Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Thursday, 20 June 2019

Joint Oireachtas Committee on Social Protection

Bogus Self Employment: Discussion (Resumed)

Mr. Tom Fitzgerald:

I will address some of the specific issues Deputy Bríd Smith raised, being mindful of parliamentary procedure. The contractor in Kishogue to whom Mr. Rob Kelly referred was JJ Rhatigan. It is a matter of public record that the Labour Court awarded workers €100,000 for the underpayment of wages. It was established that they were employees and that their self-employed status was bogus. The reason for the cynicism, which is not just related to the nature of our job, is that the former Taoiseach opened a building site for that contractor. We have established definitively with the State agency for dispute resolution that these workers' self-employed status was bogus, notwithstanding the logjam, whether by accident or design, in the scope section of the Department. Then we have the former Taoiseach opening a project for the company on the north side of Dublin.

The biggest example of bogus self-employment goes back more than a decade to Gama Construction. Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas were highly exercised by the levels of exploitation of migrant workers in that company. All sorts of things went on and at one point, a figure of €100 million owing was exposed. I do not believe that figure is exaggerated. Despite this, within two years, the then Tánaiste signed off on a decision to award the contract to build the Castleblayney bypass to Gama Construction. That is the reason we are cynical, although we are generally positive.

We were asked what can be done. I will outline what we do traditionally. We organise and build strong movements to redress the power imbalance between employers and workers. We do that every day but it should not preclude parliamentarians from taking action to aid and equip us to undertake our task of delivering for citizens in a society, as opposed to what often feels like taxpayers in an economy. They are not mutually exclusive roles, as I am sure Deputy Bríd Smith understands. We will not be found wanting. It has been very difficult to organise in the English language teaching sector but it is testament to our organisers and, more important, our members that they have been able to weather the inevitable storms. We have experience which we have shared with our members in order to protect them in those circumstances.

We appreciate the point made by Deputy Joan Collins that this is a serious and significant breach. We can point to hundreds of millions of euro that are not being paid to the Exchequer. There are decent contractors and employers who are trying to do the right thing but the structure does not allow for benevolence and decency. This gives rise to a race to the bottom. As I said, these practices are linked to workers' inability to secure the basics in life, including homes.

Deputy Paul Murphy directed his questions in the main to Captain Cullen but some of the points overlap. He asked whether the Government will deal with the issue at this point. I have just given examples from a period of more than 20 years during which the Government has not done so. I am a bit pessimistic in that regard but I appreciate the opportunity to appear and listen to the contributions of members on what could be done.

I was asked about the attitude of the CIF and IBEC. I think they find themselves in a conflict. They will say a particular contractor is doing everything right and defend the indefensible, as was the case of JJ Rhatigan. We are far better off having proper schools built by qualified workers who are properly employed. That is obvious and it is logical but that rationale is undermined by the pursuit of profit. That is the essence and the system lends itself to the view that profit will undermine what is rational, sensible and in the interests of workers.

From the point of view of Revenue, we specifically pointed out the contradictions between two Departments. One Department is saying one thing about workers' status, while another is saying something else. We said the scope section is not fit for purpose. The reality is that when we interface with the system, things get worse rather than better. That is an indictment of the system. We are hopeful, however, that the committee will listen to the evidence we and others have presented and produce recommendations that will make enduring changes for the work we are trying to do on behalf of citizens.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.