Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas as an Grúpa Neamhsplách agus An Teachta Collins as an Bhille seo.The Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, has already highlighted some important difficulties with this Bill.

While the intention behind the proposals is understood, it is important to acknowledge the policy and constitutional matters and potential regulatory impacts, including potential costs for businesses, that require detailed consideration in advance of progressing legislation in this area.

It is unclear how the measures set out in this Bill are supported by evidence or will provide any specific additional beneficial or additional protections to workers. The Payment of Wages Act 1991 already provides for lawful wage deduction arrangements between an employer and an employee with the prior written consent of the employee, albeit on a voluntary basis. Section 5(1)(c) of that Act states that an employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee, or receive any payment from an employee, unless in the case of a deduction, the employee has given his or her prior consent to it in writing. Section 6 of the Act deals with complaints by employees in relation to contraventions of the Act under which redress can be sought through the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, and on appeal to the Labour Court. As was set out earlier in the debate, if this Bill was introduced then effectively, under this law, an employer would have no choice when it comes to agreeing to remit trade union subscriptions and would have to bear the administrative costs of same. The reality is that even a small number of requests would place additional administrative burdens on small and medium-sized enterprises. In the context of rising costs, particularly for SMEs, and when legislative protections already exist both to make such deductions on a voluntary basis and to protect workers if subscriptions are mismanaged, placing an additional administrative burden on SMEs in this way is neither necessary nor appropriate.

Deputy Collins cited the implementation of the EU directive on adequate minimum wages in support of introducing these legal measures. However, in light of the multiple payment methods that now exist and the mobility of our workforce, it is unclear how deducting trade union subscriptions at source would increase collective bargaining coverage or trade union density.

Given the protections that already exist in law for deductions based on agreement between employers and workers it is also unclear how these proposals would enhance employment rights for workers. The Deputy mentioned instances where so-called union-busting tactics have been used by companies. I encourage anyone who is of the view that he or she has been victimised for being a member of a trade union to seek redress by formally making a complaint to the WRC, which has had a code of practice on victimisation in place since 2015. If Members of this House have specific instances brought to them involving companies illegally retaining or mismanaging trade union subscriptions deducted by agreement at source, I encourage all of them, in responding, to highlight the existing protections available to workers under the Payment of Wages Act, which also provides for redress through the WRC.

A number of Deputies mentioned the contract cleaning ERO. It is different to have a sector-specific agreement that has been agreed between worker and employer representatives placed on statute than it is to place a legal obligation without agreement on all employers, regardless of size, to deduct at source on request. It is reasonable that a proposal would require consideration for proportionality as it could be considered to impact on the rights of employers as to how they run their own business.

I also wish to highlight the supports that have been put in place for small businesses by this Government, since our election to office in 2020, through various Covid-19 protections. Moreover, through the forthcoming costs of business rebate grant, supports are being given directly to the smallest of businesses. I ask all of those calling for more supports to outline how they would pay them. They claim to have business experience. They claim to be employers, yet cannot seem to grasp basic accountancy in putting forward how matters proposed will be paid for.

For these reasons and for the reasons advanced earlier by the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, the Government is not supporting this Bill. The Government had formally moved to amend the motion, as Deputy Richmond outlined earlier.

See this speech in context