David Cullinane (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I do not believe that either aspiring to a minimum wage or cutting it will reduce the level of unemployment in the State. It is naive to think that will happen. In fact, it is the reverse.
I commend the Minister of State for the opportunity that has been afforded to us to engage in pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. This is important because of a series of constitutional challenges in the Supreme Court on the issue of collective bargaining and workers' rights. They involve REAs, JLCs and the concept of collective bargaining. There is an opportunity for the Minister of State to reflect on the issue today because there does not seem to be a proper constitutional floor to protect workers. The small number of employers who took those cases effectively dismantled the industrial relations machinery of the State in terms of collective agreements. They were able to do so because of the failure of the Constitution which favour private property rights, the weakness of powers of employment rights bodies and the lack of Oireachtas accountability in this case. As the Minister of State said, all of this is subject to future court challenges. We, therefore, need to ensure the Constitution is robust enough to protect workers' rights. It is welcome that the Minister of State seems to be pre-empting the outcome of future legal challenges and I hope this legislation can withstand any such challenge.
The Irish Congress of Trade Unions has expressed concern about flaws in the judgment which led to the collapse of REAs in the first place. ICTU has also made a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights. I would like to know what is the Minister of State's view of that complaint.
The Bill needs to be much clearer on specifics. The Minister of State said:

A trade union and-or employer body that is substantially representative of workers or employers of such workers in a sector may make an application to the Labour Court to initiate the process looking for a possible recommendation to be made to the Minister to make the order. Interested parties - this is important legally - will be given an opportunity to make submissions to the Labour Court in the context of a review.

However, the general scheme does not seem to define a "substantially representative" organisation. Is this a weakness? If there is to be a future court challenge, could this be an area in which an employer could seek to find a loophole? We must ensure we close any potential loophole; therefore, we need a clear understanding and definition of what this term means.
The Minister of State also mentioned "interested parties", but is there a definition of what constitutes "interested parties"? Such a legal definition would be helpful.
In head 7 there is no provision for notice to be given to a trade union organisation by the Labour Court of its intention to cancel an REA. ICTU has expressed concern about this.
Head 14 deals with the "substantially representative" of workers element. The Minister of State might advert to it.
In the case of young workers, hjead 15 makes provision for minimal early rates of basic pay lower than those for an experienced adult worker. ICTU has expressed the view that we should not have different rates of pay based on class, type or group because, as a result, we could end up with a two-tier workforce and all of the complications and difficulties this might entail.
Enforcement and compliance are obviously important because any legislation is only as valid as the State's ability to enforce it.

If one looks at the construction sector as a good example, we have seen unscrupulous employers use subcontractors to bypass agreed rates of pay. There are a number of examples of which the Minister of State will be aware. A strike has been ongoing for a number of weeks. The employer was able to deem some workers as subcontractors and avoid having to pay proper rates. Has that been looked at in the context of this legislation? The legislation needs to be robust and able to protect all workers. We need to look at the loopholes that have been and are being used by employers, because that is the key to this.

What happens if an employer is outside the Construction Industry Federation or IBEC but wants to be part of an REA? Is it allowed to be part of it?