Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 29 March 2017
3. Deputy Lisa Chambers asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the discussions he has undertaken and the representations he has made with regard to reviewing the industrial relations process for Defence Forces representative associations. [15651/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraWhat discussions has the Minister of State undertaken and what representations has he made with regard to reviewing the industrial relations process for Defence Forces representative associations, and will he make a statement on the matter?
Under the terms of the Defence (Amendment) Act 1990, the Defence Forces representative associations are prohibited from being associated with or affiliated to any trade unions or any other body. Accordingly, the representative associations cannot be affiliated to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, at present. The basis for this prohibition is that it would be inappropriate to apply the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 to members of the Defence Forces. The taking of any form of industrial action is irreconcilable with military service. This is a long-standing policy position taken by successive Governments since the foundation of the State. The Defence Forces may be called on to contribute to maintaining vital services in times of industrial action. The potential for serious difficulties and conflicts could arise in these circumstances if the Defence Forces representative associations were associated with or affiliated to ICTU, given ICTU rules in respect of such matters.
As the Deputy is aware, the conciliation and arbitration scheme for members of the Permanent Defence Force, PDF, provides a formal mechanism for the PDF representative associations, RACO and PDFORRA, to engage with the official side. The purpose of the scheme is to provide a means for the determination of claims and proposals from the associations relating to remuneration and conditions of service. It is open to the representative associations to submit claims to the official side regarding matters falling within the conciliation and arbitration scheme. Generally, claims relate to pay and conditions, award of allowances, etc. When submitted, these claims are generally the subject of negotiations, and where agreement is not reached, it is open to both sides to seek the assistance of an adjudicator to settle the matter. In addition, a framework exists which facilitates the associations engaging with the official side in talks parallel to those taking place between ICTU and the official side at the national level.
I have received representations from PDFORRA seeking to have access to the Workplace Relations Commission and the Labour Court made available to it in the event of any future legislative changes being made to provide An Garda Síochána with access to same. I am advised that the proposals regarding An Garda Síochána being granted such access will require detailed legislative changes, and the Department of Justice and Equality has established a working group to examine in detail what future legislation is required.
I remain satisfied with the present arrangements in place for the Defence Forces. However, in the light of PDFORRA representations, the matter is being kept under review, including in the context of any future arrangements to be made for An Garda Síochána.
While the Minister of State might remain satisfied with the current arrangement in place, I assure him that the Defence Forces are not. The Minister of State will be aware that until 2016, both the Garda and Defence Forces representative associations have been precluded from trade union status and affiliation to ICTU. Garda and the Defence Forces representative associations were granted access to the national pay talks in what is referred to as a parallel process, with the Departments of Justice and Equality and Defence operating sectoral conciliation and arbitration schemes. It is fair to say that recent changes in this context have meaningfully altered the dynamic structures of the State industrial relations architecture, with access for Garda associations to the Workplace Relations Commission now being sanctioned by Government. However, the Defence Forces associations have not been considered in this context. Queries posed to the Department of Defence on this subject failed to elicit any response to relevant questions as to why Government found it necessary to restructure established industrial relations structures for the Garda and not the Defence Forces.
I put it to Deputy Kehoe that as Minister of State with responsibility for defence, it is his job to advocate for the Defence Forces at the Cabinet table, and I put it to him that he has failed to do so. That he thinks he can maintain the status quo for the Defence Forces while allowing the Garda a separate structure within which to operate is totally ridiculous. It will not be sustainable, and the Defence Forces will not accept it. What is the Minister of State doing to address this imbalance and the Defence Forces' lack of access to the industrial relations mechanisms of the State to which they are entitled?
A process is in place within the Department of Defence in this regard. I have met both representative organisations on numerous occasions and have received representations from PDFORRA seeking to have access to the Workplace Relations Commission and the Labour Court made available to it. I understand the reasons it would want such services available to it.
The Deputy mentioned An Garda Síochána. Legislative changes are required for the Garda to have access to both the Labour Court and the Workplace Relations Commission. A working group has been set up in this regard. To state that I have been silent at the Cabinet table is absolutely untrue. I have asked that a senior member of my Department be given a seat on that working group when it is set up and begins its talks and negotiations. I have cleared this at the Cabinet table. I sought this because the representative organisations had been in contact with me.
I am concerned that the Minister of State thinks the process currently in place is adequate. Let us talk about the conciliation and arbitration process in place and why I say it is dysfunctional. Government recently agreed that the WRC Garda settlement will be on the terms of the Lansdowne Road agreement, and the Department allowed for negotiations to take place between the officers of the public services committee, PSC, of ICTU and officials of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, DPER. This began in December 2016, concluded in January 2017 and reached Cabinet approval on 17 January. Following this, officials from DPER met RACO on 17 January, the same day Cabinet approved it, to inform RACO of the outcome of the negotiations with ICTU regarding the talks on the Garda anomaly. At this point, the Government had already agreed its position. This effectively meant that no consultation took place with RACO. Consultation only took place with the PSC of ICTU. This means that the parallel process designed for consultation and negotiation with the representative associations is dysfunctional because no consultation happened.
The decision of the Government, which was, communicated to RACO on 17 January, contradicted the statement by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Donohoe, that under the first phase parties to the Lansdowne Road agreement were invited to discussions under section 6 of the agreement. Does the Minister of State not accept that the fact there had been no consultation of any description with RACO prior to that media release of a new agreement on the Lansdowne Road agreement contradicts every aspect of the Government's commitment? The agreement between the public service committee of ICTU and Government deliberately excluded RACO. Is that not another clear example supporting the RACO claim that the parallel process is dysfunctional, placing members of the Defence Forces at a significant disadvantage relative to those who enjoy trade union membership? It is the Minister of State's job to fix this imbalance.
I am happy that the conciliation and arbitration process in place for the representative organisations is suitable and is working. There might be several issues that the Department and my office might not agree on with the representative organisations but the conciliation and arbitration process is open to them to deal with whatever issues they have.
I welcome that PDFORRA signed up as a full member of the Lansdowne Road agreement last week, which brings benefits to the members of the Permanent Defence Force. I have a person on the working group within the Department of Justice and Equality and am content that person will represent the views of RACO and PDFORRA.
