Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

There is consensus and there is agreement generally that the conditions of 1913 were appalling and they were rightly the cause of social unrest. Those who took up the cause of downtrodden workers are rightly and properly lauded by people today, but it would be wrong to equate the difficulties faced in the labour market today with those experienced during the Lock-out. We have a lot to be proud of as a State in terms of the evolution of labour law during that 100 years. My party was in government for many of them. I refer to the Adoptive Leave Act, the Carers Leave Act, the Employment Equality Acts, the Industrial Relations Act from 1946 onwards, the Maternity Protection Acts, the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, the National Minimum Wage Act, the Parental Leave Act, the Payment of Wages Act, the Protection of Employment Act and the Redundancy Payments Acts and the Unfair Dismissals Act. The legislation, together with bodies such as the Labour Court, the rights commissioner service, the Labour Relations Commission and the Employment Appeals Tribunal exist as a bulwark against the worst excesses of employer abuse such as what ignited the flame of 1913.

Moreover, they represent a significant body of labour law and labour institutions, as well as substantial protection for employees and rightfully so. It is important that in drawing parallels between 1913 and the present, one acknowledges this progress and that protection, which forms part of the law. It is recognised that Ireland's employment law generally is perceived as being more employee-friendly than that of many of our European partners and in particular in comparison with its United Kingdom equivalent. The Workplace Relations customer service is a forum for workers to gain access to employment legislation, their rights and the making of a complaint. It is an amalgamation of several former bodies and there is no equivalent body in the United Kingdom. One also should recognise the importance of Bunreacht na hÉireann in this regard. While the present Administration tends to disregard Bunreacht na hÉireann when that suits it, Article 43 has a significant role in respect of unfair dismissal.

It also is important to point out that the spirit of this motion appears to put forward an idea that all employers in Ireland are reckless and that each employer is in the tradition of William Martin Murphy, which patently is untrue and unfair, as 95% of Irish employers are good, decent employers who work with their employees, keep within the law and run very good ships. In the current climate, many owners of small to medium-sized enterprises, SMEs, in particular will pay their employees before paying themselves, in order to maintain the job and the business, as well as a sense of being able to grow that job and employment. It is important to put such struggles on the record of the House as well. In the SME business that is finding it hard to access bank finance or is finding it hard because of sales issues or is finding it hard to get paid, workers generally will get paid but the owner may not. All Members, regardless of the views they hold in this House, have met such people and they certainly are not William Martin Murphys or anything like it. They are good, decent employers and represent the majority of Irish employers, who are trying to keep the business going in spite of it.

There also are times of mixed messages from the Government towards employers and towards small employers in particular. I acknowledge the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Bruton, and the Ministers of State at his Department, Deputies Perry and Sherlock, are doing a difficult job in trying to promote employment culture and a business-friendly culture. However, I suspect the motion tabled by Deputy Higgins encouraged some of the headlines from the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton, that appeared in The Sunday Timesat the weekend pertaining to minimum wages. The Minister has come out and suggested raising the minimum wage at a time when many employers are struggling to keep open their doors. She regularly has a go about sick leave and suggests there will be a change in this regard, having completely abolished the redundancy rebate. These two kites she regularly flies, namely, threatening to increase the cost of employing people and preventing jobs from being created, seek to undermine the worker, the employer and the culture of employment. Fianna Fáil seeks a single approach from the Government and not a sideline speaker who may appeal to a different audience. She may appeal to the Labour Party membership for some struggle down the line and is using Irish employers as her canvas card for so doing. However, the Government must have a single approach, which supports employers, including those who wish to create jobs and to maintain jobs.

Earlier, I listened to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Coveney. There appears to have been a Government takeover, in that there has been a one-man Government for the day. He acted for the Taoiseach earlier and is the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and for Agriculture, Food in the Marine. I do not know whether this is some sort of political reform, whereby there now is a single member of Cabinet but he spoke about the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2012. While he mentioned the reform of the employee rights bodies, he declined to mention that much of the blueprint for those reforms was in place and was ready to roll when the Minister, Deputy Bruton, came into office. The Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2012 is based on the Duffy Walsh report, which was commissioned by the previous Government. Moreover, subsequent events in the courts have shown that further changes are needed in that system and it is important that some sense of urgency be injected into consideration of the recent Supreme Court appeal because I do not imagine Members will have sight of legislation before the autumn. There are employers, albeit probably in the main not employers based in this country, who will use the lacuna that is there at present, in terms of paying wages and in respect of differential wage rates in these sectors, to come in to tender for jobs, such as some of the new capital projects announced last week, while the Irish employers still are subject by law to the existing arrangements. The Government appears to be rather hesitant in dealing with this matter. It was not as though this decision came as a surprise. It was known that this judgment could have happened and a greater sense of urgency is required. Deputy Higgins championed the cause of the Gama workers in 2005 and I genuinely believe we again have a lacuna in which another Gama could happen while there still is a legal doubt over the Supreme Court judgment. A Gama-type company can come in and tender for a Government job and we will be back to a position in which such companies will be within the law. This is because all they must do is pay the minimum wage and they will not be obliged to pay the rates that are being paid to operatives at present.

See this speech in context