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

Workers who are members of Unite the Union and SIPTU have been on strike action at Premier Periclase in Drogheda for almost a month now. This dispute has already gone on for longer than is necessary. I lay the blame for the fact that no settlement has been reached firmly at the door of an intransigent management and an operation that appears to be hell-bent on busting trade union activity and presence at the plant.

The context is that workers initially received a democratic mandate for strike action at the plant in July following a sudden decision, taken outside the agreed framework, to shut down sections of the plant temporarily. Trade unions then agreed to defer action to allow for a resolution of the issues at play under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC. Respect for our industrial relations institutions should be a cornerstone of workplace democracy but management instead gave the two fingers to our institutions and the workers and failed to engage meaningfully in any real negotiations. No worker ever wants to be on strike but the workers at Premier Periclase simply have no choice. They have to defend their hard-won rights and I stand with them.

This dispute became entrenched with a letter issued by local management to individual workers on 21 August. This letter is an insult to those workers who have given loyal service to the plant over many decades. It was threatening in the extreme and stated management would not negotiate with workers on strike action and would not deal with the workers' established unions of choice. Management plans to eviscerate workers' terms and conditions unilaterally. The high-handed and arrogant missive was designed to tear up a collective agreement that has been in place since 1998 and that has served the company well.

This week, the Government and my party rightly slammed the British Government for reneging on a solemn deal made with the European Union, including Ireland. An agreement freely made is an agreement. The Minister of State's reply will, of course, inevitably tell me these issues need to be resolved through the industrial relations institutions of the State in the context of the WRC and by having both sides of industry come together in that spirit. Would the Minister of State call on the company, in the spirit of respecting agreements that are made, to honour the one it made with its workers in 1998 and show them the respect that they deserve and to which their loyalty entitles them?

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The dispute in Premier Periclase is not about extra money. The workers are not looking for extra money. The company's proposal is to lay off workers and put them on reduced hours while transferring work to non-union labour and retaining contractors on site. When the proposals were first put to the workers, management continuously refused point blank to engage with them. The workers had no option, therefore, but to serve notice of strike action. The workers then suspended the notice of strike action to allow for talks to take place at the WRC. Management once again refused to engage in any meaningful way in talks at the WRC and hence the talks collapsed. Workers then had no option but to reissue a notice of strike action. That strike commenced on Monday, 17 August. Four days into the strike action, the company issued a letter, by taxi, to the homes of the workers. With regard to the long-standing collective agreement that had been in place, the company said it would no longer operate as a closed shop, that employees would no longer have their union dues deducted through payroll by the company, that the collective agreement with SIPTU and Unite the Union would no longer form part of workers' terms and conditions of employment and that the collective agreement is no longer valid. Management took a decision unilaterally to render the long-standing collective agreement null and void. That should not happen in this State because workers' rights have been long and hard fought for in this State.

Talks resumed last week at the WRC. Once again, the intransigence of management at Premier Periclase was such that its representatives refused to sit around the table and engage with the unions. As a result, there is still a stand-off, the result being the nullification of the long-standing collective agreement and an attempt at union-busting. Will the Minister of State engage with management to encourage it to take part in the industrial relations process?

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank both Deputies Nash and Munster for raising this matter and giving me an opportunity to respond on behalf of my Department and its Minister, Deputy Humphreys.

3 o’clock

I understand the dispute relates to issues, including a collective agreement, among others that have developed over the past couple of months. I emphasise that Ireland's system of industrial relations is essentially voluntary in nature and responsibility for the resolution of industrial disputes between employers and workers rests, in the first instance, with the employer, the workers and the representatives.

I understand that in this case some level of engagement with the State-sponsored industrial relation mechanisms, that is, the WRC, has taken place as outlined by both of the previous Deputies and from our own information. I reiterate that the WRC is available to any interested parties that require it and urge all sides to involve themselves in that. As part of its functions, the WRC provides information relating to employment entitlements, obligations, equality and industrial relations matters. Any discussions entered into voluntarily by the workers and employers with one of the State's industrial bodies, the WRC or the Labour Court are confidential to the parties and I, as Minister of State, have no role in or knowledge of these discussions.

It has been a consistent policy of successive Governments to promote collective bargaining through the laws of this country and through the development of an institutional framework supportive of a voluntary system of industrial relations premised on freedom of contract and freedom of association. An extensive range of statutory provisions have been designed to back up the voluntary bargaining process. Freedom of association and the right to organise and bargain collectively are also guaranteed in a number of international instruments, which the State has ratified and is, therefore, bound to uphold under international law.

Since 1946, the Labour Court has provided an industrial relations service whereby disputes in which parties have been unable to resolve issues, themselves or with the assistance of the WRC, can be temporarily referred to the Labour Court for an opinion in the form of a recommendation of the court, which is not binding on the parties. The vast majority of industrial relations recommendations are accepted voluntarily by the parties.

The Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, which came into effect on 1 August 2015, provides a clear and balanced mechanism by which the fairness of the employment conditions of workers in their totality can be assessed in employments where collective bargaining cannot take place, and brings clarity or certainty for employers in terms of managing their workplaces in this respect. It also provides strong protection for workers who invoke the provisions of the industrial relations Acts, 2001 and 2004, or who have acted as a witness or a comparator for the purposes of those Acts. It ensures that where an employer is engaged in collective bargaining with an internal accepted body as opposed to a trade union then that body must satisfy the Labour Court as to its independence of the employer.

Legislation ensures the retention of Ireland's voluntary system of industrial relations. However, it also ensures that where an employer chooses not to engage in collective bargaining, either with a trade union or an internal accepted body, and where the number of employees on whose behalf the matter is being pursued is significant, an effective framework exists that allows a trade union to have the union relation and terms and conditions of its members in that employment assessed against relevant comparatives and determined by the Labour Court if necessary.

Both Deputies have asked me to comment on the management. I will be clear on this. We generally ask in these cases that both sides engage as they have been doing already but to re-engage, if necessary, with the mechanisms that are in place and that have served the State well.

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

It is not beyond the bounds of normal industrial relations practice for a Minister or any other Member to call on a company to respect and honour an agreement. We asked the British Government this week to respect and honour an agreement they made with Ireland and the EU and I expect that this House would unite in requesting Premier Periclase to honour an agreement it made with its workers in 1998.

I am glad, in many respects, that the Minister of State mentioned the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2015, which I authored and which introduces some important protections and measures to promote collective bargaining in the context of what is a difficult constitutional environment. Sadly, however, the programme for Government that was authored by Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and the Green Party is virtually a workers' rights-free document. If employers think they can hollow out the pay and terms and conditions and bust trade union activity in factories and workplaces throughout this country, and that is a route to economic recovery, they are sadly mistaken.

Does the Minister of State feel that it is time to finally and ultimately grasp that collective bargaining mettle in this country and that, whether the initiative will come from the EU or from Ireland, we finally address this long-running sore in our economy and society to provide people with full trade union and collective bargaining rights, even if that means addressing it through a constitutional amendment?

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Given what we outlined about the company's clear attempts at union busting and to erode any long-standing collective agreement, I would have thought the Minister of State's first gut instinct would be to say we must protect workers' rights in this State and that he would certainly write to the company to ask it to engage with the State apparatus that is in place to resolve these disputes, that is, the WRC. That is what I would do were I a Minister. I would initially be concerned and say that if this company can get away with it then other companies will see that and it will be a race to the bottom for workers' rights. The Minister of State did not share that concern at all. While that is not surprising, it is extremely disappointing.

Workers took a pay but of 5% in 2016 when the company said it was in trouble. The company is no longer in trouble and hence in January of this year it gave a 20% pay increase to all of its CEOs, of which there are many. The workers want to engage with the WRC and they want the management to sit down and engage with talks. They want a resolution but they cannot be expected to get back to work where the terms and conditions are undefined. This is a workers' rights issue. The Minister of State should have it within him to stand up for workers' rights.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy, please.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It will take nothing out of him. Will he write to the company in the interest of workers' rights and out of respect for the WRC, the State apparatus, the long and hard-fought battle for workers rights' and the long-standing collective agreement in place? Will he write to the company and ask it to engage with the WRC around the table with the workers?

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Deputy please respect the Chair? I know it is difficult but we have another Topical Issue debate to get to. I ask for her co-operation.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I reiterate that Ireland's system of industrial relations is voluntary in nature and responsibility for the resolution of industrial relations issues lies ultimately with employers, workers and their respective representatives as appropriate. I could not be any clearer and I said twice in my opening contribution that I expect all sides to engage with the industrial relations process. That is what I have asked for.

I believe we are fortunate in Ireland in terms of the industrial relations systems we have developed and to which we are committed. In my previous address in the House a few weeks ago in this area, I acknowledged Deputy Nash and the great work he did on the 2015 Act. We have committed in the programme for Government to review changes of our collective bargaining and to strengthen that position. I recognise the Deputy was a former Minister of State who has strengthened the system in this area and I compliment him on that.

It has been the consistent policy of successive Governments to support the development of an institutional framework supportive of a voluntary system of industrial relations. There has been a consensus among the social partners that the terms and conditions of employment of workers are best determined through the process of voluntary bargaining between employers and workers and between employers' associations and trade unions or staff associations. This approach has served us well over the years and has resolved a large number of high-profile disputes.

In general, our laws do not try to impose a solution on parties to a trade dispute but rather are designed to support the parties in resolving their differences. The State has, by and large, confined its role to underpinning the voluntarism through the provision of a framework and institutions through which good industrial relations can and have prospered, on most occasions. As I said in my opening contribution, the vast majority of industrial relations recommendations are accepted voluntarily by the parties where employer and employee representatives come together and enter into voluntary agreements to resolve their differences. It is a win-win situation with buy-in from both sides. While I have no direct role in these matters, I stand by the professionalism of the industrial relations machinery of the State that are always available to facilitate solutions where both parties are prepared to work with those institutions.

There has been some engagement in this case, although I am not privy to the detail of that. I ask that this engagement should continue to try to get a resolution to this issue. I encourage all sides to make every effort to reach a resolution by agreement between companies and workers with the help of the industrial relations machinery of the State. I commend the work they do.