Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 177, Standing Order 131 is modified to permit an instruction to the Committee to which the Workplace Relations Bill 2014 may be recommitted in respect of certain amendments, for which it has power to make provision in the Bill in relation to—(a) an amendment to the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Act 2009 by the deletion of section 2B (inserted by section 2 of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2013), as the powers provided by this section to make changes to remuneration rates (other than basic pay) and to working time are not required to be exercised in view of the existence of a collective agreement;

(b) an amendment to section 23(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 by the deletion of ‘(other than established civil servants within the meaning of the Civil Service Regulation Act, 1956)’, to allow the Minister, when appropriate, to make a decision to include established civil servants as part of the normal industrial relations process by designating them as workers who have access to the LRC/Workplace Relations Commission and the Labour Court; and

(c) an amendment to the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 to bring it into line with rulings of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) regarding how time spent on sick leave should be treated for the purposes of the accrual of annual leave and to limit the carry-over of annual leave while on long term sick leave to a 15 month period, following the end of the annual leave reference period;and to change the title of the Bill to take account of these provisions.

The main CJEU rulings in question are those in the cases of Schultz-Hoff-Stringer and KHS. The key points arising from Schultz-Hoff-Stringer are as follows: employees can accrue statutory annual leave while absent on sick leave; a sufficiently long carry-over period following a leave year should be provided for in cases where an employee has been unable to take annual leave due to having been on an extended period of sick leave; and, on termination of the employment relationship, an allowance in lieu of annual leave due and untaken as a result of the employee not being able to do so owing to sickness shall be paid to the employee.

The main finding arising from the KHS case is that the working time directive permits national law to put a cap on the unlimited accumulation of paid annual leave during successive years of absence on sick leave. The CJEU found on the facts of the KHS case that a 15 month carry-over period was not contrary to the working time directive. However, notably, the CJEU did not definitively state that 15 months was the appropriate length of carry-over period, thus leaving it to member states to exercise a policy judgment in this regard.

The OWT Act provides that annual leave is calculated on the basis of time worked and is silent on the issue of how time spent on sick leave should be regarded for the purposes of calculating annual leave. By virtue of the EU principle of vertical direct effect, public sector employees are able claim the benefit of the Schultz-Hoff ruling. While private sector employees cannot claim under the principle of direct effect, they could, using the Francovich principle of state liability, take a civil case against the State for compensation for non-receipt of their entitlements under the working time directive as interpreted by the CJEU in Schultz-Hoff-Stringer. Thus, as matters stand, the State is open to claims from both public sector and private sector employees further to the Schultz-Hoff-Stringer ruling, and, in the absence of legislative amendment, there is no limit on the time over which annual leave accrues while on sick leave. The proposed amendments to the OWT Act will bring clarity to our legislation for employers and employees alike as to how annual leave can be accrued and carried over when an employee cannot take their paid annual leave due to illness. The amendments to the legislation will ensure that statutory annual leave will continue to accrue to a person who is on sick leave, subject to a maximum carry-over of 15 months from the end of the year in which it accrued. The entitlement to paid annual leave is an important and fundamental employment right and, in my opinion, the Workplace Relations Bill presents an appropriate opportunity to make the necessary legislative change. I believe that the proposed amendments are fair and supportive to workers who are suffering from a long-term illness or injury. I further believe we have struck the right balance between protecting the rights of vulnerable workers who are off work due to a serious illness and trying to minimise the cost to business and the Exchequer.

I wish to indicate to the House that a further amendment to the Organisation of Working Time Act will be required on foot of the amendment being tabled today, which I intend to introduce on Committee Stage in the Seanad. This further amendment will provide that an employee whose employment terminates, and has accrued an annual leave entitlement in accordance with the Schultz-Hoff-Stringer ruling, will be entitled to payment in lieu of the untaken annual leave calculated on the same basis as if the employee had returned to work on the date of leaving the employment.

Both of the amendments being introduced on behalf of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform deal with workplace relations in the public service. Specifically, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform wishes to bring forward an amendment to section 2 of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2009. This is to remove a provision which was included in that Act to provide for a situation where no agreement was reached in the Haddington Road talks. Section 2B of the Act would have allowed for individual Ministers and public service employers to unilaterally implement changes to remuneration and working hours of employees in the absence of a collective agreement. As we all know, a very successful agreement was reached, which has produced a significant dividend for the public finances while maintaining industrial peace, and thankfully the provision has never been required to be used.

The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform is also seeking a technical amendment to the Industrial Relations Act 1990. This will ultimately enable an order to be made that will allow for established civil servants to be included with the majority of workers in having access to the normal industrial relations machinery of the State. These are currently the Labour Relations Commission, to be replaced by the workplace relations commission, and the Labour Court. This will herald a significant reform of the way in the way in which industrial relations are conducted in the Civil Service, which currently avails of its own conciliation and arbitration scheme. I am happy to facilitate these changes in my Bill as they enable further normalisation of industrial relations in the public service which will assist in the smooth introduction of the changes to the industrial relations machinery proposed in the Bill.

I will now outline the key provisions of the amendments. The amendment to the FEMPI Act 2009 is to remove section 2B which has never been utilised and which the public service unions regard as incompatible with normal industrial relations under the collective bargaining process. In 2013, negotiations were under way between the Government and the public service unions. In the course of this process the FEMPI Act 2013 was introduced to give effect to the 2013 pay reduction for those earning over €65,000, the parallel reduction in public service pensions and other contingent measures to enable the Government achieve its savings requirements. To support and underpin the successful conclusion of negotiations with public service staff interests, the FEMPI Act 2013 also included a provision to amend the 2009 Act by including therein a new section 2B which gave individual Ministers the power to reduce non-basic pay such as rates of premium pay, overtime pay, and so on or to increase the working hours of individual public servants. Section 2B was a limited contingency measure that might have been required to secure the necessary savings in the public service pay bill in the absence of any agreement. The subsequent Haddington Road agreement, in addition to providing for a reduction in the public service pay and pensions bill of up to €l billion in the period 2013 to 2016, also addressed all matters relating to working hours and non-basic pay. The agreement has produced a significant dividend to the public finances while maintaining industrial peace and represents a key element of the Government's fiscal consolidation policy to meet the targeted general government deficit of 3% by 2015. The powers provided under section 2B have not been exercised to date and are unlikely to be exercised in the future. Taking account of the success of the Haddington Road agreement in meeting financial targets, it is difficult to consider circumstances which would now arise where those powers under section 2B could usefully be exercised. Therefore, it is considered that the requirement to have the power in section 2B included on the Statute Book has, in effect, now passed.

The Industrial Relations Acts and, in particular the Industrial Relations Act 1990, form the statutory basis for the current system of industrial relations in Ireland. The 1990 Act established the Labour Relations Commission, LRC, and provided access via the LRC to the Labour Court for workers and employers as a final court of appeal in relation to trade disputes. This Bill will rationalise and merge the overall State industrial relations machinery, although the LRC, to be renamed the workplace relations commission, and the Labour Court and the functions they currently provide, will fundamentally continue.

Section 23 of the 1990 Act sets out the categories of workers who can avail of the LRC and the Labour Court. This excludes persons employed by the State, although section 23(3)(a) gives the power to the Minister to designate those employed by the State to be entitled to avail of the LRC and Labour Court. However, there is a provision in section 23(3)(a) explicitly excluding established civil servants within the meaning of the Civil Service Regulation Act 1956 from being allowed to have access to the LRC and the Labour Court. Consequently, industrial relations matters for civil servants are currently managed through the conciliation and arbitration scheme for the Civil Service. A majority of the Civil Service unions have now sought to move away from the conciliation and arbitration scheme and wish to gain access for civil servants to the State industrial relations machinery which exists under the Industrial Relations Acts and which will be rationalised and merged under this Bill.

The amendment to section 23(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 is to remove the phrase, "(other than established civil servants within the meaning of the Civil Service Regulation Act, 1956)" so that section 23(3)(a) will state: "The Minister for (Public Expenditure and Reform) may from time to time designate for the purpose of subsection 1 any persons employed by virtue of section 30(1)(g) of the Defence Act, 1954, or employed by or under the State." While this amendment will enable the inclusion of established civil servants in the normal industrial relations machinery of the State, substantial preparatory work is envisaged in conjunction with Civil Service unions and human resource units in Departments and agencies to prepare for any change.

Both of the amendments which I am introducing, while not directly pertaining to the content of the Bill, will benefit the effective implementation of the revised industrial relations machinery and processes proposed in the Bill.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am generally supportive of the amendments but wonder if they would not be more suited to the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill rather than the Workplace Relations Bill 2014 given that they relate more directly to terms, conditions and contracts rather than the industrial relations machinery of the State. However, I welcome the amendments, particularly those to the FEMPI legislation.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

11 o’clock

Before dealing with the content of the motion, it would be wrong for me not to highlight the terrible manner in which this legislation is being put through. Despite the lengthy consultative period and nearly €200,000 being spent on professional fees, the Department and the Minister of State's colleagues have undermined the work by hammering the Bill through the Oireachtas in such a short space of time. It rubs salt into the wound that the Minister of State is now seeking to piggyback on to it the amendments to the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act, the Industrial Relations Act and the Organisation of Working Time Act.

Despite the publication of this Bill a few short months ago, the Department and the Minister of State's colleague submitted 90 pages of amendments on Committee Stage, which was taken only last Thursday. Deputies were provided with one working day to submit amendments to this legislation. The Minister of State's colleague, the Minister, Deputy Bruton, when in opposition took a far more critical tone with Ministers who rushed through legislation. In 2009 he stated to the Minister for Finance in this Chamber that any seasoned legislator will confirm that rushed legislation is often flawed legislation. The Irish Water legislation is the most obvious evidence for that foresight of the Minister of State's colleague in 2009.

We welcome the removal of section 2B of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2009. My colleague, Deputy McDonald, sought the deletion of this intolerable provision when the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform introduced it last year. As the Minister of State knows, this amendment to the FEMPI legislation was an abrasive attempt by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform to strong-arm public servants as they were casting their vote on the Haddington Road agreement. It is very interesting that the briefing note supplied by the Minister of State's Department on this amendment states that unions and staff representatives have reflected that its inclusion in the FEMPI legislation fundamentally compromised the voluntary system of industrial relations in Ireland and had no place in a system of collective bargaining, but that is exactly what we said a year ago. This is not news to the Minister of State or to his Cabinet colleagues. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, stated this clear intent last year when he introduced the provision. He said it was a contingency provision and was designed in the event of non-agreement by public servants to the Haddington Road agreement. The Minister of State has repeatedly argued for maintaining the voluntary nature of Ireland's industrial relations system and yet his colleague, the Minister, Deputy Bruton, voted for that legislation, as did he.

The Minister of State stated that it is timely and essential that any existing legislative provisions that might impede the revision of industrial relations machinery be removed as part of the implementation of the Workplace Relations Bill. Aontaím leis go huile agus go hiomlán. Section 2B is not some leftover legislation from the distant past. This legislation was introduced by the Minister of State's Government just last year and signed off by the Cabinet before it reached the floor of the Dáil.

To use this legislative process in such a cynical fashion is deeply disappointing and yet another example of this failed democratic revolution. Sinn Féin supports the proposed amendment to the Industrial Relations Act 1990 and welcomes the Minister of State's statement that there is no significant reason to continue to restrict access to the industrial relations machinery of the State to civil servants. That is a very important position taken by the Government. It would be helpful if the Minister of State could give details on the consultation that will take place between the public service committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court and the timeframe within which a decision will be made on the future move away from the conciliation and arbitration scheme to the workplace relations committee.

Séamus Healy (Tipperary South, Workers and Unemployed Action Group)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Workplace Relations Bill and would like to refer, in particular, to the question of pensions and the wholesale destruction and closure of pension schemes and the changing of schemes from defined benefit to defined contribution schemes, which has been ongoing in the workplace over the past number of years. Those changes mean huge losses for workers in those schemes.

I refer specifically to the huge loss being proposed for deferred pensioners under the Irish Airlines Superannuation Scheme, IASS. These pensioners are being treated particularly badly, are being discriminated against and are suffering huge losses under the scheme. The long serving deferred, as they are known, face the greatest loss because the co-ordination deduction is at the highest level possible for them. They will not benefit from the re-evaluation included in the expert panel recommendations as that does not commence until after five years. It is quite clear that deferred pensioners have been targeted because they have no power and no representation. It is essential that they are treated fairly and equitably and that amendments are made to legislation to ensure that is the case.

I would like to put on the record details of pensioners who have been in touch with me in regard to this issue. One pensioner said they were looking for equitable treatment for deferred pensioners, that they were employed by Aer Lingus for 40 years and were also a member of the pension fund for 40 years. They said they were now 64 years of age, were encouraged to take redundancy at the age of 60 and were provided with a contract guaranteeing their Aer Lingus pension and old age contributory pension. They also said they have now been informed by the pension fund that they will lose 50% of their pension and that if they had already been receiving a pension, they would only lose 10% and that as deferred members of the scheme who worked for Aer Lingus in England are guaranteed the same rights as pensioners, it seems grossly unfair that deferred pensioners in Ireland are not protected.

Another lady wrote to me saying that she was a deferred member of the IASS, that she was 59 years of age and that when she was made redundant, she was guaranteed that she would receive her full unco-ordinated pension when she reached the age of 65. It is proposed that her pension entitlement will now be reduced by 64% and she said she cannot survive such a draconian pension cut. She went on to say that on her death, her spouse will be expected to live on 50% of the proposed savagely reduced pension. She said that employees of Aer Lingus and the Dublin Airport Authority will be entitled to jobseeker's benefit until they reach the State pension age of 66, 67 or 68, whichever it may be, but her pension will have the State pension proportion deducted from the date she receives her first payment.

These pensioners are being very badly treated and are being discriminated against. I urge the Minister of State and the Tánaiste to ensure an amendment is brought forward to ensure these pensioners get fair and equitable treatment under the schemes.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is ironic that we are having a special session today to move amendments which the Minister of State wants to bring forward but that Deputies received telephone calls this morning to tell them that amendments they had submitted were not relevant to this Bill. It shows, as Deputy Tóibín said, a ham-fisted approach to what is supposed to be the most comprehensive review of the industrial relations machinery of the State. I do not have a major problem with the amendments the Minister of State proposes but make the point that they must be seen in the context of other very serious issues which are not addressed in the Bill.

We are talking about the key area of workers’ rights. Having rights is one thing but being able to exercise them is an entirely different matter. In order to vindicate those rights, a person must first have access to the industrial relations machinery of the State.

A key group of workers is excluded although this Bill should accommodate them, the pensioners who retain a live link with their employer because their pension is affected. Until now, the door to the industrial relations machinery has been shut to them. The Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and the Minister for Social Protection have acknowledged that this system is an anomaly and needs to be addressed. It is not good enough that thousands of aviation pensioners will, at the start of January, experience a dramatic cut in their pension entitlements. The trustees have put forward a proposal that will see them lose six weeks of their income. They had no say in that process which went through the industrial relations machinery of the State and involved active members of that pension scheme, but neither the current pensioners nor the deferred groups had a voice in that process. That is absolutely reprehensible because some of the people who had a vote on the pension entitlements of others were not even members of the pension scheme. The vote organised by some of the unions in Aer Lingus involved people who were members of Aer Lingus Ireland whose employees are not members of the Irish Airlines Superannuation Scheme, IASS, pension scheme. It is a double kick. People not involved in that scheme decided on the living conditions of pensioners and pensioners did not have a voice. The other group are the deferred pensioners. These issues must be addressed.

It beggars belief that we are told a workplace relations Bill is not an appropriate forum to discuss this and that our amendments are not relevant because they sought to give pensioners as individuals and as a group an active voice in that process. It is a joke. We will deal much more comprehensively with the cuts imposed on the pensioners in respect of the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2014. The big picture remains to be addressed and people who have a live link with their pension scheme must be incorporated into this Bill or else this Bill only covers rights for some workers but not others.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not sure what I will be allowed to speak about on Report Stage because some of my amendments have been ruled out of order but I do not understand why.

We are talking about improving the system to provide a cleaner operation for workers to access the system so that their complaints can be dealt with efficiently and for the employer to deal more efficiently with a complaint coming his way. The Minister of State will have to forgive me for feeling that, in the lifetime of this Government, more rules, regulations and legislation have been introduced that facilitate big business rather than the employee and the employee is in a poorer position today than he was three and a half years ago. I was present for the beginning of the Committee Stage debate on this Bill when Deputy Tóibín of Sinn Féin complained that Rhatigan workers received only €5 an hour and he filibustered in order to draw attention to this. Those workers have been on strike and picketing for a long time. The system for dealing with their complaint is very slow. If it was the other way around, the system would deal with the problem more quickly. We have passed legislation here through the night to facilitate large institutions but the workers picketing are waiting months for a resolution.

Section 36 of the Bill deals with a fine for employers found guilty of paying less than the minimum wage, but €2,000 will not frighten many employers. This section should be changed so that the penalty for employers who have the audacity to pay workers less than the minimum wage is greater. It is outrageous that they would try it, get away with it and then be fined only €2,000. It makes a mockery of the structure. Under the same section, it seems the employer is not allowed to appeal the fine, unless I am reading it wrong. He should be allowed to appeal it because he is entitled to his rights too. The State needs to take much more seriously the potential for employers to pay less than the minimum wage and the fines must be much greater for each individual case where they do that.