Mr. Ned Costigan:

I am a member of Construction Workers Alliance Ireland. We primarily represent non-union and unemployed construction workers. We have had dealings with some contractors and suppliers in the industry. We believe the legislation is seriously flawed and will explain why.
Head 3 implies a representative group or groups will enter into a deal to create a registered agreement. The previous legislation described those groups as comprising the unions and the employers. This description is being removed in the Bill. We are concerned that any ad hocgroup could come together and describe itself as substantive in the industry and, therefore, together with some group on the employee side negotiate an agreement detrimental to the rights of construction workers. We are concerned that many of the unions in the construction industry would find it very difficult to describe themselves as substantive because of the lack of membership in reality. This can be challenged in court. I will return to this.
Section 5 implies there is no longer to be a sectoral agreement. The previous REA was a sectoral agreement that was legally binding on every employer in the industry, yet there was never any more than 20% or 25% of construction workers covered by it. The new proposal is not as inclusive so the figure for coverage will be lower than 20% or 25%.
The Government decided to impose the relevant contracts tax at a sectoral level for the construction industry. This is the scourge of all sections of the industry. At present, there are 46,000 workers in the industry subject to relevant contracts and some 26,000 of them are on a tax rate of zero. These people get their entire earnings paid to them at the end of every week but the Revenue Commissioners will chase them down after a couple of years. However, they have mortgages, etc. When chased down, they will have spent all the money and will have kept none to pay the tax. This drives them into the black economy.
The Oireachtas made a change to the relevant contracts tax approximately ten years ago to the effect that before a worker became subject to it, he would have to sign a declaration stating he was self-employed and was to lose various rights. The Revenue Commissioners, off their own bat, cancelled that arrangement so an employer can now register an individual online as self-employed without his permission.

Revenue will write to an individual to outline the facts, such as who his or her employer is and how much the contracted rate is. It will provide the names, etc. It will give the person 30 days to make an objection if there is a problem with any of that information. The individual is no longer expected to sign a declaration at the beginning. We believe construction workers would not sign a declaration if they were allowed to choose whether to do so. The Oireachtas introduced that choice, but Revenue off its own back decided to reverse it. We met a group of unions in October of last year at a meeting organised by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. We were there as a consultative group for unemployed and non-union workers. We questioned Revenue officials on this. We asked them when this happened. None of the unions could understand when this happened and neither could the Revenue officials. They said they would get back to us but 12 months later, they have yet to do so. We believe any agreement should be sectoral and should be industry-wide. If an industry-wide agreement is not reached, this legislation will end up being nothing more than a fix-up.

We would call head 26 of the Bill the opt-out head. A minimum wage is introduced as a minimum wage, but it always becomes the actual norm. Under the registered employment agreement, before it went down, the rate of pay for a craft worker was reduced to €17.21 an hour. That was supposed to be a minimum wage, but it became the norm. The rate of pay was €17.21. If there is an opt-out in legislation, it will become the norm regardless of any regulations that are provided for. This is one of our concerns. We are calling on the Oireachtas to set up a commission to look into the reality of what is going on in construction, as opposed to the fantasy that is being explained by the unions and the employers. It is a fantasy. The commission should look at below-cost tendering, relevant contract tax, sphere of influence agreements, the non-payment of contractors, workers and suppliers in the industry, and the effect on the industry of agency workers.

We have a problem with the question of what constitutes a representative group. I have listened to what the Chairman said, so I will not name names here. I would like to refer to a document that was handed to us by an employer in the industry. It had been handed to him. If one were to google the name of the company in question, one would find this material on the front page of its website. I have a copy of that page with me. An agency that is recruiting for work is giving this information to builders. Among the claims listed on the website are that having "No PRSI to pay" saves 10.7%, "No holiday pay to pay" saves 8% and "No Pension to pay" saves 10% to 12%. Reference is made to having "No Bank holidays to pay", "No Sick Leave to pay", "No Redundancy payments to pay" and "No administration cost". It is claimed at the bottom of this list that the agency in question has the ability to engage and disengage workers anywhere in the country at one hour's notice. I wonder whether a group of agencies could join together, claim to be a representative group and ask to be allowed to go to the Labour Court to organise such terms of employment as a registered employment agreement. I suggest that could be done under the legislation being proposed because it is not between unions and that. No one in this committee can say it could not be done. They could represent themselves as a representative group. While I am referring to an agency in Ireland, I believe agencies outside the State could join employers outside the State - they might be from eastern Europe or somewhere else - in coming to the Labour Court to register a registered employment agreement on similar terms. That could legally happen under this legislation because it does not define what a substantive group is.