John Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill and to welcome the long-promised Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2015. The proposals are broadly welcome, as the legislation strikes a balance between increased collective bargaining rights and anti-victimisation provisions for workers while maintaining the volunteer approach to collective bargaining supported by employers. As Deputy Keaveney said, the Bill might not have come before the House were it not for the courageous stand taken by the Dunnes Stores workers. Their stand certainly pushed the Fine Gael and Labour Party Government to bring forward this legislation and to prioritise it. I hope it will pass all Stages as quickly as possible.

The new legislation aims to provide an improved framework for workers who seek to enhance their terms and conditions of employment where collective bargaining is not recognised by their employers, as well as to provide a replacement structure for the REA system.

In recent years I have noted that workers' rights have been seriously eroded, with some employers offering poor working conditions, low pay and low health and safety standards. It may be due to the recession or because people find it very difficult to get work and they are often very glad to take any kind of work. This seems to be the norm with some employers. I hope this Bill will deal with some of the issues in this area. Sometimes I wonder about the role of the unions nowadays in that they seem to accept too easily rogue employers and employers operating in the black economy who are not treating their workers to the correct standards.

In my county we have a lot of seasonal workers who work as strawberry pickers, meat processing workers and forestry workers, as well as in seasonal farming and fishing work. What rights will these workers have under this Bill? As seasonal workers, many of them are on low wages, and if they were forced to go beyond bargaining with their employer - if they had to take it a step further into the legal arena - they would not be in a position to do so if they had to hire solicitors or go to court. Some employers are very good at looking after their seasonal workers, many of whom come from Poland and other countries. However, at the end of the seasonal period I have noted that people come to my office saying they are unable to get their P60 or P45 documents or their holiday pay or overtime pay from the employers. It is necessary to battle with some employers to ensure that the rights of their workers are respected and, more important, that the documents they require for claiming social welfare or holiday pay are provided. Because they are seasonal workers, many of them are not in a position to get social welfare payments, and they certainly are not in a position to get contributory benefits. They may be entitled to jobseeker's benefit eventually, after being put through the wringer by the local social welfare office. If they earn any kind of income from the seasonal work, more often than not they are ruled out for jobseeker's benefit. They are forced to appeal the decision, and it can take six or nine months before any entitlements are awarded.

I refer to the situation of Dunnes Stores in Gorey, which was shocking. Dunnes Stores closed its store overnight. Workers were called in and told that the store was to close as and from that evening. There was no explanation offered and there was no discussion or dialogue as to when it might reopen. We accept that legal problems arose over an entrance door, but instead of reverting to the original entrance, the Dunnes Stores management decided to close the store without any explanation to its 70 or 80 workers, who have families and mortgages.

They were left high and dry for the best part of a week before being told that the store would re-open. This is no way to treat workers and is certainly no way to treat regular customers who were locked out for the week. How will the Bill protect workers in similar situations in the future?

The most galling of all was that many politicians in Wexford made contact with senior management in Dunnes Stores in Dublin by phone and e-mail and yet we were all ignored. It is the management's right to ignore politicians but at the same time, we were representing people and had been contacted by the workers. We did not even get the courtesy of an acknowledgement of our e-mails and phone calls asking when and whether the store would re-open. The same thing has happened with zero-hour contracts in Dunnes Stores; it is very difficult to get any explanation from the company as to why and how it operates them. We are talking about people who have worked in Dunnes Stores for many years. All they are looking for is the same contracts and conditions as are offered by Tesco, SuperValu and other supermarkets in order to give them a level of security in their hours and earnings. It is an issue that will continue for quite some time unless the Bill helps bring about dialogue between management and workers.

We met the Dunnes Stores workers who are looking for decent hours and earnings, job security, fair pay and representation and the right to dignity at work. I do not think that is too much to ask in this day and age. I was a union representative for many years back in the 1970s and at that time, the unions fought to improve the conditions of workers. Collective bargaining was introduced, which was helpful. For some reason, companies now want to make huge amounts of money on the backs of workers, putting them on the lowest possible pay and hours while creaming off the profits. That should not be allowed to continue.

I am sure that if legislation such as the Bill before us had been in place, it would have compelled Dunnes to go to the Labour Court or to the Labour Relations Commission. The legislation aims to address most of the deficits exposed by the 2007 Supreme Court ruling which, as we all know, involved Ryanair. It provides an avenue for workers, through their trade unions, to secure improvements in pay and conditions when an employer refuses to engage in collective bargaining. In these cases, the proposed legislation allows for the Labour Court to make a determination in a dispute which can then be enforced by way of a Circuit Court order. Perhaps the Minister of State would clarify who will foot the bill for the Circuit Court order. Many of the people I know who are working seasonally or for 16 or 17 hours a week in supermarkets will certainly not be in a financial position to go to the courts. Will there be some support in that area?

Will the Minister of State look seriously at the plight of the ESB retired workers? We all got letters in the last couple of days from the ESB Retired Staff Association. Its members want to be included and the letter states that:

The right to engage meaningfully with an employer and the trustees of an associated pension scheme is the very essence of pensioner grievance. Pensioner representatives, as of right, should be affording meaningful equality of esteem by having formal input to any or all discussions or negotiations that may effect their pension entitlements - entitlements that flow from the collectively agreed industrial relations employment contract that bound us throughout our working careers and continues to collectively bind us in retirement.

What they are looking for is the right to engage, to be involved and to have their pensions protected. It is very important the Bill provides an opportunity for these people. They are looking to change the definition of "worker" to include former workers and to grant them access to the industrial relations machinery of the State. They further argue:

The right of trade unions to represent their members in negotiations with employers on industrial relations issues is an inherent part of the industrial relations process in Ireland and therefore we, as pensioners, should be included in any negotiations for the future.

I am sure the Minister of State is well aware of the demands sought by the retired workers and that he will ensure their rights are protected by way of amendment as the Bill makes its way through the House.

See this speech in context