Mr. Adrian Kane:

Thank you, Chair, for the invitation and the opportunity to address the committee. SIPTU represents the 400-plus supervisors who work in Tús and the RSS. As the committee has heard and will be aware, our members provide an invaluable service to local communities to ensure an effective and professional approach to community employment and social inclusion. In our written submission we have given an overview of the current services and the necessary structural changes which we believe would greatly enhance the services. These issues have already been addressed by Ms Macdonald and Ms Brennan in their opening statements. In my opening statement I will concentrate on the industrial relations framework, or lack thereof, and outline some of the most pressing issues with which we believe the committee may be in a position to offer us some assistance.

As for the industrial relations framework, our members employed as Tús and RSS supervisors suffer the same fate, unfortunately, as most workers employed across the community sector. They are employees of private companies, typically partnerships or local development companies. The funding for their salaries, however, comes directly from Government spending, in this case from the Department of Social Protection. Our members have not had a pay increase for a significant number of years. As a trade union representing this cohort of workers, we find ourselves in a very frustrating position. Employers are, in the main, willing to engage with us. However, they do not have any funds to meet our claims, be that in respect of pay claims, pension provision, sick pay or maternity leave, as the committee has heard Ms Brennan talk about. We recently concluded negotiations with the Department on a Labour Court recommendation outstanding since 2008 for community employment supervisors concerning pension provision. That remains unimplemented to date.

We note that the EU will soon implement a directive concerning minimum rates of pay and collective bargaining coverage. It will soon be incumbent on all member states to increase their collective bargaining coverage to 80% of their national workforces. If the Government intends to give effect to that directive, where better to start, we would argue, than in the community sector, the near abroad, as it were, of the public sector? I stress that our members do not have any great desire to become public servants per sebut they do expect their terms and conditions of employment to be fair and to reach a threshold of decency.

This limbo-type situation in which trade unions representing workers in the community sector find themselves must come to an end. Mechanisms in place previously provided for a more normal industrial relations environment. Between 1986 and 2008, for example, our members in Tús and the RSS received pay increases which mirrored the pay provisions of the social partnership agreements. We have outlined in our written submission some of the most pertinent issues which remain outstanding because of the lack of an effective collective bargaining forum for all stakeholders, that is, the Department, the Irish Local Development Network, ILDN, and trade unions to attend.

Most lately, on 23 February, we requested that the Department of Social Protection re-establish a tripartite forum which had been in place since 2017, comprised of representatives from the Department, the ILDN and trade unions. We believe that that was an important body. We still believe that the re-establishment of such a body is critical to building relationships between the relevant stakeholders.

As for pay, the RSS and Tús play a critical role in promoting social inclusion in both rural and urban settings. It is our firm belief that the roles of both cohorts have evolved in recent years to such an extent that the 15% differential which exists between community employment supervisors' rate of pay and that of RSS and Tús supervisors is neither justifiable nor sustainable. We have approached the Department of Social Protection accordingly, seeking the establishment of an evaluation exercise of the role and duties these workers now undertake. The purpose of the evaluation exercise is to conduct a comparative analysis of the role and duties of community employment scheme, CES, supervisors and those of RSS and Tús supervisors. The rate of the additional payment for co-ordinating supervisors needs also to be the subject of that evaluation exercise.

This is the only objective and fair way in which to validate the basis for any pay claim in reality.

We have sought to agree terms of reference and methodology for the conduct of this evaluation exercise. At our only meeting with officials from the Department of Social Protection to date, they informed the unions that they would liaise with officials from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform in respect of the issue. It should be noted that the conduct of an evaluation of the work and roles of grades of employees is a normal process to adopt within the public sector where a union believes there is merit in a re-grading exercise. We ask the committee to use its significant influence to assist SIPTU and these workers in advancing this request.

Regarding pension provision, as the committee is probably aware our members have no occupational pension scheme. This is, quite frankly, intolerable. The standard defence from the Department is that it is not the employer. We think it is a tired refrain and a figleaf of a defence which simply does not wash with our members. We have sought the immediate introduction of an occupational pension scheme. We have not been prescriptive in our demands and are amenable to discussions around pension models, contribution levels, etc.

Regarding a worker representation or voice, we believe that workers should be included in the stakeholder bodies that currently exist. As it stands, SIPTU has no input into the current review being undertaken in respect of RSS. There is significant unde-rdevelopment in any sort of social dialogue process in terms of the evolution of services and a worker representative or voice on such bodies.

There is currently a structural problem in the payment of travel expenses for members employed in RSS. There is an effective cap on travel expenses. This is the cause of much frustration for members and immediate remedial measures to address same would be welcomed. Schemes will be funded to a sufficient degree which does not see our members out of pocket, something that is currently the case.

Ms Macdonald addressed the six-year rule in her opening remarks. We believe the current rule in respect of RSS is undermining the viability of the scheme's primary function, namely the promotion of social inclusion. We would again ask the committee to reflect on the six-year rule and recommend its elimination.

In conclusion, the current situation whereby trade unions are being sent from pillar to post, that is, from the Department to employers, is not now and never was tenable. Last week, hundreds of community sector workers took to the streets. They have, on average, not received a pay increase in 14 years. We have served thousands of claims across individual employments in respect of the very basic terms of building momentum for 3%. We now live in an economy that is experiencing 7% inflation, something that will be significantly higher by the end of the year. These people need a pay rise. I am not just talking about RSS and Tús, but across the entire sector. The issue can only be addressed by direct engagement with the Department of Social Protection and a whole-of-government approach. I ask the committee to take that request away today. The dysfunctional nature of industrial relations which prevails across the community sector needs to be addressed urgently.