Deirdre Clune (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2009. As Members are aware, the need for this legislation arose on foot of a number of High Court challenges in respect of employment regulation orders, EROs, and registered employment agreements, REAs. As Deputy Fleming stated, it is difficult to keep track of the various matters relating to the area of employment to which the Bill refers. Coming to terms with the legislation continues to be an education for me. The Fine Gael Party believes that not to revise the whole labour relations system and structures, including employment regulation orders, EROs, and registered employment agreements, REAs, is a missed opportunity. Many of these go back to the Industrial Relations Act 1946 and have been added to along the way. These need to be stripped down and built up again. I am not saying there should not be protections in place for employees but the structures must be able to support them in areas such as pay, sick leave, overtime payments, time off etc., effectively.

Not all workers are represented by unions or in an organisation that recognises unions. In 1984, 30,000 workers were covered by joint labour committees, JLCs. In 1998, it stood at 162,000 and I have no doubt it has grown again in the past decade. A substantial sector needs representation. We have the anomaly that in the hotel sector, unions are on the JLCs. It is important this area is reformed, particularly when we see the challenges in many sectors.

Supports and protections must be in place for employees who do not have the support of a union in their workplace. However, there are anomalies in certain sectors such as the hotel and hospitality sector. Due to these, many hotels and catering establishments are not open seven days a week. I accept the current economic climate may also be a factor but there are difficulties for them to match the commitments required of them under EROs. Many Members have been made aware, as Deputy Fleming said, of how different employment rates apply in the hospitality and catering sector if it is open on a Sunday and whether it is city or rural based. I can understand that in some areas there may be a premium but that should be for the employer to decide. It is not a consistent approach and we have missed the opportunity to examine it in this legislation. The same applies to the different rates that apply across various activities in the retail sector such as whether one is working in a butcher's shop, selling bread or clothes. These different rates are leading to many challenges for employers.

Hotel and catering work on Sundays can suit students, who have college commitments Monday to Friday, and young mothers, who find it easier with child care if their partner works Monday to Friday. However, because of the onus on employers to pay what they consider restrictive rates and enforce restrictive EROs many have stopped trading on Sundays. Pubs, for example, that did food on a Sunday are not doing it any more. It is a pity as Sunday is a recreational leisure day for many people.

I do not agree the minimum wage base should be changed. Many of the EROs and REAs set higher pay rates for different skill-sets which is important. If people have developed their skills and a trade, then they deserve recognition for that. The minimum wage legislation is a protection for workers, particularly ensuring they are not exploited. Many Members know of employers who think they can get away with not adhering to the legislation, particularly with immigrants. Many immigrants are not aware of the legislation and the obligations employers have in this area. To many of them, €8.65 would seem to be a substantial pay rate and anything less than that might still seem attractive. The National Employment Rights Authority is slowly making its presence felt across the country in ensuring adherence to the legislation.

Members will have had representations on REAs from electricians' bodies on the restrictive fact that before an electrician can work he or she must be a member of the Technical Engineering and Electrical Union. That is a bizarre position which I want to raise directly with the Minister.

I agree with the Bill's principle that the JLCs must recognise the legitimate interests of workers, employers, the prevailing economic and commercial circumstances of an employer and the terms of the national agreement relating to pay and conditions. The Bill allows for an REA or an ERO to be amended or revoked, an important provision as they have been seen to be restrictive to date and did not allow employers or their representatives to take cases to the High Court.

Fine Gael believes this is a missed opportunity to reform the system, however. Deputy Varadkar produced legislation in this area recently, outlining our proposed reforms to EROs, REAs and the JLCs. A JLC comprises four representatives from employers and employee representative organisations and three independent members. It has been noted the latter tend to carry the balance of power in the JLC, resulting in EROs being imposed on employers and employees. The Fine Gael legislation would remove the independent members to have a JLC consisting of equal numbers of employer and employee representatives. We have looked at it to try to achieve a consensus approach rather than the imposition of decisions on any one group.

We need to see the detail of the inability to pay clause the Minister has proposed. It must be acknowledged that in some cases there will be an inability to pay, but there are many concerns surrounding that issue. For example, I hope it does not affect the minimum wage and that it would apply to higher pay rates. If one employer claims inability to pay, will that allow others not to pay? Under the structures outlined, the employer's books will be open and they will be examined. The employer's ability to pay will be adjudicated on, but what affect will that have on other employers who are in competition in the same business in the area? That needs to be examined because we have many concerns in that regard also. In addition, will people be queuing up to claim inability to pay? There is an inability to pay clause in the National Minimum Wage Act 2000, but that has not been invoked.

On the whole, we welcome the Bill but we are concerned to ensure that there would be a floor below which the minimum wage would not go and that issues surrounding competition are considered also. IBEC has looked for it this measure, but SIPTU has concerns about it and believes it will force a race to the bottom and push wages even lower. We must protect against that happening.

This is a missed opportunity. There are many anomalies and inconsistencies that should be revoked. The Bill is reacting to challenges rather than taking the opportunity to reform the system, which has become outdated and does not represent the current workplace. In this regard, I am referring not to the economic climate, but to how society has changed and advanced, for example, the ability of workers to move from job to job. A mobile workforce and part-time work is very much in demand among young people, and in terms of female participation and students. Some people want to be free to work 12 or 14 hours in one day rather than for seven, eight or nine hours five days a week. It suits people because of their family situations and commitments - they may be carers or whatever. The system does not recognise or allow for such flexibility and the Bill was an opportunity to address all those issues.

See this speech in context