Dáil debates

Wednesday, 22 March 2006

Employees (Provision of Information and Consultation) Bill 2005 [Seanad]: Report Stage.

 

12:00 pm

Photo of Brendan HowlinBrendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

I am concerned that the Minister of State would so readily endorse the notion that there is only a relative role here for trade unions or worker representatives. In other words, where good practice is established and direct consultation with employees takes place, there is no role for the trade unions and the Minister of State is indifferent on that issue. However, the existence of a trade union movement and an organised workforce is in the interest of workers and employers. It concerns me that there seems to be an official indifference as to whether trade unions exist and that the norm in the future may well be that individual arrangements for consultation and the passing on of information to workers are set up and do not need the involvement of trade unions. It is my understanding that the directive envisages a strong role for trade unions. It specifically refers to consultation taking place between employees' representatives and employers.

With regard to amendment No. 5, an issue which is causing concern for employers and employees is the definition of information. The definition provided in Article 2 of the directive is vague and this legislation gives us an opportunity to have clarity in the definition section with regard to what constitutes information. The Bill's definition is potentially inconsistent with the directive as it envisages the transmission of information or data to one or more employees rather than solely to employees' representatives. This may cause problems in that a company may satisfy the requirement for the passing on of information if it is given to one or more employees, but only provide selective information or exclude some employees. How can we ensure that the intention of the directive to have participation and knowledge available to employees within their own enterprise is fully vindicated in the legislation that we enact here? We must make sure we are not providing for a vagueness that will allow loopholes to be created by employers who do not want to fully implement the import of the directive and the intention of the Minister of State and the House, that there would be a participative role for workers in an enterprise, that they receive information and data and are included in the loop. This is far preferable to what we have seen so often in the past where workers find out about difficulties in enterprises when it is too late. Had they been informed earlier, they may have been able to do something and been part of the solution, given a different attitude between management and workers.

A different view is now emerging with regard to partnership in the workplace in many good enterprises. As legislators, we should encourage that in the clearest and most proactive way we can. The suggestions contained in amendments Nos. 3 and 5 improve the Bill and are closer, in my judgment, to the intention of the European directive than the relative vagueness I ascribe to the Minister of State's proposals in the legislation.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.