Seán Canney (Galway East, Independent) | Oireachtas source

In the UK, the issue of physical access to workplaces is not covered by legislation. It is a matter for employers to decide if they wish to allow trade unions to have access to their premises. Physical access is much less of an issue than it might have been in the past due to the advent of the Internet, e-mail and social media, which make it much easier for trade unions to communicate with potential members. Perhaps the opportunities offered by modern methods of communication should be considered. In France, only elected trade union representatives in a company have unlimited access. In the Netherlands, there is no legal obligation on employers and employers' organisations to negotiate with trade unions. Collective agreements between unions and employers depend entirely on the willingness of both sides to negotiate.

Ireland's economy is unique and we must protect what is good about it and build on those positives. Our economy is performing well and our existing systems and structures are contributing strongly to bringing our unemployment levels down to 6.8%. An additional 66,100 jobs were created during 2016, an annual increase in employment of 3.3%. Full-time employment increased by 4.7%, while the number of part-time workers declined by 1.4%. These figures are very positive for workers.

This Bill is neither reasonable nor balanced and is simply unworkable. The word "reasonable" is strewn throughout the Bill yet there is no definition of what constitutes reasonable in the view of the drafter or, indeed, who is to be the arbiter of what is reasonable. The consent provisions outlined in this Bill effectively mean no consent is needed. The timelines are unworkable and the Bill proposes that the only grounds under which an employer can deny access to any number of union representative is if it is certified by the Attorney General that access would prejudice the security of the State or the investigation or detection of offences. This is not a function the Office of the Attorney General can perform, which means there will never be a basis for an employer to decline access.

The Bill also proposes that a union representative can enter a workplace to deal with matters concerning the health and safety of union members. Ireland has a highly competent and specialist Health and Safety Authority that includes an inspectorate warranted to enter premises. This Bill would cut across the statutory mandate of the Health and Safety Authority. Furthermore, the Bill seeks to empower union representatives to monitor compliance with employment rights-related matters. Workplace Relations Commission inspectors have strong powers to monitor and enforce a robust suite of employment and equality legislation and I cannot see how a statutory role for union representatives in this area could work. Under the Workplace Relations Act 2015, inspectors are appointed by the director general, with the consent of the Minister, and they exercise such powers as are conferred upon them by the Workplace Relations Act 2015. I cannot agree that it is appropriate for a union official to have a statutory function not dissimilar to an employment rights inspector and would strongly oppose any move in this direction.

The Bill under discussion is not balanced and fails to sufficiently respect employers’ rights. It fails to create a fair balance between trade unions having access to employees in the workplace and an employer’s right to carry on business and survive in a very challenging environment. Neither does it consider the burden the obligations it lays down will impose on enterprise. What about the employer with one employee? The obligations contained in the Bill are the same whether one employs one person or 1,000 people. The burden imposed by the Bill on small businesses has obviously not been thought through. The paid time off for employees and the administrative time which management would have to expend on dealing with requests for access would be costly. All the obligations set out in this Bill are a direct cost to business.

I have just touched on the more obvious defects of the Bill before us today. Overall, the Bill does not sit well with our tradition of voluntary engagement and it ignores the unique make-up of our economic, social and cultural history. I strongly support the range of addition protections and enhancements legislated for in recent years. These have included significant enhancements to the protection of trade unions and their members through extended discussion and negotiation. This Bill has none of the hallmarks of any discussion or negotiation between representatives of workers and representatives of employers and therefore lacks the balance required to make it workable. I support the comments of the Minister, Deputy Mitchell O’Connor, regarding further discussion and development of thinking in this area, including with the committee dealing with jobs, enterprise and innovation, with inputs from all sectors of industry. However, for the reasons stated, I cannot support the Bill.

See this speech in context