Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 9 June 2011
6 Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the way he envisages the local collective agreement alternative to joint labour committees will operate in practice; his definition of collective agreement; if he intends to enshrine this definition in law; his views on who might be competent on the employee side to reach such an agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14632/11]
Amharc ar fhreagra30 Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation his plans to implement the commitment in the programme for Government to bring the law on employees’ right to engage in collective bargaining into line with recent judgements of the European Court of Human Rights; his plans to introduce this change alongside his proposals to change the joint labour committee process; his views on the implications of his proposals to change the JLC process; his views on his proposals for the existing collective bargaining process; the implications of the Duffy Walsh proposals, if adopted, for the collective bargaining process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14633/11]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 30 together.
There is a commitment in the programme for Government to ensure that Irish law on employees' right to engage in collective bargaining is consistent with recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. This process will require consultation with stakeholders, including employer and worker representatives, and a review of the experience of the operation of the existing legislative framework as put in place under the Industrial Relations Acts of 2001 and 2004 and the consequences of the litigation that has arisen in the course of the operation of these Acts.
The report of the independent review of employment regulation orders and registered employment agreement wage setting mechanisms noted that the principle that the JLC system should only operate where, for whatever reason, collective bargaining does not take place already is recognised by the provision at section 46 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. This section provides that the Labour Court may exclude from the scope of a JLC an employment to which a registered employment agreement, REA, applies. This provision has been availed of by a number of enterprises in recent years, especially in the mushroom growing sector.
However, under existing legislation, such exclusion can only apply where the remuneration and conditions of employment provided for by the REA are not less favourable than those provided for by the relevant employment regulation order, ERO. The review concluded that this qualification limits the capacity of parties to conclude agreements which may be more suited to the circumstances of individual employments but which may be regarded as less favourable than the ERO in some particulars. In this context, the report recommended that the legislation be amended to provide that the court may exclude an undertaking from the scope of a JLC through a collective agreement, negotiated at enterprise, group or sub-sector level, that is registered with the Labour Court.
I endorse the review's acknowledgment of the primacy of collective bargaining. How this recommendation can be progressed will, like other recommendations in the report, be considered in the context of the action plan for the implementation of all proposals dealt with in the report as well as other issues raised by the report which I intend to bring to Government shortly.
As the Minister has said, the JLC system was put in place to cover situations where collective bargaining was not possible for one reason or another, for example, in areas where there was no union representation. How does the Minister envisage a system will work if JLCs are replaced with this principle of collective bargaining? Who will be doing the bargaining on behalf of the workers? How will that be determined and who will decide whether the workers are properly represented and whether this is proper collective bargaining?
I note a commitment in the programme for Government to reform the current law on employees' right to engage in collective bargaining which is at present contained in the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2001, to ensure compliance by the State with recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Will the Minister give an indication what this means? What is his understanding of the conclusions reached by the European Court of Human Rights on the meaning of the term "collective bargaining"?
On the first question, the present system already allows a registered employment agreement to replace a JLC. The form of collective bargaining envisaged is clearly a trade union bargaining with employers. This is the current definition. The issue of whether that would go further is contentious and on which there are different views between the social partners. It will require to be considered when drafting final proposals. As Deputy O'Dea rightly remarked, many of the JLCs are in areas where either employer recognition of unions is low or trade union organisation is low, but it is not a case of straightforward agreement and it will require a bit of thought before we reach a conclusion.
The compliance with the European Court of Human Rights judgment arose out of a judgment in the United Kingdom where, to paraphrase, a court judged that employers were giving priority to people who were not members of a trade union and in certain circumstances were deemed to have been victimising those who opted to join a trade union. The court found that the British law in that case was in contravention of human rights. The issue has arisen to proof our legislation against any similar frailty. This is my understanding of the matter.
I understand the point the Minister is making. It would appear to me that the judgments to which he refers and in accordance with which he intends to change Irish law mean that collective bargaining will henceforth be defined as representation by an official trade union.
There is no such proposal. This change in respect of the ILO refers to a very narrow set of circumstances which involved victimisation of workers. It is not reversing the entire edifice of existing Irish law; this is a fairly narrow flaw which was exposed. There needs to be consultation to ensure our legislation is not equally frail on that subject.
The Minister could be forgiven for not reading that in the programme for Government.
