Áine Collins (Cork North West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this very important Bill. I compliment the Minister on his work on it and on bringing it before the House.

I would like to respond to Deputy Keaveney, who claimed that after four and a half years, the legacy of this Government was to bring this Bill to the House very late. I remind him that the legacy of this Government, of which both Fine Gael and Labour are part, is economic stability, reducing unemployment and giving opportunity and hope to people, as well as providing security, which was lost under the last Government. I would also remind him that he joined Fianna Fáil, which was the party that sold us out, with the result that the troika had to be brought into this country. I am sure we would all like to move on from that point because the Irish people do not want to hear about it for too long more.

Research has suggested that industrial conflict may be more rather than less likely when unions are weakened and unable to assist in ordering industrial relations systems. In particular, current economic and social policy in Ireland relies on unions being able to enforce agreements made with employers and the State. It is clear that the conduct of pay determination and industrial relations, especially in the public sector, is now a significant influence on a country’s credit rating and, hence, on the cost of borrowing and the resulting scale of public debt. It is very important we have a system whereby workers and employers can work through various issues that appear from time to time.

From listening to the Opposition, I know there has been a lot of talk about employees, which is very important, but we must also recognise the role employers play in this country, given they are the people who take all the risk. The majority of employers are small businesses which must deal with a huge amount of legislation. I welcome the fact the Minister of State intends to simplify much of this legislation because there is a lot of it that must be muddled through. This is a huge issue, especially for the small employers who, as I said, employ most workers in this country.

While I welcome this new legislation, there are some issues and concerns around it, in particular from the point of view of the unionising of organisations that may not want to be unionised. It is important that we keep ourselves competitive. Changing pay can have an effect on that, which can then have an effect on the economy and particularly on encouraging people to become employers and perhaps attract investment into this country. Nonetheless, I welcome the legislation.

I want to quote an employer from my constituency who wrote to me as follows:

How is it acceptable for one private organisation, a union, to be allowed to dictate to another private organisation how it conducts its affairs? This is effectively what this legislation will allow happen.

I do not agree with all of that but this is a concern of an employer who employs a lot of people. He continues:

The union is a private company who is in the business of securing members and all this legislation is going to do is allow unions agitate workers in private organisations, which will make the union look good and therefore increase their membership. In addition, there is surely a constitutional issue where you have legislation allowing and encouraging a private organisation to interfere in the running of another private organisation. It would not be tolerated in the everyday life of an individual and maybe should not be tolerated in a private company. It could be argued that this legislation is not required and if employees are unhappy with pay or conditions, they may move elsewhere.

I accept that is probably a very right-wing view but, again, it is a concern of employers of which we must be mindful.

I welcome the measures on collective bargaining, although I have some concerns. My biggest concern is what is to be considered "a significant number" of employees. I ask the Minister of State to consider inserting a figure in the Bill that would bring clarity in order to prevent future issues arising down the road.

What everybody wants in regard to collective bargaining is that, where there is a genuine dispute, people have an opportunity to speak and workers and employers have an opportunity to represent themselves. Reference was made to seasonal employment, which is a complicated issue. Not every employer is a big employer and many, particularly in recent years, have been just trying to keep the payroll running and do what they can. Much of the time, they are doing that at a huge cost to themselves and to the people who are working for them. The majority of employers are decent, hard working people. They do their best and get up in the morning with the intention of looking after their employees and they take that very seriously.

As always, our job as policy makers is to ensure that is done in a fair and safe way. It is important to do that while, at the same time, ensuring we are conscious that the majority of employers in this country are small employers who must deal with a lot of legislation in their everyday lives. I would welcome the opportunity to simplify that further but it is important that we also try to make it fair. In that context, I again ask the Minister of State to consider inserting a percentage figure for the number of employees who can take a case in regard to collective bargaining.

See this speech in context