Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 15 April 2015
224. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if he will intervene in a dispute in a company (details supplied) to reach a solution which would be acceptable to all parties involved; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14809/15]
Amharc ar fhreagra226. Deputy Terence Flanagan asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation his views on a matter (details supplied) regarding collective bargaining; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14865/15]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 224 and 226 together.
I understand that the current dispute revolves around a range of issues, including the introduction of banded hours contracts, individual and collective representational rights and a review of the use of temporary contracts. The trade union is seeking to engage with the company on these issues and the matter was referred by the union to the Labour Court under section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 in October of last year.
The company was not represented at the Labour Court hearing. In this regard, the Court found it regrettable that the company declined to participate in the investigation of the dispute or to put forward its position on the union's claims.
In its recommendation of 14th November 2014, the Court reaffirmed earlier recommendations it had made by noting that the Company and the union were parties to a collective agreement signed in 1996 which provides a procedural framework within which industrial relations disputes and differences arising between the parties can be resolved by negotiation and dialogue. The Court pointed out that the dictates of good industrial relations practice requires parties to honour their collective agreements in both spirit and intent.
I am disappointed that the company decided against attending the Labour Court hearing, contrary to good industrial relations practice in that regard. In my view, the experience and expertise of the Labour Court offers the most appropriate and effective avenue for resolving such issues.
I would urge both parties to avail of the services of the State’s industrial Relations machinery who remain available to assist the parties, in a flexible manner and without prejudice to positions of principle that may be held by any party. It is my opinion that engagement with the State's industrial relations machinery offers the best way whereby the parties involved in this dispute can hope to resolve their differences.
Ultimately, responsibility for the settlement of a trade dispute rests with the parties to the dispute. However, I would like to see an early and fair settlement to this dispute.
As regards representation rights, Cabinet approval was obtained at the end of 2014 to legislate for an improved framework for workers who are in dispute with their employer regarding their terms and conditions in situations where there are no arrangements with their employer to resolve the matters through collective bargaining.
When enacted this legislation will mark the fulfilment of one of the most significant commitments in the Programme for Government which indicated that reform in this area was needed. In developing these proposals Minister Bruton and I have been keen to respect the positions articulated by stakeholders to develop proposals that sustain our voluntary system, but also ensure that workers have confidence that, where there is no collective bargaining, they have an effective system that ensures they can air grievances about remuneration, terms and conditions and have these determined based on those in similar companies and not be victimised for doing so.
I expect this legislation to be published during this Dáil session and enacted as expeditiously as is possible thereafter.
