Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this legislation. I probably have as many questions to ask as I have comments to make. It is really important to have a functional and fair industrial relations architecture that protects the rights of both workers and, by extension, employers. I note that many good employers will never find themselves in the position whereby they are obliged to call on such a framework. However, one must guarantee fairness and equality in the economy. It also is vital for employers and investors to know that when disputes arise, they will be dealt with in a speedy and just fashion and this is important for employees and employers alike. I recognise the need for reforms in this area and the new streamlined architecture should deal with some of the waiting times and should make the process of dispute resolution much faster. It only serves to have matters fester if someone is obliged to wait a long time to get into the dispute resolution architecture. People very often feel quite aggrieved if they see high-profile cases demanding time while they are queueing for a similar service.

The measures to improve enforcement and compliance with decisions also are welcome because there is nothing worse than getting a decision only to discover it has not been complied with. I encountered someone the other day who is a FÁS supervisor. I believe a Labour Court judgment was made some years ago on the supervisors, who believe they got a decision that was then simply ignored. As FÁS no longer is in being - the supervisors are in SOLAS now - they have concerns and there is a difficulty in knowing who or what will pay their pensions. It appears as though they are falling between two stools. This kind of scenario should not arise.

We would be quite critical of it if it was a private employer but where the State is involved, we should be doubly critical of it.

We are not particularly good at building institutional architecture in this country and I hope the architecture provided for under this Bill will be good and will lead by example. The HSE tends to be rolled out if one wants to cite a poor example of institutional architecture, but I am fearful that Irish Water might fall into that category as well. Will the Minister outline the way he envisages the staffing and resourcing model operating within the workplace relations bodies, given the major change provided for in the legislation? Far too often we set out with great intentions and aspirations to deliver world-class services, although we have been reasonably well served in this area, but often we have failed dismally in terms of the design of the vehicle that will deliver those services and in terms of resourcing them, which is just as important. I note there is latitude provided to employ people and I would like to hear more about that.

The Minister said great efficiencies can be achieved by merging the functions of five bodies into two and that it is hoped this will take care of the workload, in respect of which there is currently a substantial backlog. If five bodies could not cope with it, will two bodies cope with it any better? It can be inefficient to have five bodies but I want an assurance there will be an improvement in the time it takes to process cases.

Did the Minister arrange for an impact assessment to be carried out of the changes being made? If one was carried out, will he indicate what the findings of it were? I understand the Minister will have latitude to hire as many staff as will be required under the standard Civil Service Act and the public service appointments Act. Will he indicate if a staffing and resources plan has been developed at this stage? We are all familiar with the public service embargo and how difficult it is to have that embargo relaxed. While it is theoretically possible to do that, will it happen in practice?

It is expected the Labour Court will act as a court of appeal. Will it require new members to handle the increased workload and backlog of work? This appears to be provided for in the Bill. Is that catered for and will it be provided for immediately once the legislation is enacted and the system begins to be put in place? Will the Minister outline the new staffing for the Labour Court and how it will be arranged? Can the expanded function of the court be achieved if there are not the required staff to carry out the support work? The Minister will note that the last three questions are linked. Has the staff structure been agreed with the merged entity?

I have received a good deal of contact on the area of pensions and in this respect I am sure I will be reiterating points others have made. Many pensioners believe they do not have access to arbitration or that they are seen as being outside that process, yet decisions can be made on their behalf. There are two high-profile groups of pensioners, namely, those in Dublin Airport and ESB staff, from whom I have received the most contact. The issue is the right to representation and arbitration by retired staff in regard to their pension rights. I have been contacted by many on this issue. There was always going to be a problem with Aer Lingus pension benefits. I remember the debate on the partial sale of Aer Lingus which was a hot topic. The CEO of Aer Lingus appeared before one of the committees and spoke of the need to use some of the funds that were raised from that sale. That was in 2006 well before the economy fell off the cliff. Essentially, he made the point that some of that money needed to be put into the pension fund. There was a difficulty before there was an obvious difficulty in the economy.

There is also a concern about pension benefits among ESB workers. The central concern for all of those people is simply ensuring the right of pensioners to representation and arbitration through the industrial relations architecture of the State. Given that the quality of life and income of former employees can often be wedded to the current managerial decisions of their former employees and the decisions of the State to impose, for example, pension levies, it seems the proposal they make has some merit. If we consider what is happening in other countries, we will note it is not only here that argument has been made. We know pension trustees have the power in certain circumstances to alter and restructure pension schemes in payment, namely, to allow for the imposition of the pension levy. Bringing in a right to participation in arbitration would underscore the right of workers, which is existing labour law. If we go back to 1974, pensioners had rights in this regard. They had a right of audience and it was only after that time that this was dispensed with. In Sweden pensioners have the same rights to express their views as active members in the pension funds provided they remain members of their trade union. In the Netherlands the trend in more recent years has been for former employers or pensioners to be appointed to the governing board of the schemes as trustees. They are not disinterested parties when situations arise where the income derived is to be altered. I would be keen to know if the Minister would be open to considering such a provision by way of an amendment on Committee Stage.

Another issue is that we are told that many people are in the workforce but are not actually employees in that they are participants in schemes such as JobBridge. It is obvious that such placements are a replacement of a job that should be provided. We cannot talk about workplace relations and not mention that issue. That scheme is certainly open to abuse. I was given a good example of it today, which I will be bringing to the attention of the Minister for Social Protection.

Reference was made to a school building site in Lucan. Construction workers did not want to have to get C2 certificates. They did not want to be self-employed, rather they wanted to be directly employed. That area needs to be tightened up.

There is a great deal of merit in the legislation. I have concerns about the structure being adequately staffed to ensure it functions and that the delays in the system are removed. There are some welcome reforms in the legislation.

See this speech in context