Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)

I will share time with Deputy Boyd Barrett. I will take as much time as I can and the Deputy will take the rest if that is fair.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on legislation on joint labour committees and registered employment agreements. The Bill arises from a successful court challenge taken last year by a number of employers who sought to have the JLCs and REAs declared unconstitutional. Around the same time as the court case was heard, the Government published the Duffy Walsh review of joint labour committees and regulated employment agreements. This is an important report because it makes a lie of many of the arguments made by employers to justify attacking JLCs and REAs.

Duffy and Walsh estimated that between 150,000 and 205,000 workers were covered by the joint labour committee system in 2009, while between 61,900 and 78,700 workers were covered by regulated employment agreements in the same year. On these estimates, workers covered by JLCs account for 15% of private sector employees, with the retail grocery and catering JLCs accounting for more than half of these employees. They estimated that registered employment agreements account for slightly less than 8% of private sector employees, the bulk of whom are in the construction and electrical industries.

The review found that workers covered by the sectoral wage agreements do not earn a premium compared with workers who are not covered such agreements. This is an interesting finding in the context of the challenge taken by employers to the JLC and REA system. The review also found that lowering the basic JLC rates to the level of the minimum wage rate was unlikely to have a substantial effect on employment. Moreover, controlling for such factors as hours, experience, tenure, education, broad occupation and industry, the review found that the weekly wages of workers in JLC sectors are typically 7% lower than those of other workers who are not covered by a joint labour agreement or registered employment agreement. On average, those covered by REAs earned 3% less than workers who are not covered by the agreements. The authors conclude that, for covered workers, the regression results do not provide evidence that there are positive wage premiums. This finding makes a mockery of employers' claims that JLCs and EROs are a barrier to increasing employment. Where average rates are above the rates set by the orders, it is probably the case that employers are paying higher rates to ensure workers do not unionise and seek to bargain collectively. Employers are more afraid of organised workers than poorly paid workers and removing the floor is considered to be a way to push down wages and threaten workers further.

The legislation does not address Sunday premium working, relying instead on the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 to deal with the issue. The Act sets out statutory rights for employees in respect of Sunday working. This means that under the legislation, where an employee is required to work on a Sunday and this requirement is not taken into account in the determination of pay, a number of compensation options are open to the employee in question. These include paying the employee a reasonable allowance having regard to all the circumstances, increasing his or her rate of pay by a reasonable amount having regard to all the circumstances, granting the employee reasonable paid time off work having regard to all the circumstances or providing for a combination of two or more of these measures. These provisions do not give workers sufficient consideration as they place the burden of enforcement on the worker. In many cases, workers who work on a Sunday have no choice and the payment of a premium has compensated them for the inconvenience and loss of family time. Many families on low incomes are affected and must work on Sundays. Sunday is still a very important family day and should be recognised as such with the payment of a premium. With children at school, the times families get to spend together are limited and having to work on Sundays places a heavy burden on many families.

The provisions in the Organisation of Working Time Act, which are intended to ensure compensation for Sunday working, leave a lot of scope for employers to abuse their position and do not give workers enough protection. Even today, many workers do not believe they can stand up to employers and must put up with what is on offer to them. The protection of the JLCs is vitally important to ensure that premium is maintained and that having to work on a Sunday is recognised.

The Bill also provides that employers can claim inability to pay and receive a derogation from the provisions of the Act. This must be carefully policed to ensure employers do not abuse it. If a company has a genuine difficulty, there should be scope for it, in discussion with its workers, to reach an agreement. However, it must fully disclose information to its workers and get their voluntary agreement.

Most workers are loyal to their employment and have a vested interest in ensuring the company stays viable. I have no problem with workers in any company agreeing with management a system of working which could for a period of time allow them to accept lower wages to keep the company going but it must be done in a spirit of complete partnership and equality and with the employer disclosing all the information to the workers. No worker wishes to see a company go out of business and joining the dole queue if he or she can contribute to the success of the business. Loyalty is a very important factor for workers and there is still huge loyalty among workers to their companies.

Section 13 gives power to workers or trade unions to apply to the Circuit Court to enforce an agreement. It states that no evidence will be taken from the employer and that the judge will make a decision. This places too high a burden on workers. Naturally, working people will be reluctant to go to court. There is a fear among people that courts are not places to which they wish to go. The whole judicial system is seen as elitist and not as somewhere workers, who very often may be alone, feel they can get a fair hearing and fair treatment because of the intimidating aspect of going to court and of representing themselves.

In many cases, trade unions will not support workers who need to go to court to assert their rights. That means workers will be left undefended and the potential costs and the operation of the court system will prevent them from exercising their right. Is this a deliberate intention of the Bill? I have seen cases over the past couple of years where workers have been successful at the Employment Appeals Tribunal but where employers have exercised their right to go to the Circuit Court in which workers, as a result of financial hardship, cannot defend themselves and automatically lose cases on that basis. That is unfair and the legislation should ensure that NERA or a rights commissioner has an obligation to vindicate the rights of workers through the courts, if necessary. That should be an integral part of this legislation.

In setting wage rates, the new arrangements provide that the rates should take account of comparable rates in relevant jurisdictions. This has been welcomed by the unions in that it removes the constant comparison with Northern Ireland and the UK which was used to harass workers and say they were overpaid. However, there are many other jurisdictions that could be used in a similar fashion. Does "relevant jurisdictions" include Lithuania, Estonia or Poland, places where wages are substantially lower than here? Will employers treat us to the argument that these are the people with whom we are competing but which takes no account of the situation in Ireland in which workers must live? Workers will have no choice but to participate. We should not compare wage rates here with those in other jurisdictions where they may be substantially lower. Constantly comparing them to those in Northern Ireland and the UK is wrong, as is comparing them to other jurisdictions in Europe which might have even lower wage rates. It should not happen in any circumstances.

To a certain extent the Bill protects the JLCs and REAs and maintains them into the future but there are a number of flaws in it. The inability to pay clause needs to be strengthened, the Sunday working premium must be dealt with more comprehensively than relying on the Organisation of Working Time Act and the provisions which allow workers to go to the Circuit Court to have their agreements upheld must be seriously looked at and must take into account the barriers, perceived or otherwise, in going to the courts to have those right vindicated. The rights commissioner and NERA should play a more important role and they should be the first port of call. Workers should be able to rely on them to ensure their rights are vindicated and not just make a decision in their favour. They must ensure that decision is enforced.

See this speech in context