George Lawlor (Wexford, Labour)

Ba cheart dom a rá ar dtús go bhfuil mé ag ullmhú mo Bhille féin maidir le haitheanas na gceardchumann, rud atá ina ábhar imní do Pháirtí an Lucht Oibre le fada an lá. Is fíor a rá go bhfuil leibhéal ardtábhachta ag baint leis an mBille seo sa Teach seo agus go deimhin sa tír seo. I have been preparing my own Bill on trade union recognition, which is a long-standing Labour Party concern. However, none of us has a monopoly on wisdom when it comes to law reform, and I am happy to make my contribution by way of amendments to this Bill, if it goes to Committee Stage, rather than launch a separate proposal. Accordingly, I am happy to confirm that my party will be supporting this Bill.

This issue resonates deeply within the fabric of our society. In my town of Wexford, the handed-down stories of the foundry workers' lockout of 1911 still run deep in the veins of Wexford people. The reason the workers were locked out was the demand for union recognition among their fellow workers. The local leader of the locked-out men was a man called Richard Corish and such was the fondness and affinity for Mr. Corish as a result of his leadership during the campaign for union recognition that he went on to become a local Labour Party TD and was mayor of Wexford for a remarkable 25 years in a row while serving as TD for Wexford concurrently. Following his death, his son, Brendan Corish, won the by-election and served as Labour Party TD for 35 years before my immediate predecessor, Brendan Howlin, took over and served for 37 years as Labour Party TD. The cause of labour and trade unionism runs deep in my town and constituency and courses through the veins of many Wexford people.

The traditional model depended on trade unions mobilising a critical mass of employees to join and participate in trade union action. However, in a gig economy era, with transient, insecure and poorly organised workforces, trade union density is bound to decline where it is most needed and the issue of statutory recognition rights for trade unions becomes more pressing.

The Constitution guarantees the right of citizens to form associations and unions, but the courts have not to date had to consider specifically whether the Constitution would have an impact on an attempt by legislation to require employers to recognise and negotiate with trade unions. It is true that at least one judge made an observation that employers have a constitutional right not to recognise trade unions. Mr. Justice Geoghegan stated in the Supreme Court decision of Ryanair Limited v The Labour Court in 2007:

...as a matter of law Ryanair is perfectly entitled not to deal with trade unions nor can a law be passed compelling it to do so. There is an obvious danger however in a non-unionised company that employees may be exploited and may have to submit to what most reasonable people would consider to be grossly unfair terms and conditions of employment. With a view to curing this possible mischief the Industrial Relations Acts, 2001 and 2004 were enacted. Given their purpose they must be given a proportionate and constitutional interpretation so as not unreasonably to encroach on Ryanair's right to operate a non-unionised company.

With respect to the late Mr. Justice Geoghegan, it seems far from obvious that his analysis on this point was correct. If a law to compel trade union recognition cannot constitutionally be passed, it must follow that a trade union strike aimed at compelling the company to recognise it would also be unconstitutional. It would be an unlawful conspiracy to infringe on the company's constitutional rights. Any strike seeking trade union recognition would be an actionable wrong, which could be injuncted and substantial damages could also be awarded. This is an important point. If Mr. Justice Geoghegan's line of reasoning was correct, any industrial action at a non-unionised workplace to secure trade union recognition would be unconstitutional, yet this is clearly not the law and has not been the law since trade union disputes were legalised in 1875. If an employer cannot seek an injunction to stop a strike aimed at securing trade union recognition, it must follow that employers' constitutional rights are not being threatened and that, if constitutional rights are not breached when a strike attempts to achieve this outcome, neither would they be breached if the result is achieved by statute. It cannot be the case that the Oireachtas is prevented from legislating for something a trade union is entitled to achieve through industrial action.

This is not the end of it, however. People talk of mandatory recognition as if conferring the status by law is simple and immediately effective. It is all very well to say the union must be recognised, just as it is very well to say road users must drive carefully or alcohol must be consumed responsibly. When the law proposes a positive obligation such as this, the real test is what it provides when people fail to live up to those obligations. What are the remedies? It is not enough for the law to state that the right of a union to represent its members for the purposes of collective bargaining shall be recognised by an employer. The problem is that, while it expresses the right sentiment, what is needed is something to give effect to it. Apart from declaring what ought to happen, legislation must set out what to do when it does not happen. No law can force workers or employers to sit down in the same room and negotiate in good faith, but what the law can do is set out what will happen if employers fail to do so. A third party, such as the Labour Court, must intervene and decide the union's claim without any input from the side that does not participate. In fact, it should be a very real fear that, if employers do not show up to a meeting, things can be decided in their absence. That should bring sensible employers to the table. Giving effect to the concept of trade union recognition involves much more than writing a single sentence. It includes setting out the procedure for deciding on the terms and conditions to be imposed in the absence of recognition, as well as a lot of practical considerations such as access to the workplace and to workers and facilitating workplace elections and meetings. In fairness, this Bill ticks many of those necessary boxes.

There is legislation that provides a remedy to employees who are disadvantaged while their employer refuses to recognise and negotiate in limited circumstances. I pay tribute to my colleague, Deputy Nash, for steering that legislation through the Houses. It is open to us now to go further by extending that legislation to secure better and more effective trade union recognition and collective bargaining.

Any legislation has to recognise the phenomenon of poaching and have a viewpoint on it. If a new union tries to recruit members who already belong to an established union with long-standing negotiation rights, the employer may well refuse to recognise it and the employer may be supported by ICTU's anti-poaching rules.

Those of us who support trade union recognition need to be careful to accommodate in our thinking precisely which union should be recognised and which union should not. It is in no one's interest to legislate for a free-for-all.

The legal framework for trade union recognition is fragmented and inadequate. While the Industrial Relations Act 1990 provided some protections for trade unions, it falls short of establishing a clear and consistent process for recognition. Many workers, especially those in non-unionised sectors, face significant barriers when attempting to organise. Employers often resist unionisation efforts and without a legal obligation to recognise unions, workers are left with limited recourse. The lack of legal recognition disproportionately affects vulnerable groups, including migrant workers and those in low-wage industries. Workers in these groups often lack the resources and support needed to navigate the complexities of labour relations. By providing a legal mechanism for trade union recognition, we can level the playing field and ensure all workers, regardless of background or employment status, have the opportunity to join together and advocate for their rights.

The need for a legal mechanism for trade union recognition is not merely a legal or economic issue. It is a fundamental matter of human rights and social justice. By empowering workers to organise and negotiate collectively, we can create a more equitable and just society. In supporting this Bill, therefore, I believe we stand in solidarity, advocating for change and working to ensure the voices of workers are heard and respected. The time for action is now. It is beyond time to build a brighter future for all workers in Ireland, one where their rights are recognised, protected and celebrated.

I thank Deputies Coppinger and Murphy for tabling this Bill and I am proud to support it along with my party.

See this speech in context