Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)

The two amendments referred to by Deputy Hogan are also included in this group of amendments. They seek to increase the percentage at which a trigger mechanism would come into play. His points were also made strongly by IBEC and some employers, The view is that, especially in workplaces with large numbers of employees, the trigger mechanism is too low. I examined it carefully and believe the 10% figure, while considerably lower than for trigger mechanisms in some other jurisdictions, is at a fair level at which to invoke it.

Regarding Deputy Howlin's amendment No. 5 concerning information, we have tried to transpose the directive in question as closely as possible. The fundamental argument is whether the system of direct transmission of information and consultation should be continued. Some employees wish to have the right to deal directly with the employer concerning information and consultation. That is the better system. Although trade unions are not referred to in the directive, they have been included in section 6. The position of trade unions, therefore, is considerably stronger in our transposition of the directive than might have been the case.

I understand Deputy Howlin's point on trade union membership. As a member of one all my working life, I value the input of trade unions in the workplace. As a general principle, I agree with the Deputy that when trade unions are involved in the workplace, relations between employers and employees tend to be better. That is not the case, however, in a great many of our employment places. In unionised workplaces, provision has been made for trade union members to be among the representatives. We have gone much further than was necessary in transposing the directive by taking account of and making provision for trade unions.

The effect of Deputy Morgan's proposal in amendment No. 4 would be to remove the term "to examine". The provision to allow employees to examine and to have the information is an important one and is contained in the directive. The legislation is stronger than it would be were that provision removed.

See this speech in context