Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour) | Oireachtas source

Even though these amendments have been ruled out of order, I will be satisfied to address the substantive and substantial issues that have been raised by the Deputies. I might be responsible for many things, but I am not responsible for the decision to rule them out of order. While I recognise that amendment No. 3, in the names of Deputies Tóibín and Wallace, is out of order, I accept there is a serious issue regarding the failure of employers to inform employees of the correct full names and addresses of those employers, as required under section 3(1)(a) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. We might be better advised to consider strengthening the enforcement provisions of that Act as a possible means of addressing this problem. I am not convinced that the removal of the obligation on the complainant to identify the correct respondent is necessarily the best remedy. I can commit to considering the matter further with a view to reverting with an appropriate amendment in the Seanad, if that is appropriate and acceptable.

Deputies Clare Daly and Wallace have raised an important point - this is covered in one of Deputy Calleary's amendments - about the pensions situation. While I appreciate that amendments Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, have been ruled out of order, I wish to clarify that I fully appreciate the concerns of retired and deferred members of pension schemes whose schemes are being restructured, particularly where such restructuring may have an impact on existing or potential pension benefits. The question of whether it is appropriate for pensioner groups to have access to the State's industrial relations machinery in pursuing the pension scheme grievances they might have has been raised for consideration, not just in this forum but also elsewhere. Of course, it should be pointed out that the trustees of a particular pension scheme are already required by law to act in the best interests of all the members of that scheme. On that basis, the trustees have to take account of the interests of the deferred and pensioner members in any proposals they make. I have given careful consideration to this matter, in which I have a deep personal interest. In my constituency, I represent many of the members referred to by Deputy Daly in particular. In light of their representations to me, I have given this matter considerable thought in recent times.

The Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation consults the industrial relations bodies under its auspices on issues that arise in the context of the collective representation of retired and deferred members of pension schemes. In this context, it is important to note that this country's industrial relations system is voluntary in nature as regards access to the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court. Active members of pension schemes regularly engage with employers through their trade unions to attempt to reach common positions on changes to pension schemes, whether as a result of a crisis in the scheme or otherwise. In all such cases, the outcome of that engagement can only be a collective agreement which cannot, of itself, involve a change to the pension scheme.

Any proposed change to the scheme is effected by the mechanism set out in the trusts, deeds and rules of the scheme and are at the discretion of the parties designated under same. A collective approach may be most effective within this framework.

For the information of the House I am considering issues that have arisen in the context of access for former employees to the State's industrial relations machinery under the Industrial Relations Acts where they have not referred their claims prior to retirement. Any change in this area would require amendments to the definition of "worker" under section 23 of the 1990 Act and to the definition of "trade dispute" under section 3 of the 1946 Act. I expect the vehicle to address this issue to be the industrial relations Bill, which will deal with the structure of registered employment agreements, REAs, rather than the Bill currently before the House, as Deputy Calleary alluded.

See this speech in context