Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Like most, I welcome this Bill, with a few reservations. While it is a positive attempt to foster better relations between employers, employees and their representatives, this Bill contains a number of shortcomings. Fundamentally, it does not increase the obligation on the employer to recognise the role of trade unions in dispute settlements. While we are told this is due to a Supreme Court ruling in the Ryanair v. IALPA decision in 2005, which deemed it was unconstitutional to force an employer to recognise a trade union, I wonder is that really what this case turned on. We are constantly told we cannot introduce any form of rent control in this State because of a Supreme Court decision on an Act from the 1960s but a detailed reading shows that is not why the Act was ruled unconstitutional. It is very limited. Is the Government really willing to engage with this issue?

There are other ways to normalise employer recognition of representative bodies representing the interests of their employees. In the United Kingdom, the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 includes a duty to bargain in good faith and obliges the employer to disclose certain information to trade union or worker representatives. Even without forcing the employer to deal directly with trade unions, it is very possible to foster a more co-operative environment, which would, in turn, lead to more resolutions.

I deal with many non-unionised workers in my constituency. Seasonal work is a large source of employment in Donegal and for many the only source of employment, especially among farmers and fishermen. Often they are on call, have zero-hour contracts, low-hour contracts or are engaged in casual contracts. They might be reliant on social welfare payments for the other half of the year to supplement their income, or they might return to other seasonal work, such as farming. Budgetary cuts introduced by this Government in recent years have left the seasonal workers in an even more precarious situation. Due to the lack of work and hours available to them they are unable to maintain their social welfare entitlements. They are now dubbed the "precariat", due to the precarious nature of finding work. They find themselves in a unique situation compared with most other employees across the country and in other sectors and they are vulnerable to exploitative work practices in the industry in which they work.

Some seasonal workers work on call shifts and employers are obliged, in theory at least, to compensate workers who are required to be on call but are not used for work. Under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, workers must be paid for 25% of the hours when they were on stand-by or paid for 15 hours, whichever is less. However, this is not always the case and many workers find they are not given what is due to them. Furthermore, these compensatory measures do not extend to casual work contracts. How will this Bill increase protection for those in precarious work and what is the level of enforcement allocated to ensure compliance by employers?

The Bill sets out mechanisms for employers, employees and trade unions to engage on terms and conditions and where employer engagement is non-existent, the trade union can make a request to the Labour Court to investigate the dispute but there is little focus on the non-unionised workers. The Bill addresses excepted bodies, which are non-unionised and have a representative who puts forward the issues of the workers employed within the same company. The Bill outlines the factors the Labour Courts must take into account to determine whether a body is independent, elements such as election of representatives, voting, financing, number of meetings, etc. and the employer will have to prove that it does not have control over the negotiating body. My concern, however, is that the legislation does not apply where the number of workers party to the trade dispute is insignificant having regard to the total number of workers employed by the employer unless exceptional and compelling circumstances exist. If collective bargaining is a right, those workers who are a minority in their workplace are not entitled to this right. I know from personal experience that many small groups of workers within a single employment have changed conditions for their colleagues because they were willing to step forward and take cases to tribunals and fight for their rights but they are left in a very vulnerable position and have to represent themselves.

This is where the issue of victimisation is relevant because behind the scenes in workplaces there are many different types of intimidation and ways to discourage the organisation of workers.

In the fishing sector, in particular, workers may be silently black-listed and prevented from working in the industry if they are known to have tried to organise workers, join a trade union or resolve an issue. Such practices are not dissimilar to those that prevailed at the time of the 1913 Lock-out.

It has been claimed the Bill strengthens the employees' protection from victimisation by employers, for example, through the provision of interim relief in the case of dismissal and the enhancement of protection of workers who believe they are being victimised. While it is fine to introduce legislation to try to strengthen the rights of workers, the key issue is one of enforcement. Notwithstanding the compensation provided for in the Bill, the enforcement of labour laws will be another issue.

It is positive that the Bill provides that any determination by the Labour Court may also be enforced by the Circuit Court should an employer refuse to engage. However, it is a matter for workers who may be in a vulnerable position to come together, in the first instance, and take a case to the Labour Court to secure a recommendation that will be enforced. The Circuit Court is not available to such workers because they do not have funds to take a case. In County Donegal, an employment tribunal ruled in favour of workers in a case involving redundancy payments but the case was lost when the employer took the matter to the Circuit Court because the employees could not afford to be represented in the court.

See this speech in context