Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the publication of this Bill and its arrival into the House after a few false dawns. In 2011, when the Government was appointed, I made the point that the lack of appointment of a Minister for labour affairs to the Department would result in a setback to workers' rights and various pieces of legislation such as this. I was dismissed at the time. I was told it would not be. However, my concerns proved to be correct. The present Minister of State, Deputy Nash, was appointed to the role in July 2012 and suddenly these things started to move, because there was somebody within the Department who was driving them forward and whose job it was to see them progress. This is why we are here. It is why we have this legislation and the minimum wage legislation.

I welcome much of the Bill. There will be little disagreement on many aspects of it. However, the climate of employment has changed in many respects over the past four years. It is important to recognise that the vast majority of employers are not Dunnes Stores or some other operations that have gone to court to suppress workers' rights. They are decent, fair employers that work for the interests of their enterprise and employees and that want to get on with their business in as fair a way as possible without being choked by administration. That was one of the difficulties with the old REA system. I hope that the changes being brought in do not choke businesses with administration and do not leave them exposed for lack of administration procedures, as opposed to a commitment to the spirit and the intent of the legislation. That is what we will be looking at on Committee and Report Stage to ensure this is as administration-friendly as possible. Unless it is, people will not get the benefit of the legislation. They will lose out on the benefit of the legislation, which was a feature of the old system.

I also welcome the provision allowing for review every three years, because under the old system, some of the REAs have been in place since the 1940s, and things have changed in most areas in this country since then. It was a feature of that legislation. It was not fit for purpose and it was not a major surprise that it was struck down. At least now we have that provision with regard to registration.

There are a couple of gaps. One glaring gap is the omission of any kind of provision for representation of pensioners of companies. That must be given consideration. We have seen, and will continue to see, so many examples of people who gave their lives to particular companies - especially large companies, some of which the Minister of State mentioned in his remarks - but find their pension entitlements are being changed and that they have very few rights in terms of contesting those changes to their daily income. If they were still workers within the company they would have all the rights and protections proposed in this legislation. However, because they have gone out on a pension, they have lost many of those rights and that role in the decision-making process of the company. There is no respect for their role in the company and the fact that they are still on the payroll, albeit in a different way. That needs to be dealt with. There are so many examples of companies that are completely changing defined benefit schemes, leaving pensioners who have no ability to earn any other income high and dry without representation.

Surely this represents an opportunity to address the issue.

I agree with the Minister of State's remarks about Dunnes Stores. It does not listen to what happens in this House and it could not care less. That said, however, we need to ensure that we keep using this House to call on Dunnes Stores to support its workers, who are an essential part of its enterprise. It is quite extraordinary that companies in that sector which are headquartered outside the country are leading the way in terms of protection for their workers and involving them in their enterprises, yet the company that is headquartered in this jurisdiction seems determined not to do anything and to move as far away as possible from such a partnership arrangement. I would say to those big organisations and companies that are protesting and complaining about the introduction of this legislation that they should lift the phone and call the Dunnes Stores of this world and other companies that have shown such scant regard for workers' rights that it has proved necessary to reinforce and re-launch this legislation.

There is a proportionate balance in the intent of the legislation between increased collective bargaining rights and anti-victimisation provisions in particular, while maintaining a voluntarist approach. I note that considerable work has been under way in the Department to ensure consultation across the various employer organisations, but in particular with those that represent our foreign direct investment, FDI, sector. People have ideological issues with them, but we should remember that they employ nearly 300,000 people and they have a stake and a role in this.

The legislation is progressive. It has the capacity to significantly improve the rights of workers who are seeking to negotiate collectively. The litmus test for it will come very quickly: will it be able to assist in the resolution of the dispute in Dunnes Stores and will it be able to assist in the resolution of other disputes that may be coming down the tracks, such as those in the transport companies that the Minister of State mentioned? It will not be long before this legislation get its full test. The Minister of State should include a commitment in his reply to the debate to review the legislation in the autumn if it seems to have failed or not assisted in the resolution of those disputes. Otherwise, it will be left as it is for many years in a flawed state.

I welcome section 8 among other sections. Section 8 is important because it allows for some element of variation in situations in which there is a difficulty around an agreement, particularly where parties agree to the variation or where one party agrees to it. We must ensure that is done fairly and that access to that provision is given in a cohesive and consistent manner. A difficulty with the old system was that what happened under one registered employment agreement, REA, differed from what happened under another. The rules around them were different. That led to a certain lack of equality and transparency in the running of the entire programme, which needs to be addressed. In particular, section 8, while it allows for flexibility, needs to be applied in a fair and a transparent manner.

In terms of examining a difficulty in the context of section 13, one of the claims made about the old system was that it was a closed shop. We can consider organisations that were in existence in the 20th century that do not reflect new types of organisation, be that within the union movement or the employer movement. Small businesses in particular will say that they do not have a role in this regard under the new regime. Their input needs to be recognised because many small businesses want to engage and involve themselves in this area but it is one that is a minefield for them. They often do not realise that they are committing an offence under labour legislation until that is found to be the case at an inspection. We need to ensure that the information given to them is comprehensive. We need also to ensure that the organisations that represent them have a role in the management of this process. I hope that will also be allowed under section 13.

The issues in regard to the resourcing of this legislation are hugely important. The Minister of State must ensure that when we are giving all this new responsibility and new flexibility to the Labour Court, it is properly resourced. The passing of the Workplace Relations Bill and its implementation this week are significant, but the delays that were allowed to happen at the Employment Appeals Tribunal, the Labour Court and the various points of access for the apparatus that is envisaged under this legislation were unacceptable. Many of them were because of the delay in reform and because of the negotiations that took place, but there is no sense in introducing such robust legislation unless the Labour Court and, more importantly, the implementation of the Workplace Relations Act are resourced. The workplace relations agency, through the old National Employment Rights Authority, will be the body charged with implementing and enforcing the REAs, and unless they are resourced to carry out proper inspections, set up proper helplines and have proper administrative support, this legislation will fall at the first hurdle. The Minister of State needs to ensure that employers have the information that is needed to ensure they comply with this legislation. I emphasise that the majority of employers will want to comply with it and their failure to do so is usually due to ignorance of the legislation, which needs to be resolved.

In terms of the administration of the provisions of the legislation, I would point to the inconsistencies under the old REA system and the inconsistencies within the same organisation, with different REAs applying to different companies depending on the business or trade in which they were engaged and whether they expanded or did their business in a different way while operating under the same roof, whereby they found themselves exposed under a number of new regulations. We have to ensure that the protections contained in this legislation are as administratively friendly as possible and that private employment law firms will not make a fortune out of this Bill. It should be the case that employers who want to comply can easily do so. If we can do that, many of the frustrations experienced with old REA system will be removed.

The aim of the Bill, as the Minister of State set out, is to improve the communications and atmosphere between employers and employees, and this will be more than achieved, but the legislation is only one part of that. The Minister must ensure, in the context of the implementation of the legislation, that resources are provided, together with an understanding of the consequences of the new provisions, if he is to fully achieve the stated aim of the legislation.

See this speech in context