Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 26 April 2012
1Deputy Willie O’Dea asked the Minister for Jobs; Enterprise and Innovation if his attention has been drawn to the fact that employers are increasingly disregarding the recommendations of institutions such as the Rights Commissioner and the Labour Court; his plans to deal with this; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21035/12]
Amharc ar fhreagraRecommendations and awards of these institutions may concern either industrial relations or employment rights issues. I will deal with each separately.
The system of industrial relations in Ireland is essentially voluntarist in nature. The State provides a framework and the institutions through which good industrial relations can prosper. It is expected that the parties to a dispute come to the process in good faith and consequently are prepared to give serious consideration to the recommendations made. It should be noted, however, that either party to a dispute may reject such recommendations. I am not aware of an increasing disregard from employers to the recommendations of these institutions. Accordingly, I have no plans to make any changes to alter this voluntarist principle. It has been tried and tested over a long period and has proved robust in dealing with many difficult disputes.
Employment rights awards may be enforced, depending on the legislation, usually by application to the Circuit or District Courts. I would not normally be aware of the enforcement history of a particular award. However, as Minister, I may sometimes make an application to the courts on behalf of a claimant. Through these cases and a recent consultation process I undertook, I am aware of increasing concerns with regard to situations where employers fail or refuse to comply with awards of rights commissioners, the EAT or the Labour Court with regard to awards under employments rights legislation. It is my intention this autumn, in the forthcoming workplace relations Bill, to develop new and more effective ways of enforcing such awards. I have already sought the views of all interested parties as part of the workplace relations reform programme on how to improve this system. I am open to all positive suggestions and advice on the design of a better system.
I welcome what the Minister has said with regard to the forthcoming legislation in the autumn. We look forward to seeing what improvements he can manage to bring about in the system.
I would like to bring the Minister back to the situation under the industrial relations legislation. Is he aware that in 2010, the last year for which we have figures, no less than 543 cases were referred to the Labour Court under the industrial relations legislation? However, the Labour Court could issue a binding recommendation in only nine of them, less than 2% of the cases. To put it another way, in over 98% of cases that went to the Labour Court, if the employer chose to ignore the Labour Court recommendation, the employee was in no position to vindicate his or her rights. The figures for 2009 are somewhat similar with ten out of 606 cases. Will the Minister agree that this is very unfair, that it needs to be given careful and serious consideration and that the Connolly Shoes case, with which he would be familiar, is a classic example of what happens when employers fail to engage meaningfully with employment rights bodies?
I agree there have been difficulties with the resolution of many industrial disputes. However, legal mandatory rulings have not been a feature of our industrial relations scenery and they create a very different approach to industrial relations. Our industrial relations machinery has evolved on the basis of seeking to be conciliatory and to bring parties together. Ultimately solutions have to be found from between the two sides and seeking to have binding legal obligations in respect of a dispute of this nature has never favoured. One would need to consider long and hard before imposing mandatory solutions producing binding decisions which affect workers or employers without them having the opportunity to take a different view.
The Deputy is suggesting a very profound shift in the type of industrial relations approach in this country. Our record of low industrial strife points to the success of the system. I recognise there are always some cases which prove the exception to the rule and I am always ready to listen to suggestions. However, the bigger problem is in the area of employment rights. Just as we have a more efficient system the awards should be enforceable and this is an area where I plan to direct more of my energies.
I agree with the Minister on his last point. I refer the Minister to a letter he wrote to the Mandate trade union dated 1 March 2012 in which he advised the union that he would consider, " vindication of employees' rights and the minimisation of the cost to employees in the context of the forthcoming reform of the State's employment rights and industrial relations structures and procedures". Will the Minister give the House a commitment that he will review those procedures and legislation in a way that will assist in the speedy resolution of industrial relations disputes in cases where the employer refuses to engage with the industrial relations institutions of the country?
Our ambition is to have a system that is efficient, with early intervention to reconcile the issues rather than as in the present system where often it becomes very legalistic and moves towards adjudication and hearings rather than seeking an early intervention. We need a system that works effectively for both sides. That is my ambition and we seek to develop mechanisms to achieve this.
