Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Socialist Party) | Oireachtas source

I support Deputy Tóibín's amendments. In regard to amendment No. 14, I make the point that the normal practice in non-unionised workplaces at the moment in terms of disciplinary procedures is that the employee in question will be entitled to have a co-employee as a silent witness. Given the massive power imbalance that exists between the employer and employee, we can see how intimidating that experience is and how, in many cases, it can be difficult even to find a silent witness because it means another worker putting his or her head above the parapet in a context where bullying may be taking place and, in some sense, there may be victimisation of those who lift their heads above the parapet. What the amendment would mean is that, even in workplaces that are not particularly well organised and where the employer has not recognised the union, those who are members of unions will be entitled to have representation and have someone there. It goes some measure towards adjusting the power imbalance that exists between a worker and an employer, who can have a team of HR or IR people to deal with the issue.

In regard to amendment No. 15, I make the point that the State's mechanisms for monitoring compliance with REAs and employment rights in general are inadequate. They are inadequately resourced and huge levels of non-compliance are found. To the extent the State is able to carry out investigations, it is clear compliance is inadequate. We could think back to the GAMA dispute to make the point but there have many other instances since then.

The role of trade unions is to represent working people and ensure their members get the best wages and terms and conditions they possibly can. A key part of that role is ensuring compliance with REAs and with the employment rights of their workers. It makes sense that trade unions should have access to workplaces in order to be able to achieve those. It is the only real mechanism that exists to ensure these things are actually complied with, as opposed to just sitting back and hoping that employers will do it when we have an inadequate mechanism from the point of view of the State. This relates to the very basic rights of trade unions to organise in the workplace. The point is that where trade unions can recruit members, the workers will be organised and this will go some way to addressing the power imbalance that exists by having workers come together.

A current example of where this would be important is an issue that has been spoken of many times, not only in this debate but in the last number of months in the Chamber. This is the question of bogus self-employment in the construction industry, which is clearly massively widespread. This should be a problem for Revenue, which loses out on significant revenue, but it does not have the resources or the inclination to deal with it, and the mechanisms of the State have not in general dealt with it. For trade unions to have access to workplaces would mean finding out and investigating these situations, and rooting out and exposing bogus self-employment. The only mechanism we really have is that of freeing up trade unions to do the jobs they are meant to do, as opposed to having employers being able to effectively shut out trade unions and make it extremely difficult for the employees in a company, or on a contract, to start from scratch and get organised. I believe all three amendments are extremely important.

See this speech in context