Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

I assure the House I will do my utmost.

I welcome the introduction of this Bill for a number of reasons. It relates to a number of issues on which I and other Members of the House have had occasion to comment in recent years. It transposes into Irish law an EU directive and has a number of technical provisions that need to be re-examined in respect of companies of different sizes. This applies in my constituency as well as in others.

The concept of consultation in industrial relations is very important, from the points of view of both the employer and employee. One of the saddest cases on which we have had to reflect in this House was that of An Post. In a recent dispute involving the company, there was virtually no consultation, no establishment of contact and no information given to employees other than that they should take or leave the package on offer. Another example, from my constituency, concerns the closure of Magna Donnelly and the consequent relocation of 400 employees to various locations throughout the world. The point the employees made repeatedly concerned the lack of consultation and prior knowledge, and the fact that they received no indication the closure was likely to happen when revision took place within the company and when there was a reconstitution of objectives over the preceding years.

We need to consider carefully the damage done by the lack of consultation to the trust that needs to exist between employers and employees. I am not so certain the Bill will emphasise and create an adequate basis for the kind of consultation required in the workplace. Financial circumstances within a particular company may change from day to day and it is therefore necessary for employers to engage with employees at a much earlier stage regarding issues that could affect the future of both. The trust and confidence that can develop through consultation are beneficial not only to the firms concerned but also to the national economy and, consequently, all citizens.

I presume the legislation applies to pension entitlements, which concern a great number of employees. We have encountered circumstances in which people who were due to retire, or who had retired, suddenly found their pension entitlements were not as they had anticipated. The degree to which dialogue was established with their employers was questionable. Had adequate dialogue been established, there would not have been any surprises. It would have been quite possible to identify the pitfalls and snags and eliminate them at an early stage, thus removing them from the arena as a source of irritation and undue hardship to those pensioners with a grievance and, in some cases, as a source of industrial action.

The Bill provides for circumstances in which a firm is sold, transferred, merged with another or subsumed into another corporation. Very often, one of the major concerns of employees relates to their entitlements when their firm is taken over by a bigger concern. In most cases, employers go out of their way to ensure their potential employees' rights are guaranteed, but not in all cases. Some very sizeable corporations are notorious for ignoring the fundamentals in this regard. A certain dispute comes to mind but I do not want to exacerbate it by referring to it.

It is so sad, at this time in our economic development, that basic requirements are not met in respect of consultation, the establishment of dialogue and trust, and willingness to recognise the rights and entitlements of those who have worked all their lives on behalf of a firm. Employees ought to have their rights transferred with them to a new employer even if the new employer regards this as a burden. If one buys a corporation or takes over a firm, responsibilities in this regard come with it. One must accept it warts and all and assume one's responsibilities regarding employees' entitlements. For that reason, there should be no apology on anybody's part in regard to having the entitlements transferred with the employee to protect the employee.

The definition of agency workers is an important issue which has given cause for concern in the past. We must determine whether the agency or the firm with which the agency worker is employed is the body with which the consultation should take place. The Bill proposes that the agency is the employer. I disagree. The employer with which the employee is directly employed should have the major responsibility.

There are many agency workers in Ireland at present, particularly in nursing and the medical sector. It has been suggested that they are not always fairly treated. They come from many countries to work here, including from as far away as the Philippines. They are paid a salary by the employer but an amount is also deducted by the agency. This was originally intended to reduce administration in the health services but, while it is possible it makes employers more effective, I am not sure this is the case. This important area must be carefully considered. My colleague, Deputy Hogan, will have numerous exchanges with the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, on how this situation can be improved.

There is ample scope for the improvement and strengthening of regulations. The dialogue proposed in the legislation should take place not only with the agency but also with the firm to which the agency has referred the employee. Otherwise, the dialogue would only be with the agency, which is of no benefit. The unfortunate employee may not be willing to tell the agency of the true circumstances of the employment or, vice versa, the agency may not treat the employee well but the employee may be fearful of telling the direct employer of the true situation, with the resulting consequences.

Given the large number of non-national employees now in the country, some for periods of up to 12 years, it is particularly incumbent on us, as a nation and having regard to our history, to ensure that every possible action is taken to ensure that the rights and entitlements of immigrants are guaranteed and safeguarded. Not to do this would be a sad reflection on our society in the way that some current events are a sad reflection. I am sure every Member has a relative who in the past had to pick up a suitcase and go abroad to eke out an existence. My parents did so. We were not sufficiently privileged to be able to stand aloof from the mass emigration that affected large parts of the country, including Dublin city. When we think about entitlements, rights and dialogue, we should put our experiences to good use in protecting the rights and entitlements of others who are less fortunate than us.

Reference was made in the Seanad to the specified number of employees required within a non-unionised firm before the triggering mechanism would kick in to enable dialogue to be established. This will arise again in proposed amendments. There is concern among IBEC representatives and potential employees that the number of employees suggested for a large firm should be reconsidered with a view to identifying the optimum number rather than having too small a number disrupting the organisation and the flow of employment for others. At the same time, we must ensure that the number is representative of the views consistent among employees of the firm so that they would have the entitlement to use the opportunity to proceed.

As we know from past events, it is important to address the issues raised by an individual regardless of whether he or she is right. An individual should have some forum in which he or she can raise concerns with his or her peers in the first instance. From that starting point, it should be possible to establish the relevant number within a firm who can legitimately initiate the dialogue envisaged under the Bill. The importance of this, as noted in the Seanad, is that it ensures that the employees involved are sufficiently representative of their peers while at the same time ensuring that an individual or a few people have the opportunity to raise an issue with their peers in the first instance and then, it is to be hoped, progress the issue further and proceed to agreement.

The Bill is increasingly necessary because we live in rapidly changing times. We hear daily of mergers and takeovers and these will happen more often in the future than in the past. Telephone services in Ireland were nationally controlled some years ago but were privatised and have been subject to one takeover after another since then, and will be subject to more. I am not sure that these practices are beneficial to the consumer, employees or employers. As the world of modern economics accelerates, the need for the shareholder to achieve a dividend at regular intervals may be seen as more important than the need for fair play and the provision of a service to consumers.

Union houses have operated effectively for many years. It is important from an employer's perspective that a union or representative group is in place with which the employer can negotiate and engage. Otherwise, a group would have to be appointed within a non-union firm, a matter which is also provided for in the Bill. I hope the Bill will work effectively and satisfactorily. I realise there is an ongoing debate whether all employment should be unionised. All employment organisations must contain groups which represent employees and employers or a potentially dangerous situation could develop involving regular hiccups which could result in loss of revenue, employment or productivity.

I do not want to proceed further as I know other Members want to participate in the debate. The framework for the Bill in general is positive. There is considerable room for improvement, however, and I hope there will be an opportunity for this. I do not know what timescale the Minister of State has in mind, but my colleagues will be anxious to know whether ample time will be made available.

See this speech in context