barristers and solicitors, who have voluminous bibles in front of them, arguing case law from 1850 to 1990. Whatever chance they have of remembering why they were fired or not, by the end of the case they certainly feel that they may be better off to get out of the place. I am sure every Senator has experience of talking to people who go through this experience. It is also an unnecessary cost for employers when the employer might actually be right. I do not think it is a practice employers should get themselves into. There was always a code and an understanding in industrial relations of how things should be dealt with. One of the issues that often worries me is this. If we were to lose those who have been regarded as industrial relations negotiators, the people who, from gut reactions, know how to negotiate industrial relations, and leave it all to experts and professionals, it would be a sad day for this country. I certainly hope that will not happen.

The Labour Relations Commission and all we are doing in the Labour Court and in the conciliation service will not in any way add to bureaucracy but will make it a more civilised way of carrying out business. We should not lose sight of the fact that the great majority of industrial relations issues are settled at work place level — and I would like to put that on record — without recourse to the law. This is the way it should be. When we are talking on a Bill like this we can think there is nothing that can be solved without legislation, but most cases are solved and hopefully will always be solved at the work place.

The institutional framework provided in the Bill, and practicularly the range of services to be provided by the Labour Relations Commission of the Labour Court, will ensure that every assistance is available to the parties when this is required. While industrial relations is primarily a matter for the parties involved, the law does have a role to play in providing a framework within which collective bargaining can operate. I am satisfied that the changes in trade dispute law are long overdue and that they represent a balanced range of measures which take account of the rights and obligations of all sides.

A wide range of issues was raised by Senators and I will try to deal with some of those questions. Some of the points are of a more detailed nature and I will have a chance on Committee Stage to explain them in more detail. Two central features of the trade dispute measures are the provisions in relation to secret ballots and those in relation to picketing. Senator O'Toole questioned the definition of industrial action. This is important in the context of secret ballots, because to confine the secret ballot requirements to strike action would be much too narrow as other forms of industrial action can be equally if not more disruptive. The Senator, in fairness to him, made the point himself when he said he thought perhaps industrial action in the old traditional way is not as commonly used. To give an example I used some months ago, because it was a dispute I was involved in at that stage, somebody would say that not to answer the telephone in industrial action is a minor issue and that we should not have to have a ballot because somebody is not going to answer the telephone.

These are the kind of things that happen. Some of the things which perhaps were said in debate are unreal. I do not see us having to have ballots for what people do in their time off. The strong teachers' lobby in the Upper House need not worry about what they do in their time off, and I do acknowledge that the teaching profession do a lot of work in their time off. What they do for our national games and in cultural events is probably a major part of the education profession. However, I do not think we will be having any votes on whether teachers should run the college leagues or the local art exhibitions or anything like that. We can be fairly sure about that. Perhaps in time to come there might be ballots about whether teachers' holidays should come more in line with what they are in Europe than what they are in this country, but I certainly will not lead that debate. I will continue to protect what I think is the due holidays of my teaching colleagues, since we are hoping to start into an equally long holiday, which will not be really a holiday either. I understand that the teachers are not having holidays. That is an argument——

There is a high stress factor.

There is no more stressful life than being a Member of Seanad Éireann sitting through to 1 o'clock or 2 o'clock in the morning.

I have just written an article for next Sunday's paper saying quite the opposite.

When I left this House in the early hours of the morning, you could almost feel the levels of stress. I do not think you would ever get them in the classroom at 4.30 p.m. It seems very stressful in the early hours of the morning.

(Interruptions.)

Non-answering of telephones and non-opening of letters are major issues. A whole organisation can come to a standstill if people decide not to photocopy letters, not to use fax machines and not to answer telephones. I only use that example to say that it is not a simple issue to define "minor" and "major". I suppose this is a good time to outline it. We had this debate in the other House. I think Senators would know from reading those debates and from the discussions we have had with the Federation of Irish Employers, the Congress of Trade Unions, legal advisers who were working with the Department on this Bill, the State Solicitor's Office and the Parliamentary Draftsman, that at the end of the day it was not possible to find a definition and it is not possible. Everything was tried and I appreciate the efforts made by so many people——

That is a lawyer's bonanza.

Senator O'Toole knows the efforts of his colleagues in the Congress of Trade Unions, whom I thank for their efforts, because they did try extremely hard to find a definition, but it was not possible.

The basic principle is that workers have an entitlement to a democratic say in any decision as to whether they should become involved in a strike or other form of industrial action. I want to emphasise that this is where I came from in this issue. I have been involved in industrial disputes in one form or another as long as anyone else — back to the late sixties — and have been a follower of industrial action and disputes. I have had an open mind and open views on a lot of disputes, but there is one thing I am very concerned about and convinced of — and I was throughout all these discussions — and that is that if a person is going to take industrial action he is entitled under all the laws of natural justice and democracy to have a say in that and he is entitled to use his franchise in that say.

The definition of industrial action in the Bill is board, but it does cover the forms of action such as working to rule and that principle. The definition does not refer to breaches of contract but rather to any action which affects or is likely to affect the terms and conditions, whether expressed or implied, of a contract. It is broadly framed and is not confined to contracts of employment. The usual intention in taking industrial action, whether such action is described as working to rule or go-slow or some other form is to disrupt an employer's operations in such a way as to bring pressure to bear on him.

Senator Costello referred to the changes in relation to picketing, and in particular to secondary picketing. Picketing is one of the most controversial issues of trade dispute law with widely different views on the part of trade unions and employers as to what should be permissible. This is particlarly so in relation to the secondary picketing. As I have said, the employers argue for total outlawing while the unions maintain that in certain circumstances secondary picketing may be necessary to prevent the effects of legitimate industrial action being circumvented.

I have tried to reach a reasonable balance in relation to secondary picketing. To outlaw completely would, in my mind, tilt the balance in favour of employers. My proposal is to confine protection for picketing at the premises of a second employer to the situation where that employer has directly assisted the employer who is part of the strike for the purpose of frustrating the strike.

I think it was Senator O'Toole who asked what does a second person have to do. There are two issues in this on which we had a long debate but we got an agreed understanding on the issue. First, a person must have a belief that the second employer is involved in some way in frustrating the furtherance of the industrial action. That cannot just be a belief based on nothing. There must be some reason to believe that employer Y is frustrating the furtherance of industrial action. It cannot be notional and it cannot be imaginary. Neither can it be so tight that the worker cannot prove it. The words in the end were "reasonable belief" and the reasonable belief based on law is what the common man in the street would understand as being reasonable belief. It does not have to be some high falutin' legal point. For example, if, before the strike, there were two lorries a day coming to an industrial plant, the second employer's premises and when the strike begins there are 20 lorries coming in, that would be a reasonable belief. The workers would be able to say that this second employer is frustrating the strike because it is quite clear that they are involved in doing the order or delivering the goods or in some way by-passing the service.

The wording used is flexible enough to make sure that a person cannot come in saying: "It is my belief that there is a second strike but I have no evidence. I feel it in my bones because I dreamt it last night". You cannot get away with that but if he comes in and provides reasonable evidence then that suffices. The employers had some difficulty with that but we have resolved that point. My proposal is to confine protection for picketing at the premises of a second employer to a situation where that employer has directly assisted an employer as part of a strike for the purpose of frustrating the strike.

Senator Costello also raised the question of moving from an immunities based approach to a positive right to strike. We had a discussion on that last night. The Senator asked me to put it on the record of the House to clarify it. This was proposed by my predecessor but was opposed strongly by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. It is fair to say that Congress preferred to remain with the present system which, despite its shortcomings, has operated reasonably well since 1906 and because of the various rights and interests affected a positive right to strike would have to balance with a range of duties and obligations if it was to be sure of meeting the test of constitutionality. Congress wanted to stay on what was a well tested balance rather than move to what could be into a very challengeable area in law. It was based on that thinking. In preparing my proposals I took account of the various views which had been expressed by them and opted to remain with the immunity system based on Congress's view on this.

It would be fair to say, and I think a number of Members in the House would have known, that there were many legal people lining up to try to run juggernauts through the 1906 Acts in various respects. That would have helped Congress in its view. The legal world again thought that if they were to get a change in these principles, it would be easier for them to change the Act. The fact that it has not been overturned gives this legislation a lot of power and it would be unlikely to be challenged in the foreseeable future.

Senator O'Toole referred to the problems which can arise which constitutional rights come into conflict with each other and questioned why this issue was not addressed in the Bill. What is provided for is a range of immunities against actions arising from civil torts committed in contemplation or furtherance of trade disputes. The whole area of constitutional rights is an entirely different field and the balancing of such rights is a matter for the courts at the end of the day. Senator Kennedy mentioned that while inducement to breach a contract of employment is covered, actual breach of contract is not. This is because we are talking about two different areas of law — one is the law of tort and the other the law of contract. What is provided in the Bill is immunity in the case of a range of torts.

Senator O'Toole referred to section 9 (2) which deals with disputes involving individual workers. What is involved here is removal of immunities where procedures have not been followed. There is no question of interfering with anyone's right of access to the courts. I want to thank Senator O'Toole and others who have acknowledged that we did follow the long debate in the other House, made a number of amendments and particularly to this section which I think did improve and has improved the Bill overall.

On trade union law, a number of Senators raised questions about amalgamation or transfer of engagement and Senator O'Toole declared his vested interest. I do not know if any other Senator had a vested interest. To clarify the position, an amalgamation is where two or more unions come together to form a new unions and the amalgamation ceases to exist. A transfer of engagements is where one union transfers into another union with the receiving union maintaining its identity and the transfer of union ceases to exist. For the TUI, ASTI and INTO members in the House, that is the position. In the case of transfers or engagements on amalgamation——

And a few others.

In the case of transfer or engagements on amalgamations which succeed — and this is the important point — grants are paid after the amalgamation or transfer takes place so it does not really matter. What we are extending in the legislation, and this could be the crucial point and it certainly is a crucial point for a number of unions, is the fact that no money is paid in advance and there is no time limit involved. That is the position. The provision we are talking about is to enable grants to be paid here, for whatever reason, the attempt to merge is unsuccessful. It is necessary to have a time limit in such cases and I feel that a period of two years prior to the breakdown of the merger attempt is reasonable. There is not a time limit in the other case if it is successful.

Section 15 and the amendments of trade union rule books was also raised and the provision of section 15 (1) is intended to facilitate a trade union making it as easy as possible to carry through the necessary amendments to its rules. It is envisaged that trade unions will generally carry out the necessary amendments in conformity with the rules and in consultation with their members. This section is intended to meet the situation where problems might arise, such as rule book provisions, which may contain new revision arrangements which make it difficult to comply with the two year implementation period. I think the Senator will be familiar with what I mean.

We have looked into this but we do not see why it should pose any problems for the Registrar of Friendly Societies and I would like to think that during my period as Minister for Labour we have overcome a lot of the difficulties in that particular area. I know there are difficulties in the past, but in fairness to that office when in 1989 we dealt with the biggest transfer of engagements and amalgamations since the foundation of the State, the office were extremely efficient.

Senator O'Toole and Senator Costello referred to section 23 which defines the term "worker" for the purpose of Part III of the Bill and industrial relations generally. The definition determines those categories of workers who have access to the Labour Court, the Rights Commissioner and to the new Labour Relations Commission. The section makes no change to the present definition which is spread over a number of pieces of legislation. We are simply taking the opportunity in the Bill to bring together the various provisions covering the definition of worker and consolidating them for ease of reference. That is all that is happening.

There was considerable pressure on Committee Stage in the Dáil to amend the definition in order to allow access to the Labour Court and the Rights Commissioner for those covered by the conciliation and arbitration scheme. As I explained then, any movement in this area is a matter for agreement between the parties to the various schemes and the section contains provision enabling the Government to amend the definition by order should agreement be so reached. That is a positive step that will help in making progress in this area.

Another question raised was access to third party machinery for non-arbitral issues which is often the difficulty. Since we started on the First and Second Stages of this Bill, considerable movement has been undertaken in the negotiations between the Department of Finance and the Civil Service conciliation and arbitration schemes in this particular area. The official side put proposals to the staff side and the Department understand that progress can be made in this area. The matter can be dealt with by changes within the conciliation and arbitration schemes and would not require any amendment to the legislation. In the other House last week on the completion of the Report Stage I outlined the progress that had been made. It was welcomed in the other House and I know Senators would welcome it, but I think that in recent months we have made a lot of strides in what were long and protracted negotiations on conciliation and arbitration schemes and the proposals put forward by the official side are a long way from what was the position.

I have acknowledged that the work of the Congress of Trade Unions in raising this matter and the debate we had in the House was a good day's work and helped in moving this particular issue forward. In particular I would like to acknowledge the efforts of Phil Flynn from the Local Government Public Services Union who, with his union and his executive fronted this over a number of years at their annual conference. There are benefits to all conciliations and arbitration schemes and generally to the non-arbitral items which at the moment cannot go to a Rights Commissioner but will now be looked at within the context of their own conciliation and arbitration schemes. They will have, as Senator O'Toole was arguing last night, a place to go with their issues. Turning to the broader industrial——

I am not quite clear where we finished up on that point. Where would the access be to?

The Minister, without interruption.

What has been decided with the agreement of the unions is that the official side proposals will be further discussed directly by ICTU hoping to come to a compromise. This covers this whole area of dual access, who goes to court, who goes to conciliation and arbitration and what happens to people who have no recourse under conciliation and arbitration. I can say this and hopefully it will be agreed — I think a lot of movement has been made — an attempt has been made that items that would be non-arbitral under the conciliation and arbitration scheme, which is really where small issues can become major issues, would be some recourse to Rights Commissioner Service within the conciliation and arbitration scheme. Otherwise, as Senator O'Toole would appreciate, it could get into very stormy water because if you had, as was requested in some of the amendments in the other House, a non-arbitral item under the conciliation and arbitration schemes and it was allowed to go to a Right Commissioner, since the Rights Commissioners' decisions can be appealed to the Labour Court, you try to get third party intervention through the Rights Commission, and you could end up having that appealed and you are back in the Labour Court. That is not the way to resolve it. What seems to be the way — and I think they are moving that way in that direction — is that non-arbitral items would have recourse to a third party within the conciliation and arbitration scheme. Thank you, a Chathaoirligh, for letting me explain that because it is an important fact.

As I said, it is my intention that the commission will be established and in operation before the end of the year. Deputy Cosgrave asked about those points. I agree that it is important that the commission, while it is a small body, should have adequate resources and that part of its staffing should be drawn from the existing conciliation service of the Labour Court. There are provisions in the Bill to enable recruitment or appointment of additional posts which would probably be necessary. I would emphasise that the commission is not intended to be a layer of bureaucracy but rather a proactive body which will enable the primary responsibility for dispute resolution to be shifted back to where it belongs — the parties themselves. That is why it is necessary to have a small Labour Relations Commission and a small group, and not a large committee. I agree with Senator Cosgrave on that.

Senator McKenna referred to the important role the commission will have in dispute prevention as distinct from dispute settlement, which is a very important point. I see it performing this role through the advisory service and through the development of a code of good industrial relations practice. A number of Senators raised the point about the codes of practice. An important aspect of this preventive role is that it can be performed in a relatively calm atmosphere away from the immediate heat and conflict of industrial disputes.

Senator Jackman raised a point — it is a point I made here this morning and I agree with her. I have been in the office of Minister for Labour for practically three and a half years but I have been involved between being spokesman and executive of the unions for 21 years, and almost without exception unfortunately, it is the same files and the same issues that are always raised. The disputes come and go, and it is always fire brigade action. The Labour Court is called, the Minister is called, the conciliation service is called and everyone gets involved. There are motions and adjournments in both Houses and there are Congress meetings. Then the strike is over and everyone goes away but the same time next year — the holiday weekend when the weather is fine, or Christmas week, or depending on the dispute — it will come up again, and fire brigade action will start all over again. Again we have this merry-go-round, and the only thing that changes is that when the country is in deep recession the employer takes the hard line and when the country is in relative prosperity the union takes the hard line.

The hope of the Congress of Trade Unions, the Federation of Irish Employers and all the related organisations from employer and union sides is that the Labour Relations Commission will be a different kind of organisation. A number of Senators have asked me what type of commission it will be. The members of this commission will sit down and look at what has happened in a particular dispute. They will do all they can to resolve this company's part in the merry-go-round and perhaps will suggest better procedures, better management, or, as Senator Jackman said better personnel procedures. It is a fact of life that there are mad shop stewards and there are difficult trade union leaders but it is equally true that bad management, or the lack of management or the lack of management training causes industrial disputes. If one has to be involved it is preferable to deal with a tough union official who is well versed, who knows his business and a tough management who know where they stand but if you have a trade union official who is "off the wall" and a manager who does not know what he is at, it is unresolvable.

He would normally be unlikely to be on the trade union side.

Acting Chairman

We do not want a quarter of an hour's reply.

The Senator says it in total jest. If only the cameras were on him everyone would know that so I will not reply. The Senator knows what I mean. The Labour Relations Commission will now be able to look at these things afresh and that is what I hope will happen.

On the question of consultation which was raised by Senator Cosgrave, the Bill provides for consultation with the social partners in appointing a chairman, two members of the commission will be trade union nominees, two will be nominated by the employers and two will be nominated by the Minister. These consultations and nomination arrangements are provided for in the Fourth Schedule to the Bill. I agree with the point made by Senator Jackman and it is always my practice to try to ask the nominating bodies to make sure that both sexes are represented. It is important that there should be joint representation. It is a hard battle sometimes and there are no worse offenders than the trade union movement. I will have to check the record of the teaching unions.

Staff associations.

That is difficult but I will not go into it. John Carroll gave an example which other trade unions should follow when he recently had to pull out of the panel of the Employment Appeal Tribunal on leaving SIPTU on his retirement. He is fulfilling other important functions. He made it mandatory on the trade union movement to appoint an able, capable women to the post. I had had previous rows with them because they would not do it and this is something with which we have to continue to battle. It is proper to highlight this matter and I will continue to do what I can. I know Senator O'Toole will also do what he can.

The Senator asked how the assistance of the commission can be sought in particular circumstances. The Bill makes it clear that either of the parties can seek the involvement of the commission and the commission is also empowered to offer assistance on its own initiative. I mentioned in my speech last night a list of the areas that may be covered by codes of practice. This list is by no means exhaustive and the Labour Relations Commission, when established, can consult with various interests to select other areas. I wish to make it clear that I am not setting down what the codes of practice should be; that is a job for the commission. They have the freedom in the legislation to go into different areas. I just gave as an example some of the issues I thought might be useful, but certainly that is not the agenda.

It is the intention that the codes of practice will be drawn up in consultation with the social partners who will ensure the code has broad acceptability. That is important from the employers' point of view. There is no good having codes of practice if they do not stand up and it is particularly important that they have status in law. Even though they are codes of practice, they can be used in evidence.

I have attempted to cover the wide range of issues referred to by Senators but perhaps there are a few points I missed. I hope I dealt with the commission at length. Senator Neville mentioned the 1,000 membership provision which relates to the establishment of new unions. That does not affect the existing unions.

What about staff associations?

Staff associations would have exempted body status, which is the title they have. Most are negotiating bodies. They have in law exempted body status and they will continue to have their position.

I have argued strongly to get money for amalgamations. I accept that small trade unions have excellent people at the helm; I know all the general secretaries and I know their commitment. However, they have to recognise the sophisticated challenges they all face in the future. It is not just a case of fighting employers but keeping up-to-date with their own trade union structures, with what is going on in ETCU, with providing the kind of services that people want. Senators who have been involved with trade unions know it is no longer about pay and conditions; a union leader now must look at insurance, they must look at extended services for their members and it is impossible for a person to do that for a few hundred members. Rationalisation and amalgamation will have to be the order of the day. That is the road we have to travel.

The inclusion of psychiatric nurses was a major issue. In the early fifties both groups of nurses were given the option; general nurses opted for the conciliation and arbitration system and psychiatric nurses opted for the other system.

I covered the question of picketing at multi-employer locations in my opening address. A number of Senators mentioned this aspect. The wording of the Bill is designed to ensure that the picket is at the place of business of the individual employer rather than at the entrance to the complex. A saver is provided to cover cases where the owner of a complex is not prepared to allow pickets to enter the complex. This is necessary in the case of private property rights and in order to avoid action being taken. I am trying to reach the point where a picket will be placed at a person's place of work, not their home and not at a second employer's place who has no involvement. If you have an industrial estate and the owner of the estate for one reason or another refuses to allow a picket, if I did not put in the saver I would be saying that a picket could not be placed. I was not prepared to do that. There was a lot of pressure put on me by organisations to keep it tight. I am not opening up a loophole. All I am saying is that where somebody, for property rights or some other bogus reason, says you cannot picket at the individual place, then in that case the union is allowed to picket at the entrance to the premises.

Perhaps Senators would wish me to go into more detail on the Labour Relations Commission. I know many of the amendments have been discussed, not only at length in the other House but also discussed in a unique way between the social partners.

I would like to put on record my appreciation of the Seanad. I wish particularly to acknowledge the time and effort put in by the Federation of Irish Employers, the employer organisations and the people who sent in submissions and who worked hard on this Bill. I am aware that a number of organisations have followed the progress of the Bill; I know that people in the Gallery followed this Bill closely during the debate. I am aware that non-Congress unions, particularly the IBOA and people from the professional services unions, followed the progress of this Bill. I wish to put on record that I have taken their views and their submissions into account. They would know and respect the positions that we have on this issue. The ICTU represent the vast majority of workers in the State, they hold that prime position. It is perhaps not appropriate, but it is a view I hold that all these bodies will one day be in ICTU and then you will have a united front. However, that is a matter for another place. Their views have not been forgotten.

I want to acknowledge that they have followed the Bill closely and have sat for hours listening to the Dáil and Seanad debates on it. It must be acknowledged that they have done that. I want to commend the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Federation of Irish Employers who from the autumn of 1987 right up to when this Bill was published in the first few days of December, gave an inordinate amount of time and discussion on the various sections. Using their legal advice and the State's legal advice, I think we have come to a very good compromise.

I want to thank the Seanad for allowing me the time for what has been a fairly long Second Stage debate. Because of the difficulty of the time lapse on amendments, I went into it in more detail than I normally would. I do appreciate the kind remarks and the probing questions that were asked and I hope I have answered as fully as possible and given due respect to the Seanad. I always do when I am here. I like to do what Senators ask, to stay here and to listen carefully and to take on board the views expressed. I always find the debates in this House very useful and very helpful for myself as well as for industrial relations.

Question put and agreed to.

Acting Chairman

When is it proposed to take the next Stage?

It is proposed to take Committee Stage at 3 p.m. This morning on the Order of Business it was agreed we would have a sos from 2 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. We are now asking, by agreement, to extend the sos from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Sitting suspended at 2 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.
Barr
Roinn