Chris Andrews (Dublin South East, Fianna Fail)

I thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, for the opportunity to speak on this measure.

The purpose of the Industrial Relations Bill, which was published last summer, is to strengthen the existing system for making employment regulation orders and registered employment agreements, as well as providing for their continued effective operation.

Some of the main amendments in the Bill include the introduction of a set of principles and policies to which regard should be had in making proposals for an employment regulation order or ERO; the introduction of a set of procedures to be followed when formulating proposals for an ERO; ensuring Oireachtas scrutiny of EROs and Registered Employment Agreements or REAs; and setting a fixed term of office for the chairman of a JLC.

The Bill also includes provision for an amendment to section 23 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 to allow officers of VECs, other than teachers, to have access to dispute-settling agencies.

Last week, at a meeting of the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment, a worrying picture was painted by the Restaurants Association of Ireland of that industry's future. The association's representatives made a stark presentation which was heavily critical of the JLC structure. Those engaged in the catering industry are invariably small operations, yet collectively they employ a large number of people. They can be compact operations which generally have good relations with their staff, with whom they interact closely.

If there are too many restaurants in the sector it can, by its nature, pose difficulties. Nonetheless, many restaurateurs have tried to franchise their businesses, although it is a personalised operation. Their dealings with staff and customers are very personalised. Owners invest much time and money in establishing restaurants and it is natural for them to have a vision and aspiration as to how they will develop. They want to make a difference in terms of employment and all the benefits that bestows on society. However, in some cases the staff in restaurants are earning more money than the people who invested the money and time and who, when the business is quiet, cannot relax because they are worrying about whether they have done something wrong or upset a group of customers and, when it is busy, just do not have time to do all the work that is required. They take all those worries home with them. In most instances not many of the staff do that, and when it gets to the stage where the staff are taking home more money than the business owners, we have a problem. Last week, the Restaurant Association of Ireland painted a very bleak picture of the future unless we make changes. This Bill, with the introduction of an inability to pay provision, should go some way towards alleviating the pressures that employers in this and other sectors currently experience under both systems, as a consequence of the absence of a mechanism for processing claims for inability to pay. I welcome that measure.

Clearly businesses are under severe pressure from every quarter. Rates, rents and staff costs all contribute to putting businesses out of business. The consequences are not just limited to the business and its employees, but also affect their spouses and children. We should not just dismiss it as an attack on the workers. Restaurateurs have no interest in attacking workers. They want to make a living and get a few bob out of the business. They enjoy the cut and thrust of business. They also want to ensure that their staff are treated well. They work with and know their staff. It is certainly not "them versus us" in the restaurant business. I have worked in the catering industry for many years and I know there is not great glory involved - except perhaps for one of these new celebrity chefs. For the vast majority of people working in the restaurant business, while it is very rewarding, it is also very difficult work. The Bill goes some way towards addressing that matter.

While on the subject of labour affairs, there is an issue in my constituency outside the restaurant business which, while not affected by any of the measures to be introduced in this Bill, requires urgent attention from the Minister of State with responsibility for labour affairs. Last summer, the official industrial dispute at Marine Terminals Limited in Dublin Port received much media attention and there were some protest marches. The dispute started on 3 July 2009 and was suspended by the striking workers more than three months ago. One would have expected some resolution could have been found during that period. The company accepted a Labour Court recommendation on 20 October 2009. The outstanding issues were referred to a Labour Court appointed arbitrator who issued a final decision on Wednesday, 6 January.

People may not realise that the company is question, Marine Terminals Limited, whose parent company is the Peel Ports Group, has now stated that it is not bound by the arbitrator's decision and will not comply with this decision. This action displays an appalling disregard for the State's labour dispute mechanisms and means that the staff affected by this dispute have been left in limbo, with apparently no other options available to them. Furthermore, it would appear that there are no repercussions for this company which is behaving so disgracefully. The people who criticise unions and are ideologically opposed to them do not seem to realise that the unions only exist because of the actions of such companies which have an absolute disregard for employees. Such cases have an impact on staff relations in small and medium-sized enterprises with a knock-on effect in the restaurant business. Every business is perceived in terms of them and us, which is not always the case. In this case, Marine Terminals Limited's blatant disregard for the industrial relations process in many ways hardens people's views. It certainly hardens the views of those working there and their families.

The Labour Court is a court of last resort in the industrial relations process. It is expected that the parties come to the process in good faith and consequently are prepared to give serious consideration to the court's recommendations. In an ideal world, companies entering these negotiations would behave in an honourable manner and concede to the courts and arbitrators recommendations. However, we all know that in the real world, money is what drives commercial companies rather than doing the honourable and decent thing. That certainly appears to be the attitude of some very large international companies. The Government must place some form of sanction on companies who choose to abdicate their responsibilities. Why do we have all of these systems in place if there is nothing to ensure that they will be abided by?

It makes me angry when I reflect on this particular case. At this stage, the Government must take some action to ensure that companies, which accept Labour Court recommendations and then renege on them, must face some consequence; otherwise, it undermines the entire industrial relations system. The employees of Marine Terminals Limited are decent and honourable people in my constituency who placed their faith in the Labour Court system. At this stage they appear to have been failed by the system.

While I have drifted somewhat off the point, it is a serious matter that needs consideration. The Bill is a step in the right direction and addresses some of the issues and concerns of businesses. Ultimately, we must support businesses which represent the lifeblood of society. People talk about the differences between society and the economy. The economy supports society. It ensures that we have and can pay for a good healthy society. The Bill is good and I commend it the House.

See this speech in context