Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I am glad to have an opportunity to contribute to the debate on this important legislation. I warmly welcome the tremendous work done on the legislation by my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Gerald Nash, and I compliment him on it. The legislation will allow for collective bargaining in the workplace and for sectoral registered employment agreements to be re-established.

I listened with some disbelief and bemusement to some of the utterances of some politicians, particularly in Fianna Fáil, who bemoaned the fact that the legislation is just a repair job. With regard to Dunnes Stores, they exhorted that the legislation be implemented immediately. They must have fallen asleep because I remember the Supreme Court's decision on Ryanair in 2007 which cast doubt on the functionality of the Acts and had a significant and chilling effect on their use subsequently. Now they pretend this is not a significant advancement. Of course we are circumscribed by the constitutional provisions, and I agree with Deputy Halligan as I would also like to see this as a constitutional right, but it is not the case now. The Bill is a significant step along the way. My roots go back to the very beginning when my late grandmother was involved in the Lock-out, so I will not take lectures from people who do not have these leanings. Every Labour Party member and public representative would certainly go further and Deputy Halligan acknowledged this. Notwithstanding the ample opportunities other parties in the House had to deal with this, they singularly failed to do so. It is appropriate that the Labour Party has availed of its opportunity of being part of the Government to rectify what has been long sought by our activists and trade union colleagues.

When implemented, the Bill will give some industrial muscle and strength to workers, such as the Dunnes Stores workers, and ensure such a situation is unlikely to recur. The Labour Court would be able to investigate a dispute and all the relevant factors and surrounding circumstances. We have thousands of tremendously good employers. Small employers always obey the rules and regulations. Legislation is like a big umbrella which catches the unfortunate small people doing their best who are struggling and who have good communication with workers. It will also catch the big employers. If an employer fails to participate or recognise the recommendations, the outcome can be subject to judicial supervision by way of a Circuit Court application to have the recommendation enforced. I anticipate that when a matter goes to the Circuit Court it would award costs against recalcitrant employers. This is what should be done. Recalcitrant employers should pay the cost of the worker having to go to the Circuit Court. Many of them have deep pockets, and a costs order which could be subsequently enforced would have a sobering effect and might bring them to the implementation table much quicker.

We have met Dunnes Stores workers in Mullingar and everywhere else and we have marched with them. We have noted their plight. I hope the legislation will provide some remedy and respite for them. Dr. de Buitléir has examined the minimum wage and measures will be brought forward on this. The University of Limerick has examined zero hour and variable hours contracts. How can one plan with any certainty under such a contract? I agree with Deputy Halligan in this regard. How does one pay a mortgage or for child care, a car or other such costs if an employer can, when one has a number of years' service, cut one's hours from 19 to 14 to ten and bring in somebody at the lower end to replace one? This must be nailed. Workers in Dunnes Stores and other firms are looking for fair pay, decent wages and reliable hours which are not changed or altered at the whim of the employer. We must tackle the issue of zero hours contracts and variable contracts because of the lack of certainty.

We should not forget that appropriate legislative amendments to the industrial relations legislation of 2001 and 2004 were a commitment in the programme for Government drawn up in March 2011 to reform the law on employees' rights to engage in collective bargaining and ensure the State complies with judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in this regard. The new legislation will be of benefit to employers and employees as it will bring some degree of certainty to the industrial landscape and will assist in preventing a race to the bottom in terms of pay, conditions, employment and skills. I know from his background this is something which motivates the Minister of State and brought him into politics.

Collective bargaining and fair conditions of employment go hand in hand. The right to join a union and bargain collectively for fair pay and fair conditions of employment is critical for a fair workplace as it is the only way to ensure employees have equal bargaining power with the employer. The right to collective bargaining is essential so working men and women have the strength to improve their living standards, provide for their families and build a strong foundation for our economy. The trade union movement has repeatedly stated that workers are not commodities to be bought and sold. They make a very productive input. My uncle always said nobody ever made money on the back of the bricks and mortar, it was always on the back of the workers. It is the sweat on the brow of the workers which is productive and creates extra output and profits. This is why it is important we ensure their rights are recognised.

The right to collective bargaining through a trade union is a human right, recognised in human rights and European treaties. I have heard about other human rights, but this is definitely a human right. Every human rights system recognises workers' rights to unionise and take appropriate action to protect their interests. One has only to look at Article 23.4 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Articles 27, 28 and 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

We signed up to recognise these human rights standards but the law has not been adequate to protect employees, whence the necessity for this legislation. I am very proud that the Labour Party was instrumental in bringing this forward.

The International Labour Organization has expressed serious concern that Ireland's laws and practices are inadequate and violate of Articles 87 and 88 of the said convention relating to freedom of association and the right to organise and participate in collective bargaining. It recommended that we amend our laws to bring them into line with the fundamental convention requirements and that is what is being done. Ireland lags significantly behind other industrialised European countries in respect of providing workers with collective bargaining rights, recognition of a union and the acceptance of negotiation on a collective agreement being an essential element in asserting those rights.

In the Wilson case, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that governments needed to ensure that the right to unionise is respected by employers, including by prohibiting coercive practices such as offering inducements or more favourable treatment if workers do not exercise their union rights, or using other means to attempt to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees at any stage in the exercise of their trade union rights. It is important, therefore, that there is a focus on outlawing less favourable treatment, victimisation or other penalisation. There are myriad ways of victimising workers and I would like the Minister to look at them as they need to be prohibited. These include refusing to hire somebody because he or she exercises his or her human right to join a union and seek to collectively bargain and keeping a blacklist of workers who support the union, which is particularly unacceptable. Refusing to allow the union representative to meet with the workforce to discuss and prepare a collective bargaining request is an unfair practice as is the refusal to provide workers with any information.

To collectively bargain, workers need a back-up and hands-on help from the union. It is not acceptable for management to hold meetings to caution against joining the union or seeking to collectively bargain to protect and improve pay and conditions, or for management to threaten to move operations if workers exercise their human right to collectively bargain through a trade union. Disciplining, penalising, harassing, transferring or making a worker subject to any less favourable treatment because they support the union also comes into this category, as does favouring employees who do not support the union over those who do when it comes to promotions, hours, the enforcement of rules or anything else. Similar actions include penalising workers who take action in support of securing a collective agreement, taking away benefits or privileges in order to discourage people from seeking to collectively bargain through a trade union or promising employees a pay increase, promotion or special favour if they oppose the union. I am sure Deputy Halligan would agree that is a fair collection of inducements and forms of victimisation.

The Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2015 also provides for the reintroduction of a mechanism for the registration of employment agreements between an employer or employers and trade unions, covering remuneration and conditions of employment in individual enterprises. It also puts in place a new statutory framework for establishing minimum rates of remuneration, terms and conditions of employment for a specified type, class or group of workers. It is in effect a framework to replace the former sectoral registered agreements and this is contained within Part 2 of the Bill. I listened to the speech of Deputy Tóibín yesterday and he did not seem to acknowledge the progress that this legislation will mean. We would of course like a constitutional change but that will take some time. Deputy Finian McGrath spoke about the potential for a wide range of Independents in the next Dáil and it will be interesting to see if they will bring forward something such as this. It is something a re-established Constitutional Convention might examine and I await progress in that area.

This, however, is progress and it is churlish not to acknowledge that. A lot of people may wish to downplay the role of the Labour Party in bringing forward this long sought after legislation. The legislation must, of course, pass the constitutional test. We are prohibited from introducing legislation that is not in conformity with the Constitution but this legislation conforms with it and it achieves significant progress.

In McGowan and others v. the Labour Court, Ireland and the Attorney General, the Supreme Court held that Part 3 of the Industrial Relations Act 1946 had regard to Article 15.2.1 of the Constitution which vested in the Oireachtas the exclusive power to make laws, which cannot be allocated to other bodies or individuals. That is why this legislation has been brought forward in this format. We ended up in a serious situation in which the registration of employment agreements were declared invalid, meaning the Labour Court no longer had jurisdiction to enforce or apply them. In effect, all enterprise level REAs that had been registered by the Labour Court - over 50 of them - were invalid, notwithstanding the fact that they were not the subject of the Supreme Court decision. This led to significant uncertainty and there was angst and some disputes, especially in construction-related areas. The restoration of REAs and sectoral employment orders will provide a mechanism whereby the existence of legally binding terms and conditions of employment relating to rates or remuneration, sick pay, pension, etc. will be examined and this will promote harmonious relations between workers and employers. Ultimately, employers should look at this as something of benefit to them as it provides tramlines within which industrial relations can be conducted.

The Labour Court will, in respect of SEOs, initiate a review of pay, pension and sick pay entitlements of workers in a particular sector and, if appropriate, make a recommendation to the Minister. The Labour Court will, under the legislation, have principles to take into account in helping to make its decision. A derogation will be allowed for employers from SEOs under specified circumstances.

The proposals which were approved by the Government and published in May respect Ireland's voluntary industrial relations system but ensure that where an employer chooses not to engage in collective bargaining, either with a trade union or an internally accepted body, the 2001 Act will be remediated to ensure there are effective means for a union on behalf of the members in that employment to have disputed remuneration terms and conditions assessed against relevant comparators. That is important because very often it was a lack of knowledge that made both sides somewhat wary. It also ensures that if an employer chooses to collectively bargain with an internally accepted body, as opposed to a union, that body must pass the test of its independence, because it is extremely important that it is not just a cover or a front for the employer. I believe, however, that the most appropriate body with which to conduct industrial relations is a union.

There is a provision to ensure that cases dealt with are those where the number of workers is not insignificant and that elements of remuneration conditions have to be looked at in the context of the totality of remuneration conditions. There is also provision to manage the frequency of the reassessment of like issues. It is important we have a detailed definition of what constitutes collective bargaining and accepted bodies, bringing clarity to the requirements to be met by the trade unions in advancing a claim. It also sets out the principles and conditions for the Labour Court to follow when assessing workers' terms and conditions and contains provisions to ensure that they are looked at in their totality. There is enhanced protection for workers who may feel they are being victimised for exercising their rights in the form of interim relief in the case of dismissal and that is important.

This is a good start to remedy a lacuna in the legislation. I am proud of the role of the Labour Party in bringing it forward and I compliment the Minister.

See this speech in context