Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I compliment the Minister of State, Deputy Nash, on the good work he has been doing in this general area over a period of time. The particular issue I am addressing is a serious one. A date for strike action has been agreed for 2 April by Mandate after every effort was exhausted to try to bring Dunnes Stores to the table to negotiate and use the industrial relations machinery.

I request the Minister of State to use his good offices in whatever way he can to try to persuade Dunnes Stores management to address the issues of conflict between the parties, come to the Labour Court and enter into what would be regarded as normal industrial relations discussions. That is the nub of the matter and it is not unprecedented. Over the last 20 years, Dunnes Stores has been before the Labour Court six times. Therefore, while the company is reluctant to do so at the present time, nevertheless there is a precedent.

The workers at Dunnes Stores are campaigning on four key issues. They are seeking secure hours and incomes, which they do not have at present. Virtually everything is precarious, given the number of hours involved, including zero hour contracts and low pay. They are seeking secure jobs, fair pay and the right to be represented by their trade union. Unfortunately, none of these elements is available at present. The precarious nature of their employment makes it impossible for employees to earn enough for a decent standard of living or to plan for their families' future.

Some 70% of Dunnes Stores' employees are women. Earlier today, we had a meeting with the workers and their Mandate trade union. They informed Members of this House about the issues at stake. One of the women said that of the 69 people working in her Dunnes Stores premises, only one had a permanent contract. All the others are on part-time, low-hours or zero hour contracts. It is incredible in this day and age that there is that level of uncertainty about the work place in a major outlet. We are talking about a huge workforce comprising 10,000 employees in 122 stores in the Republic of Ireland. It is an Irish company that has roughly 24% of the market in this country. The company should be exemplary in showing the way forward on pay, working conditions and industrial relations.

I am bringing these issues to the Minister of State's attention to see how best we can address them. The decision to embark on industrial action was taken as a last resort when Mandate balloted its members. Some 67% of the members voted in the ballot, of which 67% voted for strike action. Therefore, this industrial action has strong support among the workforce which mainly comprises women. In that sense there is a further gender gap in low pay that needs to be addressed.

I acknowledge the Minister of State's work in the area of precarious employment, including zero hour and low hour contracts. He has established the Low Pay Commission to deal with minimum pay. In addition, the Cabinet has agreed to ensure that legislation on collective bargaining mechanisms will be introduced.

All of these come together as regards what we are talking about today. Specifically, we need to ensure that every effort is made in order that Dunnes Stores would come to the negotiating table and that there would be a satisfactory solution without having to embark on industrial action. Certainly, if there is industrial action on this issue with this cohort of people, I do not see any reason everybody in this House should not be in favour of the workforce.

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

I thank Deputy Costello for raising this important matter and articulating very clearly the experiences of some of the employees, which he outlined earlier. A presentation was made to Oireachtas colleagues today by members of the Mandate trade union, many of whom are working in Dunnes Stores. I also want to acknowledge the Deputy's recognition of the work I have carried out with Government colleagues in terms of the dignity at work and dignity of work agenda, enhancing employment rights and making sure that work always pays.

I understand that the current dispute revolves around a range of issues, including the introduction of banded hours contracts, individual and collective representational rights and a review of the use of temporary contracts. Mandate trade union is seeking to engage with the company on these issues and the matter was referred by the union to the Labour Court under section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 in October of last year.

The company was not represented at the Labour Court hearing. In this regard, the court found it regrettable that the company declined to participate in the investigation of the dispute or to put forward its position on the union's claims. In its recommendations of 14 November 2014, the Labour Court reaffirmed earlier recommendations it had made by noting that the company and the union were parties to a collective agreement signed in 1996 which provides a procedural framework within which industrial relations disputes and differences arising between the parties can be resolved by negotiation and dialogue. The Labour Court pointed out that the dictates of good industrial relations practice requires parties to honour their collective agreements in both spirit and intent.

I am disappointed that the company decided against attending the Labour Court hearing, contrary to good industrial relations practice. In my view, the experience and expertise of the Labour Court offers the most appropriate and effective avenue for resolving such issues. I urge both parties to avail of the services of the State's industrial relations machinery, which remains available to assist the parties if requested. It is my opinion that engagement with the State's industrial relations machinery offers the best way whereby the parties involved in this dispute can hope to resolve their differences. As the Deputy knows, neither the Labour Court nor the Minister can compel a company to comply with such recommendations. Ultimately, responsibility for the settlement of a trade dispute rests with the parties to the dispute. However, I would like to see an early and fair settlement to this dispute.

As regards zero hour contracts, in accordance with the statement of Government priorities, the Deputy will be aware and has acknowledged that I recently commissioned the University of Limerick, UL, to carry out a study into the prevalence of zero hour and low hour contracts and the impact of such contracts on employees. The appointment of UL follows a competitive tendering process. This is the first time that any Government has taken such a keen interest in this area. Without pre-empting the outcomes of the report, if there is a need to legislate to address issues raised, we will do so.

The key objectives of the study are to fill the gap in knowledge that currently exists in terms of the data and information that is available concerning the prevalence of zero hour and low hour contracts, to assess the impact of zero hour and low hour contracts on employees and to enable me as Minister of State to make any evidence-based policy recommendations to Government considered necessary on foot of the study. The study will have a broad scope, covering both public and private sectors, with a particular focus on the retail, hospitality, education and health sectors. The study will also consider recent developments in other jurisdictions, including the UK in particular. The study will also identify how the information gap might be addressed in future.

Unlike the position in the UK, section 18 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 provides that where employees on zero hour contracts suffer a loss by not being given the hours they were requested to work or be available for work, they can be compensated for 25% of the time or 15 hours, whichever is less. There is no equivalent provision in the UK, where employees on zero hour contracts are only paid for time spent working and if they are not given any hours by their employer they receive no compensation.

It is worth noting that while the proportion of Irish workers who are on temporary contracts rose slightly during the recession, reaching 10.5% in 2011, it has since fallen back to the pre-recession level of 9.5% and remains significantly below the EU average of 14.4%. The Central Statistics Office data for February 2015 indicates that the share of casual and part-time workers on the live register was down by over 11% when compared to February 2014, equivalent of over 9,000 workers. The cumulative decrease is 17,625 workers since February 2013. Of the jobs that were created last year, 94% were full-time jobs.

The Deputy will appreciate that I cannot anticipate the outcome of the study or the Government's consideration of the study's findings.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for his reply and am delighted he has indicated he is pressurising both sides to come together in so far as he can, to attend the Labour Court and resolve their difficulties and the gap between them as quickly as possible and in a fair manner.

The message that should be coming tonight is that there is excellent industrial relations machinery here that can resolve virtually any situation if it is adhered to by the companies involved and if they participate properly. On this occasion, Dunnes Stores has refused to go to the Labour Court despite the criticism by the Labour Court of their refusal to do so. It is not too late to do it - there is until 2 April and I urge them strongly to attend the Labour Court and to seek a resolution to the matter. The alternative is industrial action or strike that could go on for a considerable period and put in jeopardy employment prospects for the future. Recognising the fact that 76% of the workers in Dunnes Stores are on either part time or flexible contracts throughout the country, there is clearly an issue to be addressed.

There is the immediate issue and then the broader issue of low pay and I am delighted the Minister of State is addressing that in a comprehensive fashion. The situation that arises is totally unacceptable because it means that so many people in the workforce are vulnerable. They are vulnerable to bullying, threats, intimidation and loss of hours. They cannot have the proper dignity of the workplace if they can be called in to work but are paid nothing and sent home if there is no work there, or if there is variation in work from day to day and week to week. It is an inhumane fashion of treating people and it is high time there was a proper structure put in place to ensure that people are treated in a reasonable and dignified fashion and that they can have a career in the retail industry that allows them a living wage with decent conditions.

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

In these type of circumstances, of course the question will be asked as to how the Government can help to address a situation like this where an employer refuses to engage with its workforce. It is to address these very kinds of circumstances that I am drafting new collective bargaining legislation which we will enact as a Government in mid 2015. Deputy Costello will be only too well aware that this is a key commitment of the Labour Party and indeed Fine Gael in government, which was reflected again in the Taoiseach's and Tánaiste's statement of priorities as recently as last July.

I will legislate for an improved framework for workers who seek to improve their terms and conditions where there are no arrangements in place with their employers to do so through a collective bargaining system. This new system will give confidence to workers in employment where there is no collective bargaining. They will have a robust and effective legal system that will ensure they can air their grievances about pay, terms and conditions and have these determined based on comparators with relevant and similar companies and, crucially, where they cannot and will not be victimised for doing so. I understand the Labour Court, a key labour relations institution in this State which we all know commands the respect of employers, trade unions and the public, made this point as recently as last November:

"The Company, contrary to the terms of the 1996 Collective Agreement, has refused to engage with the Union on those grievances either in direct talks, through the LRC or at the Labour Court."

I understand that Mandate Trade Union has referred matters concerning the effective non-utilisation of what is now a 20 year old agreement to the court on several occasions in the past five years or so. What has occurred does not serve the interest of anybody. It certainly does not serve the interests of society or the economy or serve the promotion of harmonious industrial relations broadly where any party to any dispute of any description, regardless of whether they are an employer or trade union, might run the risk of being accused of treating the State's highly developed industrial relations institutions in a cavalier fashion. The Deputy will agree with me that nobody takes lightly a decision to take industrial action, and certainly strike action. Strike action hurts both workers and businesses and it is a decision of last resort. I can understand the frustration of the workers involved and their trade union representatives.

This dispute can certainly be avoided. I would like to see it avoided, as would everybody, but it should be in everyone's interest to seek an early, just and fair resolution to it through the professional, respected and trusted industrial relations machinery of the State. The institutions of the State that deal with industrial relations stand available to engage with the parties involved to assist in the delivery of such an outcome.