Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Last week, I organised an AV room briefing on the campaign to reinstate the Murphy Four. The four men are members of the Unite trade union. I invited Deputies and Senators to hear about the appalling treatment and the dismissal of these workers by the engineering and construction company, J. Murphy and Sons Limited, also more commonly known as Murphy International.

Before Christmas 2022, four Unite members working for Murphy International in Limerick were dismissed. That four included one Unite shop steward. Unite believes that the workers were unfairly singled out, victimised and targeted for what was essentially legitimate trade union activity. Our workplaces will never be safe for any worker, as long as workers' representatives are not protected from victimisation. Between them, the men had 50 years of service and my understanding is without a blemish of any record. They had given good and loyal service to that company.

One of the men was not able to travel on the day, but he sent a letter. I will read part of it into the record. He wrote that:

It is hard to put into words how my dismissal has affected me and my family. The whole dismissal process seemed so unfair. Many people took the...exact same action yet only four were dismissed. It is hard to see how this can be justified.

Following my dismissal, I found it very difficult to get social welfare. It was decided that because I had been dismissed, unfairly I would add, that I was not entitled to it. I had to fight a case that went on for months during which time I received no payment despite having paid PRSI my entire adult life. I ended up having to take an appeal...[which was] eventually decided in my favour. I found this whole process so humiliating....

It has been very difficult for me to obtain another job, having been left in my 50s without a reference from my previous employer...

I am now taking a case to the WRC [but] I am told this could take years.

Now, I understand, because I have been on both sides of this, that there is a limit to what the Government can do. I also understand, though, that no Government should stand over treatment like this, not while the same Government is engaged in contracts with the company concerned. These men were dismissed, as the union said, for legitimate trade union activity. They were not organising for the goal of seeking a massive pay increase, but to simply have the recognised rate for the job applied to them, as well as the terms and conditions to go along with that. They did not have those and they were perfectly entitled to seek them. These men, however, now find themselves in a situation where, because they were dismissed, they have struggled to access social welfare payments.

We have seen employers take to the courts to challenge employment regulation orders, EROs. Effectively, what happens is that the increases and terms due to workers just get caught up in a legal process. Meanwhile, in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, workers cannot access what is the generally agreed rate for their job. Many of these employers know this, and what happened in respect of what we call the Murphy Four was very calculated. The company is exploiting a significant shortfall in the unfair dismissals legislation. It is nearly worth an employer's time to take a chance in this regard because the compensation is so small for a worker in the case of unfair dismissal. It is very hard to prove and the compensation is very small when it is proven.

The impact of this situation on these workers has been phenomenal. My main request today is for the Government to lend its support to the campaign. I do not expect to see any Ministers or Ministers of State taking to picket lines or protests, but this is a company that has major contracts with the State. These workers were not looking for a massive pay rise, and even if they were there is nothing outrageous about doing that, but simply for the application of what is generally accepted to be the pay rate for the job.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a difficulty because this is not a court. This is a conversation about a matter referred to by the Deputy that may, in fact, go in front of a court in terms of a dispute resolution process. I have every sympathy with every workplace issue, but without getting into the details of any individuals or any company. This is not a conversation I believe should be happening in this Chamber, particularly when there are potentially live matters at stake for a different statutory dispute resolution body and where reputational issues are involved as well. I will not, therefore, get into this issue. This is a Chamber for debating the dispute resolution and industrial relations mechanisms generally, but not at an individual level. This is not a court.

Ireland's system of industrial relations is well set out in statute law. It is important that the autonomy of employee and employer bodies and their respective members are respected in resolving their differences through the statutory system. The State provides the industrial relations disputes settlement mechanisms, including the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, to which the Deputy has referred, and the Labour Court, to support parties in their efforts to resolve their differences. The WRC and the Labour Court are independent, statutory bodies. They are independent of this House. It has been the consistent policy of successive Governments to develop an institutional framework supportive of that system and it is premised on the freedom of contract, the freedom of association and the articulation of rights through a statutory resolution process which is well set out in law and agreed by this House.

There is an extensive range of statutory provisions designed to back up that system. The Unfair Dismissal Acts 1977 to 2016 provide for a number of grounds under which a dismissal may be considered unfair, including membership or proposed membership of a trade union or engaging in trade union activities, whether within permitted times during work or outside of working hours.

Again, I do not want to get into specifics. In any situation, however, where parties can come together in an effort to resolve issues outside a court and a formal dispute resolution process, it is generally better for the parties involved. Where that cannot be achieved, though, there is the capacity to refer a complaint to the WRC under the Unfair Dismissal Acts 1977 to 2016 and complaints will, I hope, be fairly heard by an adjudicating officer. I do not believe this is the Chamber for discussing individual matters of this kind and, frankly, I am surprised by this.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will use my time here to raise issues concerning workers and workers' rights, as is my right. Indeed, if there was any prospect of this debate being ruled out of order, it would not be happening. It is entirely appropriate to raise issues where victimisation is alleged and where the industrial relations mechanisms are not working for the people involved. This is a simple fact. Some of these workers will have to wait, potentially, for years now. We could get into a debate about how the Government has underfunded the WRC and we could probably be here all day talking about that. I do not thank the Minister of State, though, for a lecture about what is and is not contained within the industrial relations machinery. I know this. I also know there have been many debates on the floor of this Chamber on many occasions regarding workers' rights because this is an appropriate forum. I organised the briefing in the audiovisual room because I wanted to make our Deputies and Senators aware of what was happening and of this serious issue, and put on the record that while this is going on the Government has contracts or subcontracts with the company involved.

I welcome that the Minister of State is urging the parties to come together, but is she going to or is she prepared to do anything more than that? I ask this because these workers have, effectively, been locked out of their workplace. They want to be reinstated. They just want their jobs back. In their opinion, they have done nothing wrong and this matter may well be before the WRC at some point, but that is not a court either. This House is most definitely not a court, but it is a debating Chamber and I am entitled to ask on behalf of people what it is the Government might be prepared to do.

The Minister of State's script states that she "would urge the parties to come together in an effort to resolve the issues". Is she prepared to do any more than that? Does she think it is acceptable that these workers have, effectively, been locked out of their workplace? What they want to do is to get back to work. What they want to be able to do is to go back to earning money, which they had been doing to keep body and soul together.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What I said, irrespective of the script, was that I urge all parties to resolve their difficulties, without getting into the specifics of any individual case. The Deputy is entitled to use her time her way and I am also entitled to express my opinion. I am also entitled to say that the reason I do not want to get into the specifics, and I do not know if the Deputy has assumed bad faith or something on my part, is that I do not wish to prejudice any future process. This is a matter that may go to a dispute resolution mechanism and I do not wish to prejudice any party by discussing it in the Dáil in advance of that happening. Ireland has a robust suite of employment rights and legislation to protect and support workers and the predictability and stability of that framework is extremely important. Everybody must comply with that. I do not want to get into commenting on the merits of an individual case in this Chamber, as it is a matter that the industrial relations bodies of the State can, and may yet, deal with. I do not, therefore, wish to risk prejudicing any party in this regard by discussing this matter as an individual case in this Chamber.

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

I do not think that the Deputy was discussing the details of the case. I very much appreciate what the Minister of State is saying and I am very aware of it, but regarding the details of the case, and the Deputy is experienced in respect of industrial relations, I do not think-----

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think great detail was provided.

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

Well, I think the Deputy was looking at the role of the Government in this matter.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will have to go back and look-----

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

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

The answers and the questions have been given. I see it from both sides.