Neale Richmond (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for the amendment and I appreciate the rationale with which I am not in massive disagreement, as we have discussed. However, as we discussed on Committee Stage, I cannot accept this amendment, which appears to require the employer or responsible person to initiate consultations with a European works council, where established, on proposed collective redundancies. This is in addition to the consultation with employees' representatives. Under law, EWCs have a specific remit which is to facilitate information and consultation with employees on transnational issues. The operation of EWCs is governed by the Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Act 1996. Therefore, I have a number of concerns with this proposal.

First, as the Deputy pointed out, in January the European Commission published its proposal for an amending directive underpinning the European works council. The general objective of this initiative is to improve the effectiveness of the framework for the information and consultation of employees at transnational level. As I advised the Deputy on Committee Stage, my understanding is that the Belgian Presidency has convened a working party on this matter and a second working party meeting will take place by the end of February. The ambition is to reach general agreement by the end of the Presidency. On that point, I will have an EPSCO meeting on 11 and 12 of March in Belgium under the Belgian Presidency. I have reached out to the Belgian minister - my equivalent - asking for a direct bilateral meeting solely to deal with this issue to take it forward and make sure that we continue to push forward.

I agree with the Deputy that having this come in in four or five years is not acceptable. It can be achieved much sooner, regardless of European Parliament elections or the installation of a new Commission in November. That is my intention in that regard. That is in the next two and a half weeks. It is best to ensure that the legal provisions relating to transnational employer obligations maintain a level playing field. It is only appropriate that developments at EU level are ultimately reflected in the Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Act 1996.

Second, it appears the amendment would require consultation with the EWC, where established, even if collective redundancies are only proposed in the Irish establishment and not in establishments in other member states. This is not what the European works councils were designed to work on. If collective redundancies are proposed by an employer in two or more member states, the employer is obliged to follow the local jurisdiction's laws in each case. If there is a transnational element to the proposed collective redundancies, information and consultation with employees under the EWC may also be required. This is already codified in the 1996 Act.

Third, it seems likely that adding a direct requirement to consult with an EWC could extend the timeline and complexity of the consultation process significantly. This would not be in the interests of employees who would face into a projected period of uncertainty at an already difficult time. For the reasons I have outlined, I will not support the amendment.

See this speech in context