Mr. John Arkins:

Hopefully, the Chairman and members will have had an opportunity to read the submission we furnished to the committee on 31 January 2018.

My name is John Arkins. I am general secretary of the Irish Film Workers Association. I am accompanied by my colleague, John Purdy. The association represents all grades of workers of the film industry, the majority being of the set craft grade. In this summary of our position, we will address some of the key aspects of the previous presentations by the Irish Film Board, Screen Producers Ireland and SIPTU which are also dealt with in our submission.

The issues break down into three key categories – funding, employment and training. On funding under section 481, the legislation follows at Appendix 3, page 150, of our substantive submission. The committee will note that an authorisation shall not be given by the Minister under section 481(2) of the Act of 1997, that is, the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, in relation to a film unless: (a) the film is within a category of film set out in Schedule 2, and (b) the Minister is satisfied that the film will either or both: (i) act as an effective stimulus to film making in the State through amongst other things the provision of quality employment and training opportunities, and (ii) be of importance to the promotion, development, enhancement of the national culture including where applicable the Irish language. Film making in Ireland, we would suggest, never meets the requirements of either subparagraphs (i) or (ii) of the Act.

SIPTU in its submission to the committee described employment in the film industry as "precarious". The union further put forward a view that freelance contracts are favoured by some workers. A union official went on to suggest that this issue could be addressed by engagement with the parent company. It is our understanding that those on freelance contracts are not covered by the legislation and do not meet the definition of "worker" under any of the various pieces of employment legislation. We believe it is an absurd proposition from the largest trade union in Ireland to engage in dialogue with the producer company which is the recipient of section 481 funding in respect of "precarious" employment or outsourcing key functions.

We, film workers, are engaged on fixed-purpose contracts. This atypical working arrangement was recognised by the European social partners and resulted in major reform with the introduction of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003. To put it in context, some 15 years after the introduction of the legislation, SIPTU is proposing to allow producer companies abdicate their responsibilities to both employment legislation and section 481 funding notwithstanding that SIPTU, in the first instance, by way of collective agreements, provided the mechanism to the producer companies to continue the abusive use of fixed-term contracts with what is known as a 50/50 nomination system, that is, the union proposes a member for a job and management proposes the next member. Apart from the constitutional issues which arise, there is a belief that we, as workers, were taxed by the union to go to work.

It has long been recognised that precarious or atypical employment undermines the stability and continuity of employment which is central to the funding legislation and, indeed, actively conspires against the effective functioning of the industry.

It was also most disappointing to hear Screen Producers Ireland confirm to the committee what it has been telling us for some time, that is, that its members do not employ anybody, yet they seek to engage with SIPTU to conclude collective agreements.

Mr. Collins of Screen Producers Ireland also informed the committee that producer companies are custodians of section 481. The effect of being a custodian means that they are guardians and overseers of how the money is spent. We would suggest they are doing a very bad job, as there is no return on the investment for the taxpayer.

Mr. Collins, speaking as a member of Screen Producers Ireland and as spokesperson for the producer company members, put forward an argument as to why they could not have crew.

He used an analogy that if he hired a director of photography who did not want to use his camera technician, then his technician would have no work and that would give the technician an unrealistic expectation. The reality is that producer companies should have a crew and the director of photography should be directly employed as it is a grade that only has an application in the film industry. It seems that Screen Producers Ireland seriously believe that this kind of glib comment is helpful to their members. We respectfully suggest that when one is in a hole, one should stop digging.

Another issue was the submission to the committee, again by the union, in respect of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997. The Act provides a maximum working week of 48 hours. The averaging period is four months, 16 weeks, not 17, as stated by the union. Producer companies are aware that if the duration of the production is less than the averaging periods, then the working week cannot in any circumstances exceed 48 hours. There are no exemptions from the legislation for the film industry. That this was acknowledged by the union came as a total shock to us as workers given that the union yet again provided the mechanism to the producer companies to breach the Act by way of a collective agreement. This agreement is forced on workers by way of an appendix to our contracts.

Senior union officials have unfortunately overlooked the organisation of working time consolidated legislation which provides that if a collective agreement were to take workers outside of the legislation, it could only be concluded between a worker and his or her employer, the statutory consequences of opting out having been explained in plain language. The legislation requires that such an agreement cannot be negotiated by representative bodies. This should be obvious to both the union and Screen Producers Ireland as the provisions of employment legislation are individual rights of entitlement.

We know the union is familiar with this piece of legislation and we know it is familiar with the case law as set down by the European Court of Justice. We know this because we have told it in correspondence on numerous occasions and we were ignored. Senior officials did point out that workers who are in breach of the legislation could be penalised if they go to work on another production, which is correct, but neglected to say that the net effect of this breach is that workers may be prevented from taking another job and neither could they avail of unemployment assistance because they could not be available for work.

How are workers supposed to live if the union’s collective agreement renders them unable to work? It is truly shocking that a most senior official ignored their own role in this injustice by implementing the collective agreement that provides for a 50 hour, up to a 66 hour, week before overtime. To further compound this injustice, this official has just entered into another such agreement with Troy Studios in Limerick again in the full knowledge that it is a breach of legislation. There is no reason that film production cannot abide by the legislation and organise the work over 48 hours.

Our submission to the committee sets out the reality of the issues facing trainees. The CEO and chairperson of the Irish Film Board along with the union acknowledged that there were issues with trainees and training, but nothing has been done to address these issues. Our submission deals with the Crowe Horwath report. We do not believe it complied with its terms of reference and feel it is not capable of being implemented. There was another major report which was referred to by the CEO of the Irish Film Board going back as far as 1995, the STATCOM report, which proposed the registering and certification of trainees. To date, none of its recommendations are in place.

Screen Training Ireland is, in our view, a major drain on the taxpayer and should be returned to SOLAS from where it came.

What is the value to taxpayers of throwing more money at Screen Training Ireland which has no QQI accreditation, does not engage with trainees, in an industry which determines its own training needs and which has fundamentally failed to implement the key recommendations of previous training reports? Screen Training Ireland held an open day in Troy Studios in Limerick two years ago and promised jobs in the film industry yet there were no employers recruiting workers because there are no jobs. The production which is now under way in Troy Studios has at least 80% of the crew having been brought in from New Zealand and the UK. Irish crew must go down as local crew, even though they are not local. Workers are brought here from abroad even though there are experienced film workers and trainees sitting at home. Who is responsible for carrying out the labour market needs test which is required when hiring non-EEA workers? Was such a test carried out?

In order to determine training needs or to devise training courses, two essential ingredients are fundamental to the process without which the process is irrelevant, namely an employer, an employee. Section 10 of the fixed-term work legislation places an obligation on employers to provide access to training, so here we have two pieces of legislation placing obligations on employers under section 481 and the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003. Therefore, the question arises as to what useful purpose can be served in granting Screen Training Ireland extra resources other than to give the impression that there is a career in film, when we know to our cost there is no such thing.