Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The general election campaign for Fine Gael got off to a very bad start because a video emerged of Michael O'Leary launching the election campaign of Deputy Peter Burke, now the Minister responsible for this area, including, unfortunately, workers' rights, saying the things Fine Gael and its supporters say to each other when they think videos are not on and these things are not going to be public. Michael O'Leary endorsed a Government led by Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil and said: "Let's put two parties back in government that can deliver". He also said: "We need a government that delivers for enterprise ... it’s vital that we elect a government that gets shit done ... I can think of nobody here, certainly in the current government, who demonstrates more action, more energy ... than Peter Burke." Michael O'Leary, of course, is a notoriously anti-worker and anti-trade union employer.

The investment and support of Michael O'Leary has paid off. So far, in just over 100 days of this Government, anti-worker measure after anti-worker measure has been pursued. Previous commitments have been dropped, such as the extension of sick leave, which we were promised at the time. We wanted to stitch the increase in sick leave into the legislation but the Government argued there was no need and that we should not worry because it would do it. It is now being delayed, with Fine Gael proudly trumpeting to business that it is delaying it. There is also the delay of the promised living wage. Just saying that people on the minimum wage should have the very basics of what they need to survive is no longer a commitment by the Government. That was kicked out. The Government has also kicked out something this Dáil voted for, namely, to end the outrageous situation of so-called sub-minimum wages and super-exploitation of young people who are legally paid even less than the minimum wage.

We have a Government that is consciously working against the interests of workers and for the interests of big corporations and the likes of Michael O'Leary. This is the situation in a country where we have immense wealth. We are one of the richest countries in the world, yet we have the highest rate of low pay in the European Union. One in five workers is low paid, representing more than 420,000 workers. On top of that, one in ten workers experience bullying or harassment, there are conditions of precarity and employees here work longer hours and have fewer holidays and less protection against dismissal than their European counterparts. That is rife and part of the so-called voluntaristic model of industrial relations the Government trumpets, which tries to make it difficult for trade unions to organise workers and for workers to get organised. I will provide an example. The people operating cameras for the Oireachtas right now are an example of the kind of conditions of precarity. These are workers doing a job. They should be directly employed by the Oireachtas but they are not. They are outsourced. When there were no Dáil sittings for an extended period when the election was called and then when Government negations were going on, they were not paid at all. The rates they are paid are about half of the normal freelance rates for camera operators and the other work they are doing. It is scandalous but shows this is rife in terms of bad working conditions for workers. Those same workers are faced with grocery and energy prices that are still sky high and rents rising at a rate of approximately 10% a year.

The best way for workers to deal with all of these challenges is to get organised into trade unions and to fight for better terms and conditions. Even with the terrible legal regime in this country and the horrific elements of the Industrial Relations Act 1990, all the evidence shows that if you get organised in a trade union, you will be able to combat bullying and discrimination, improve the atmosphere and safety in your workplace, and increase your wages. All the evidence shows that being in a union gives a premium of at least 10% in wages and a series of other benefits.

The benefits of high levels of unionisation go outside of the workplace. The evidence shows that where there are higher levels of unionisation, there are lower levels of inequality, including wage inequality, across the economy. With higher levels of unionisation, a greater share of the value created by workers goes to the workers themselves as opposed to going to profit. A key reason the balance has shifted with more and more of the wealth created going to corporations is this attack on trade unions, which was heralded by Thatcherism, Reaganism and so on.

The consequence is that while workers in the 1970s were getting 55% of the value that was being created, that has been driven down to 40%. Even under the current regime, workers should join trade unions and transform them into being fighting, democratic organs.

We should be clear that we have a Government that is working against workers getting organised in trade unions. I got an answer to a question to the Minister of State, Deputy Dillon, recently. I asked if he was aware that large employers in receipt of Government contracts, Abtran and RelateCare, which are anti-union employers, with Abtran refusing to engage with the industrial relations machinery, are refusing to recognise trade unions or engage in collective bargaining, and what the Minister of State is going to do about it. The answer I got is the answer that I presume we will get in the speech from the Minister in 13 minutes' time. It stated that we have a "voluntary system of industrial relations that is premised upon freedom of contract and freedom of association. ... The Government fully supports the right of any worker to join and be active in their trade union. Employees have the right under the Constitution to form associations and trade unions" and an employee cannot be discriminated against. It continued, "Under Irish law, there is no requirement for an employer to recognise trade unions for the purpose of collective bargaining."

The Government says that workers have the right to join trade unions but employers have the right not to deal with those trade unions. It is all premised on this illusionary equality between employees and employers, whereas bosses have the cards here. If you do not work, you cannot provide for your family. It is why we have a situation whereby workers have historically combined and have won minimum wages, have the won the weekend, have won 40-hour weeks and so on. It is why workers need to combine and act collectively, but the Government says to employers not to worry, that they can simply ignore the workers and do not need to engage with them.

That is the purpose of this Bill. It introduces mandatory trade union recognition, so that when 20% of a given set of workers join a trade union, the employer is legally mandated to engage with that union through the industrial relations process. That is what it is about. It is very simple. It is about a basic element of democracy in the workplace. It is a measure that is supported, in a recent Ireland Thinks opinion poll, by 70% of people in this country.

An example of a situation it deals with involves the second biggest company in the world, Amazon, owned by the second richest man in the world, Jeff Bezos, a notoriously anti-union individual and employer. The richest man in the world, Elon Musk, is also a notoriously anti-union individual and employer. There is a pattern. We know that Amazon is expanding in Ireland. It now has 6,500 workers. That will increase even further. We know it is renowned for poor working conditions. It denied and then was forced to retract the denial of workers in America being forced to pee in bottles because they are not provided with appropriate breaks, toilet facilities and so on. Huge wealth is being made off the backs of exploited workers in poor conditions. All those workers in Ireland could join a trade union and Amazon could say it is not dealing with them. This is a company that spends about $10,000 a day on fighting unions and trying to keep unions out of its shops. It spent over €10 million in 2022 and 2023 on trying to defeat unionisation. We need to match the effort of those workers in Amazon in this country, fighting to build unions and get organised, with a legislative framework that gives them the right to be in that union and compels the employer to deal with them.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Once again, this is a Bill that has had to be brought before the Dáil because the Irish Government persists with this illusion that people have the right to union representation. It is Orwellian that you have the right to join a union but your employer does not have to recognise it, so you really do not have a right. If the Government is serious about workers' rights, this is a key one. In the early 1980s, about 60% of our workforce were in unions. Now it is one in four. The trade union movement is largely becoming public sector. It is becoming more female because women workers are often located in the public sector. There are now more women than men in trade unions, ironically.

The people who are being particularly ill-served are young people and migrant workers, who also make up a huge part of our workforce. However, over two thirds of non-union members aged 16 to 24 would vote to establish a union if they could. They are positively disposed towards being in unions. Young workers are significantly less secure and more anxious in their work than older counterparts. One in five young workers are worried about losing their job and having a reduction in pay if they join a union. Half of young workers aged 16 to 34 are worried about a reduction in their pay in particular. That survey was done by UCD. It shows how positively disposed towards unions people actually are. However, they are not joining them. I think there are a number of factors there. There is the anti-union culture that pervades private sector workforces. We also have to say that the trade union leadership should be actively recruiting workers in a much more serious way.

We should look at a few things. A positive aspect of this Bill is that it obliges employers to further engage with workers, after recognition, on their wages and conditions. Unions have suffered extreme losses of membership due to the anti-union sentiment, particularly of American multinationals which are consciously attracted here by our Government, yet a message is sent out that people do not join a union and if they do, they will not be tolerated. That is a conscious policy by the Government.

There is an EU directive, which the Government has not implemented, on adequate minimum wages in the EU. It obliges governments to assist where less than 70% are covered by collective bargaining. The Government is meant to make that easier but it ignores this. Owen Reidy, who is the general secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, said, "The government voted for this directive in Brussels over two years ago but has ignored it and obfuscated in Dublin ever since. The Directive is about the state being obliged to promote collective bargaining so workers and employers can negotiate in the workplace and at sectoral level to improve living conditions." There are many other quotes about it from leading figures in the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, saying how unacceptable it is that the Irish Government has not implemented that directive.

I raise strikes for trade union recognition too. I have been involved in supporting workers on such strikes over many years. Companies like Aldi and Lidl, which now proliferate through the country, have a conscious anti-union policy. I supported young workers in Aldi in the early 2000s, who joined the union on Parnell Street and were sacked. In theory, they were not sacked for joining the union because companies cannot do that legally. They find other means to sack them, such as giving them work they cannot do and creating difficult conditions. That is the modus operandi of companies, to flout our Irish law. The retail sector was traditionally very unionised, because workers fought for those rights. There is now a significant anti-union policy, not just in Aldi and Lidl, but in the two big private sector employers in this country, Tesco and Dunnes. Workers there have long-standing trade union memberships but the companies are actively not recognising the workers and their union.

In Tesco, in December 2024, members of Mandate trade union launched public protests following Tesco management's decision to deny workers their right to be represented by their union and its refusal to agree an adequate pay increase. Tesco management is refusing to collectively bargain and is instead imposing its own pay awards on the workers, not what the union is actually fighting for.

This was not due to lack of profits of course - Tesco sales profits rose by 10% but workers only got pay increases of less than 4%. One of the Mandate representatives said the company's actions could only be seen as a clear act of bad faith and textbook union-busting tactics.

I also want to mention Dunnes Stores, an Irish company with a rotten tradition of dealing with trade unions and workers. We know this from going back to the anti-apartheid strike and it has continued to have this policy for 40 years. In 2015, Dunnes workers had to hold a ballot for the right to have their union engaged with by Dunnes. The company also refused - I do not know how the Minister of State feels about this - to recognise Labour Court recommendations. We all know Labour Court recommendations are not compulsory. Workers can also reject them but when they do we hear nothing but abuse of those workers in the media. That does not happen when employers reject them.

It is incredible that very recently, in December 2024, Mandate urged Dunnes Stores to engage on outstanding elements of the comprehensive 2024 pay and benefits claims. The 5% increase they got was a win for Dunnes workers but Mandate highlighted the lack of progress on paid maternity and paternity leave. A growing number of competitors in the retail sector have introduced paid leave for new parents and Mandate believes it is time for Dunnes Stores to do the same. This is one of the biggest companies in the country refusing to give the most basic rights to its workers, particularly women workers who make up a large percentage of its workforce.

We also know the last-minute contracts are designed to militate against trade union membership and recognition because it is very difficult for a young or new worker brought in to know what their contracts are. We know workers with union membership are not allowed on the shop floor in many of these places. Of course, we also have to be realistic here. We want workers to join unions but those unions must be fighting unions. The Debenhams workers were a highly unionised workforce and look what happened to them. Unfortunately, because they received no support from their union leadership, they had to do it all themselves and self-organise during a pandemic in a very difficult situation where the company had bolted and left them.

As I have said before, the Government needs to do a number if things to ensure workers never again lose even their redundancy, never mind the paltry claim given to them by the courts. We need fighting trade unions. Much of the union leadership is hiding behind the fact that there are anti-union laws. They can organise against anti-union laws. The Industrial Relations Act, a significant impediment to workers having the right to effectively organise, can be breached and challenged. That is what you do to get rid of unjust laws. Again, the Debenhams workers and others did it by having mass pickets when the stock was being taken out of shops.

It is critical that the trade union leadership makes itself relevant again in this era because it is clear young workers and migrant workers want to join unions. I am assisting migrant healthcare assistants, as the Minister of State will know, who are joining the Unite trade union. It is very positive to see this for migrant workers but there also needs to be a fighting lead given by all the unions to recruit in these sectors and actually represent them. They need to challenge unjust and anti-union and anti-worker laws that successive governments have kept in place.

Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to discuss Government's position on Second Stage of this Private Members' Bill, the Trade Union Recognition Bill 2021. The Bill aims to establish a legal mechanism for trade union recognition for workers, who constitute at least 20% of employees in an employment or any category within that employment. It also proposes criminal sanctions for employers who fail to recognise and engage with the trade union. After careful consideration, Government will oppose this Bill for several compelling reasons. I will outline these reasons and the plans the Government has for strengthening supports for collective bargaining this year.

Legal advice provided to the Government since the Bill was originally considered by this House outlines how this Bill gives rise to an apparent breach of Article 40 of the Constitution, at least insofar as it proposes an employer be compelled to recognise and engage with a trade union under threat of criminal sanction. Article 40 of the Constitution guarantees the right of citizens to form associations and unions. The Supreme Court has also held there is no duty on employers to recognise unions. Any legislation which seeks to compel an employer to consult or engage with a trade union would therefore be at significant risk of being found to be unconstitutional. In addition, the Bill fundamentally misrepresents the legal basis of employment regulation orders, EROs, which are intended to be sectoral wage-setting mechanisms negotiated at joint labour committees, not applicable to individual employers or trade unions.

Certain sections of the Bill, such as those related to unfair dismissal for seeking trade union recognition, are already covered under existing legislation, specifically the Unfair Dismissals Acts. It has been the consistent policy of successive Irish Governments to promote collective bargaining through legislation and by the development of an institutional framework supportive of a voluntary system of industrial relations that is premised upon freedom of contract and freedom of association.

The Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2015 defines "collective bargaining" as comprising voluntary engagements or negotiations with the object of reaching agreement regarding working conditions or terms of employment or non-employment of workers. There is an extensive range of statutory provisions designed to support collective bargaining. The freedom of association and the right to organise and bargain collectively are also guaranteed in several international instruments the State has ratified and is therefore bound to uphold under international law.

This long-standing tradition of a voluntarist system has served us well through the decades. Ireland’s attractiveness as an investment location and the basis for much of our competitive advantage have been due to the stability and industrial peace provided by our voluntary model for social dialogue. This has also fostered a stable and co-operative industrial relations environment, facilitated numerous successful resolutions of industrial disputes and the negotiation of collective agreements that have benefited both workers and their employers.

The voluntarist system of industrial relations allows for tailored solutions that meet the specific needs of different sectors and workplaces. By fostering a co-operative and non-confrontational approach to industrial relations, the voluntarist system has contributed to industrial peace and stability. The system is based on mutual respect and trust between employers and trade unions. A strong and well-functioning collective bargaining system supports productivity and fair wages, especially in low-paid sectors. For example, the 2024 sectoral employment order for the construction sector comes into effect on 1 August and will introduce higher rates of pay for craft and general construction workers. Their pay will increase by 3.4% in August 2025 and by a further 3.2% in August 2026. The sectoral employment order process is a statutory wage-setting mechanism provided for in the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2015 and is based on the principles of collective bargaining.

In addition, three new employment regulation orders came into effect last year, covering workers in the early years learning, security and contract cleaning sectors. These agreements demonstrate how effective the joint labour committee system can be when representatives of employees and employers voluntarily negotiate together to identify a mutually beneficial agreement.

Members will also be aware of the directive on adequate minimum wages, which aims to promote collective bargaining on wages in all EU member states. It sets out that each member state in which the collective bargaining coverage rate is less than a threshold of 80%, as is the case in the majority of member states including Ireland, shall provide for a "framework of enabling conditions" for collective bargaining and shall also establish an action plan to promote collective bargaining by end of 2025.

There is no obligation on member states to reach any prescribed level of collective bargaining coverage within any defined time period. In 2023, a technical group was established with the social partners to discuss collective bargaining and Ireland's action plan. It has been meeting regularly and constructively. The capacity of our social partners to engage effectively in collective bargaining is also a key element of the directive. I hope that the Government can further support the social partners in this area. Government supports for collective bargaining is reflected in the programme for Government which contains a commitment to finalise an action plan on the promotion of collective bargaining by the end of this year.

I am pleased my Department held a public consultation process on the promotion of collective bargaining from 14 April to 12 May. My Department is now carefully reviewing the submissions received. It is intended that the consultation will help guide us in finalising the proposals, both legislative and administrative, which may be considered for inclusion in Ireland’s action plan. I want to make the process of finalising this action plan as open and transparent as possible.

I also highlight the many positive and progressive changes to workers' rights which the Government has introduced in recent years. These employment law developments have resulted in significant improvements for conditions of workers. I would like to mention the legislation introduced in July 2024, which provided for the establishment of the Employment Law Review Group, ELRG. This work kicked off in January of this year, when the Minister, Deputy Peter Burke, announced the appointment of the chairperson and members of the ELRG. Since then, the inaugural meeting of the group took place in March and the group's work programme has been agreed and published on the Department's website. The work programme contains three items: the determination of employment status; review of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1997; and review of the notice period in the minimum notice of terms of the Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2018. The work of the group will be critically important in the coming years. It will provide a unique, independent and expert analysis on our suite of employment rights and protections.

Another important development took place in January this year when the European Communities Organisation of Working Time (Defence Forces) Regulations 2025 was signed into law. These important regulations provide for the statutory protection of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, which now applies to members of the Defence Forces. In 2024, the Employment Permits Act 2024 introduced significant changes, including the introduction of a new seasonal employment permit. This is a short-term permit which will allow non-EEA nationals to work in seasonal employment for up to seven months per year.

Last year also saw the commencement of the rights to request remote working under the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023. In July of last year, we saw the commencements of the Employment (Collective Redundancies and Miscellaneous Provisions) and Companies (Amendment) Act 2024. This amended the Protection of Employment Act 1977 to further enhance the protection of employees facing collective redundancies, caused by employers' insolvency.

Since the introduction of statutory sick leave in 2023, business owners, particularly in the retail and hospitality sectors, have consistently raised concerns about the collective impact of such measures, in light of rising costs of input and security costs. We saw the introduction of statutory sick pay, which marked a key policy development for Ireland. The entitlement was originally for three days and was increased to five days in January 2024. Recent research from the Department has shown that firms in the retail, accommodation and food services sectors are likely to be more impacted should the statutory sick pay entitlement increase from five days to seven days. Following this work and in line with relevant legislation, statutory sick pay will remain at five days.

Another piece of legislation which has had a significant positive impact for workers is the Payment of Wages (Amendment) (Tips and Gratuities) Act 2022. This Act has been in operation for more than two years and obliges employers to distribute tips fairly and to prominently display the tips distribution policy for its employees. Regarding the wider work in this area, there has also been significant development at EU level with my Department to engage in work within the EU platform work directive, which entered into force on 1 December 2024 and which will be transposed by 2 December 2025.

The Government will continue to protect the measures which have been put in place to support collective bargaining, within a volunteerist, industrial relations framework, which has served the State well to date. It is also important to do this in a manner that is ambitious, balanced, legislatively sustainable and cognisant of the views of the public consultation that my Department will conclude, on the basis that the Government opposes this Private Members' Bill, while reiterating our continued support for proactive engagement with workers, their representatives and their employers.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputies Paul Murphy and Ruth Coppinger for bringing forward this important and timely Bill. As a State, Ireland is well behind other EU states in terms of the rights of workers to be represented by a trade union. In most other EU states this is legally guaranteed. Ireland is completely out of line with most of our European neighbours. This right has been resisted by successive Governments and big business down through the decades. While the Constitution guarantees the right to be able to join a trade union, an employer does not have to recognise it and can simply refuse the right of staff to collective bargaining and the protection that union membership offers.

Employers have greater social and economic powers than workers. That is just a simple fact. The only power that a worker has is through combining with their co-workers so they cannot be picked off individually. This tactic is often used and I have witnessed in workplaces. Hundreds of thousands of low-paid workers have no representation and very few rights. The percentage of workers in the private sector who are now unionised is very low at the moment. This needs to change. In many sectors, employment has become casualised, with no set hours. Short-term contracts are common as are so-called employment agencies. Workers' rights in many cases have gone backwards and that needs to change. Hard-won basic rights have been undermined by union-busting activities. Workers who join a trade union are sometimes targeted by their employers and victimised. There are good examples of that around this State. One group of workers will be played off against another, which is common practice. In some cases, unionised workers will be cleared out of a business and replaced in a relatively short time by lower-paid, non-unionised workers. This can be seen happening around this country. In the beef industry, that happened in some beef plants.

While previous Ministers have stated that they fully support the right of any worker to join a trade union and be active therein, those are hollow words, which have no meaning, because they cannot be brought into effect. If asked about joining a union, workers, in many cases, will express a fear of being targeted by their bosses because of being a union member.

Imagine the uproar if IBEC, the Irish Hotels Federation, the IFA or other organisations, which legitimately have a right to collectively negotiate, were told by Government that they could not represent their members and that it could only deal with them individually. There would be uproar in this country. It is time to close the loophole in Irish law. It is time to bring industrial relations into the 21st century. It is time to catch up with our EU neighbours.

I heard the Minister of State say that the Government has committed to bringing in collective bargaining. I ask him not to back-pedal on this. He should put his foot on the accelerator and drive this on. We need to move into the 21st century with industrial relations in the country. I appeal to all TDs to support this good Bill.

Charles Ward (Donegal, 100% Redress Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputies Murphy and Coppinger and their staff for bringing this very important legislation forward. I support the Bill and its intention to provide mandatory union recognition where 20% or more of the workforce are members of a union. Union representation is extremely important to ensure that union reps have access to their members' places of work. This is vital. It is also important that unions are able to negotiate with employers on pay, hours and conditions. Sadly, this is not always the case in Ireland, as employers have no obligation to even acknowledge trade unions. We have seen many examples of many employers who failed to engage with trade unions at all, which is unacceptable today.

Most of the private healthcare sector does not recognise or engage with trade unions. We all know examples of big companies that refuse to recognise trade unions for collective bargaining. I will not name and shame them but it is not hard to find reports of companies with hundreds of employees who are not recognised because there is no union recognition nor is it hard to find people with negative experiences of trying to get their employers to recognise unions.

I have personal experience of employers failing to recognise or engage with trade unions in the past. Trade unions offer numerous benefits to their members and are so often needed for the purposes of negotiation and representation. A union can make a significant difference when fighting for fairer and better conditions for workers and assisting them to access legal protections in workplace disputes and financial resources.

Workers have a right to be represented. We all know the value of the trade unions. In many situations, the presence of a trade union representative is crucial. Unions representing healthcare workers have been instrumental in reaching agreement with the HSE and the WRC over staffing and recruitment. They demanded changes to how staffing vacancies in the HSE were reviewed and also called on the health service to accelerate the recruitment process for vacant posts. Unions representing the firefighters in Donegal have been vital in fighting for adequate resources and accountability.

Workers have the right to organise and be heard. It is shocking that Ireland remains one of the few European countries where there is no right to union recognition. This needs to change. It is a change that the Government has to process. I urge the Government to progress this Bill.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputies for bringing forward this important Bill. The aims of the Bill are honourable, and that is why Sinn Féin is happy to support it being progressed to Committee Stage.

The establishment of a clear legal process for trade union recognition from employers if at least 20% of employees are members would be a very positive step for workers' rights in this State. The North is forging ahead on workers' rights issues in view of the introduction of the good jobs Bill by economy Minister, Dr. Caoimhe Archibald. Under that legislation, unions will have enhanced rights to request workplace access for recruitment and members' engagement. This will open up collective bargaining across a wider range of sectors. The Bill will also reduce the threshold for the number of employees required before a union can apply for recognition from 21 to ten.

Sinn Féin has long stood in support of trade union recognition and the fundamental right of workers to be represented by their unions. I acknowledge the work done by my colleague Deputy Louise O'Reilly in this space with regard to support and progression of trade unions and trade union representation. Our position is rooted in the core belief that every worker deserves fair representation, dignity and the ability to collectively bargain for better wages, conditions and rights. Unfortunately, the Government is at odds with our progressive stance. Since coming into power, this Government has attempted to renege on workers' rights commitments made during the general election campaign. The introduction of the living wage in 2026 has been shelved until 2029 at the earliest. The introduction of pension auto-enrolment has been paused indefinitely. The increases in statutory sick leave entitlements have been delayed as well. Delay follows delay. The Minister of State did not delay in increasing the number of junior Ministers and their €45,000 top-up payments. That was a priority for this Government, which continues to argue against the living wage.

I ask again about the EU adequate minimum wage directive. This is important legislation. It is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation to have emerged in a long time. Government speakers may assert that this directive negates the need for trade union recognition, but there has been no action from the Government on transposing it into domestic law. Where is the work plan committed to in the programme for Government? It was not in the Government's spring legislative programme. We are halfway through 2025 and there is no sign of a work plan. I urge the Government to take action and not engage in more delays. Our all-island economy is becoming more integrated. This is a good thing in the face of so much global uncertainty. Going forward, it makes sense that legislation on workers' rights should be standardised on an all-island basis.

Johnny Guirke (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank People Before Profit for bringing forward this Bill. I wish to reaffirm our commitment to the rights of workers across Ireland and outline our support for any meaningful reforms that will strengthen a worker’s ability to be heard, respected and fairly represented in the workplace. Every worker deserves dignity, fairness, respect and the right to collective bargaining. These are fundamental principles that are essential for building a just and equitable workplace.

Sinn Féin supports the Trade Union Recognition Bill, and it is something we have campaigned for. This is crucial legislation that aims to establish a clear, accessible and enforceable legal framework for trade union recognition. This legislation is not just about legal formalities; it is about empowering workers, ensuring that their voices are heard and safeguarding their rights in an increasingly complex employment landscape. Recognition is a fundamental step towards fairer industrial relations, allowing workers to negotiate for better wages, improved conditions,and secure employment rights. Such measures are necessary to uphold the rule of law, prevent abuse and ensure that employers cannot bypass or undermine workers’ rights by means of delaying tactics or intimidation. Moreover, the legislation would empower the Labour Court to investigate disputes relating to recognition thoroughly. After an investigation, the court would issue written recommendations, including the reasons for its decision. If the court finds that a trade union is genuinely representative of at least 20% of the workforce, it will recommend that it be recognised, either through recognition orders or other appropriate redress. Transparency is key. All decisions made by the Labour Court would be published and made available for inspection, with protections for the contents under absolute privilege. This openness would create trust and accountability and ensure fair treatment.

Legislation alone cannot solve all issues. We recognise that the current voluntary system of trade union recognition often fails many workers, especially those in sectors such as retail and hospitality. Unfortunately, recent developments have shown a worrying retreat by the Government from commitments made during election campaigns. Only six months after the general election, it has been broken promise after broken promise. Instead of prioritising workers’ rights, the Government cites economic uncertainty as an excuse to delay or weaken reforms, but economic challenges must not be used as an excuse to undermine fundamental rights. Protecting workers’ rights is an investment in our society. It is an investment in fairer, more productive workplaces that benefit everyone.

Sinn Féin is committed to continuing the fight for legislative reforms that make trade union recognition a legal right, not a matter of voluntary agreement or employer discretion. We will push for laws that protect workers from anti-union practices, bullying, and harassment. Genuine collective bargaining, where workers and employers negotiate on an equal footing, is vital for fair wages, safe working conditions and job security.

Sinn Féin remains unwavering in its belief that workers must be empowered, protected, and respected. We will continue to champion reforms that enshrine trade union recognition as a legal right, eliminate exploitative practices and promote genuine collective bargaining. Only when workers are recognised and their voices heard can we build workplaces of equality, dignity, respect and fairness for all.

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

I will start by thanking the Deputies for bringing forward this motion. I also genuinely commend the Minister of State for delivering that script with a straight face. I was quite shocked by what I heard. You would honestly think that it was worth celebrating that the Government had promised ten days' paid statutory sick leave and is now cutting that in half. You would think workers would be on the streets absolutely commending the Government for the fact that it has kicked auto-enrolment to touch yet again. How many times is it now? The Government has been talking about auto-enrolment for 20 years. How many times has it kicked this touch? The Government knows the people who will benefit most from auto-enrolment are low-income workers. It knows that its friends in industry and its high-earner friends all have nice, tidy private pensions. It will move heaven and earth to ensure those pensions are protected, but ordinary workers and workers on low incomes can wait.

The same is true of paid domestic leave. We proposed ten days; the Government cut that in half. Again, there has been delay after delay. Workers are at the back of the queue time and time again. The Government talked an awful lot about the living wage in the run-up to the election. It was not even five minutes in office before it kicked that to touch. Again, that is a benefit for low-income workers so it would have absolutely no interest to the Minister of State or his partners in government. It is not even that we see the influence of Deputy Michael Lowry. We see that every day of the week, but the Government was like this anyway. It never had an interest in workers or their ' rights, and that was writ large all over the Minister of State's script. He talked about the compelling reasons to oppose the Bill. There are not any. I read the script and then read it again. There are no reasons contained within it. If the Minister of State is honest, he will know that.

The Minister of State referenced the commitment to finalising an action plan to promote collective bargaining. I thought that was a joke. You do not need to promote collective bargaining. Workers are not stupid. A blind man on a galloping donkey knows that if you are in a trade union, you will be better off at work.

Workers know that. What they want is protection. Unions know that. What workers want is the right to organise, and they need that. The Minister of State is nodding but his script absolutely contradicts every commitment he has given to workers. He says it and then does not deliver. Workers do not need an action plan to promote collective bargaining because they know collective bargaining is good idea. Study after study shows that. What workers need is a Government on their side and the right to organise.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Independent and Parties Technical Group for introducing this Bill and giving us the opportunity to speak on the issue to which it relates. I am a trade unionist and have been since I entered the workforce as a teenager. I am the Sinn Féin spokesperson on community development. I worked for many years in the community and voluntary sector. What I want to talk about in the brief time I have is the need for this Bill on trade union recognition to advance trade union recognition for all workers.

I am speaking to the Minister of State on an issue in the Houses of Parliament, so he might at least do me the courtesy of listening to what I have to say, if he does not mind. We need to advance trade union recognition for all workers, but in particular those in the community and voluntary sector, where many workers who are doing public work for our communities and who are paid from the public purse are not afforded trade union recognition by their employers. I have seen at first hand the work carried out by section 39, section 56 and section 10 organisations. Their workers are members of trade unions for a reason: they have a lousy deal. They have been negotiating in good faith but some of their employers do not recognise their right to collective bargaining and their trade unions. That needs to change. Their right to trade union recognition is ignored, their right to collective bargaining is blocked, and the Government is complicit in this. SIPTU, Fórsa and my union, Unite the Union, have been crystal clear that staff in this sector not only have lower pay than their colleagues in the public service but also have weaker terms and no bargaining power, despite their organisations being publicly funded to deliver public services. These workers have balloted and organised, and they have even walked off their jobs – jobs they love and that are a vocation for them – not for the sake of profit or special treatment but for basic recognition, for respect. It is not just an industrial relations issue; it is also a question of rights and, to be very frank, a failure of the Government. My colleague Deputy O'Reilly laid it out. The promises were made but quickly forgotten.

The Trade Union Recognition Bill offers a clear and simple remedy, and my party will support it. We will have feedback and contributions to make when, I hope, it gets to Committee Stage, but it does need to be advanced. The rights to organise, be represented and bargain collectively are basic rights all across the developed world. Ireland is an outlier. The Government loves to compare this country to EU member states but we compare very poorly when it comes to trade union recognition. Therefore, it is long past time that this issue was advanced. I ask the Government to do the decent thing here and let it advance.

Thomas Gould (Cork North-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Solidarity and People before Profit for introducing this Bill. I am sure Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett is watching this debate closely today. I wish him all the best. I know everyone else feels the same.

I am a proud Irish republican and also a proud union member, which I have been all my working life. Republicans and workers right across this island – workers are republicans – are building towards an island based on the ideals of the 1916 Proclamation. When the Citizens' Army stood up for workers, it protected all workers and built a link between the cause of Irish unity and the cause of labour. That is why Sinn Féin stands on the side of workers. It is why workers' rights and equality are entwined in the party's principles and policies. It is why we would deliver a right to organise. James Connolly once said, "Men perish, but principles live." We have lost many great republicans but their principles live on. Their dedication to workers' rights on this island and to the people who call this island their home is our driving force. We now have a Government that wants to row back on promises it made to workers. It wants to undermine the cause of labour and blame it on tariffs and economics.

David Krause once said of Jim Larkin that his aim was to organise unions, not strikes. One hundred and twelve years later, we must still fight for the right to organise. Just as republicans stood against William Martin Murphy and the king of England in 1913, we stand today against the current Government and its kingmaker, Michael Lowry. Patriots know that the cause of labour is the cause of Ireland. The people of Ireland will be free only when we own everything from the plough to the stars.

Ann Graves (Dublin Fingal East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputies for introducing this Bill. It goes to the core of how workers can defend and improve their pay and conditions of employment. Workers need a Government that is on their side. For far too long, workers and their rights have just been an afterthought. Right now, Ireland, disgracefully, has what is among the most restrictive trade union legislative regimes in the developed world. The implication of these restrictions has been a decline in working conditions, living standards and real incomes, along with the marginalisation of trade unions and workplace democracy. It is time for workers and their rights to be at the forefront of the political agenda. Giving workers the tools to bargain for themselves will lead to better lives. We should be working in partnership with trade unions to modernise industrial relations and ensure that workers' voices are heard. Key to this is legislating for the right to organise and ensuring workers have access to unions and information about their rights from day one on the job. A strong trade union movement is essential for economic productivity and the fair distribution of growth benefits, and it would provide for an increased resource for the WRC and HSA and for the legislative right to collectively bargain.

Workers want to join and be represented by a trade union of their choice, so why can workers in Ireland not avail of what is a human right, that is, to be represented by a trade union? Collective and consecutive Governments have consistently denied them this right, hiding behind the so-called voluntarist model of industrial relations. This simply allows employers a veto and they can refuse to engage, as many of them do. Strong trade unions are the greatest driver of economic equality, and the more equal the country is, the better it does in a whole range of areas.

The EU adequate minimum wage directive recognised the benefits of trade union organisation and collective bargaining. These benefits include tackling poverty and declining wages and providing social cohesion. From the 1960s to the 1990s, Ireland had a collective bargaining coverage rate in excess of 70%. Since then, it has declined to around 34%. The new directive effectively implies we need to increase the number to 80%. Passing this Bill will go some way towards meeting our obligations under the new EU directive. While the Bill is welcome, it does not go far enough. We need a whole suite of measures so the trade unions can do their job and increase living standards for workers and their families. I have been a trade union member since the day I started to work, which was a long time ago. I have been a local representative and a sectoral representative. Everybody should have that right.

Maurice Quinlivan (Limerick City, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is a Bill that my party and I will be supporting. I am a proud member of SIPTU and have been for a number of years. The aims of the Bill are sound and seek to provide a legal basis for trade union recognition by employers where 20% of employees are members of a union. In the 21st century, it is appalling that not every worker has fair representation, dignity and the ability to engage in collective bargaining.

The Bill is incredibly important, particularly as the current Government made no mention in the programme for Government of the implementation of the adequate minimum wage directive. This is a directive about the promotion of collective bargaining and states taking an active role in promoting it. The Government has already missed the 2024 transposition deadline. The directive needs to be implemented because the Government cannot be relied on to protect workers' rights. That is a simple fact. We have seen a commitment to implementing a living wage suspended from 2026 until 2029. We have seen the indefinite suspension of auto-enrolment since the general election. We have seen, since the general election, the suspension of increases to paid sick leave. On commitment to workers after commitment to workers, there has been a rowing back since the election campaign. The Bill needs to be enacted so we do not have to rely on either the State or the private sector to support workers' rights.

Fórsa has had to embark on a campaign to seek a fair and equitable pension for school secretaries and caretakers. That campaign is ongoing and it is one I support. The Respect at Work report shows union-busting is not just a memory from the 1980s or from 1913 but that it is happening now, in 2025.

There are lots of quotes in that report. I recommend the Minister of State read it.

The Bill is needed. There needs to be a universal right to trade union representation and it is critical for most low-paid and vulnerable workers. It is the right thing to do for workers. It is the right thing to do, period.

Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is hard to believe that, in 2025, we are introducing a trade union recognition Bill and that there is a need for it, but that is the world we live in. I thank my colleagues in People Before Profit-Solidarity for tabling it.

We all know about the headwinds and all the other terms that are used as regards tariffs and the dangers relating to AI, and we all accept that. Unfortunately, however, we have a Government that has gone straight for the jugular on workers' rights. We were promised the introduction of a living wage in 2026, which will now happen in 2029 at the earliest. Pension auto-enrolment was meant to happen in September 2025 and is now paused indefinitely. The statutory paid sick leave entitlement was due to increase from five days to seven, but that has been delayed indefinitely. We were able to take that action pretty fast.

We know the issues with bogus self-employment. Many in the film sector talk about the blackballing that needs to be dealt with and we need engagement from unions to deliver on that. It is also a significant issue in the construction sector and probably affects our ability to actually deliver. We have all dealt with employees who do not have trade union recognition or a right to collective bargaining, and in moments of difficulty, they are forced into a situation of having to select individual workers from the point of view of being able to attempt to negotiate, sometimes against world class teams put forward by-----

Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Thank you.

Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----some of the biggest companies in the State. None of this is good enough in any way, shape or form.

Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Thank you, Deputy Ó Murchú.

Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have also raised the issue many times of personal assistants.

Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The next speaking slot is-----

Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Fórsa has a pay claim at the moment, but it is awaiting, as is the WRC, a review that needs to be carried out by the Department of further and higher education. That is a necessity.

Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Thank you, Deputy Ó Murchú.

Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understand that the Minister of State would agree with me on the basis of her interest in those with disabilities.

Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Next we have the Labour Party slot. I call Deputy Lawlor.

George Lawlor (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Gabhaim buíochas leis an nGrúpa Teicniúil um Neamhspleáigh agus Páirtithe as ucht an Bille seo a thabhairt os comhair na Dála. We in the Social Democrats are happy to support this Bill. I speak first to some of the comments made by the Minister of State's colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Dillon, in his response to this legislation. I wish to push back especially on the continued narrative we hear that the Constitution essentially says "No". I wish to draw the Government's attention to something I did two weeks ago when we were celebrating International Workers Day. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, an organisation I previously worked in, commissioned independent research in December 2023 that put paid to this idea. It asked whether the Constitution was a barrier or a facilitator to the rights of collective bargaining. Referring to its determination, I will read the final conclusion. I urge the Government and Deputy Lawlor, who just spoke about the Geoghegan ruling, which is gone into in detail in the report, to take note of it. It states:

We therefore conclude that Constitution is not a barrier to a statutory right to collective bargaining, and that no constitutional change would be necessary to facilitate a statutory right of this sort. The legislature is free to pursue such a course, having careful regard to safeguards that would ensure all other relevant constitutional rights and principles are respected.

I appreciate that within the response, the Minister of State, Deputy Dillon, was speaking to the specifics of this Bill. I put it to the Minister of State before us that there is a consistent pushing back that the Constitution is a barrier to the realisation of these rights, but it is not. The Government must get on board with this.

The second point I wish to touch on concerning the comments made by the Minister of State, Deputy Dillon, is what he said about the voluntarist system, which he believes serves us so well. The phrases he used included "This long-standing tradition of a voluntarist system has served us well through the decades", "The voluntarist system of industrial relations allows for tailored solutions" and "the voluntarist system has contributed to industrial peace and stability." I think there is a bit of a typo there, though, because it has served us well as employers, not as workers and not as the State. This is the issue I have with the Government's approach to workers' rights. We are told the barriers to workers' rights include the challenges for businesses to get up and running and meet all their obligations, and we appreciate that the Government has pursued a supportive programme of measures for employers and businesses. We agree with that in the Social Democrats and do not see any barrier to it. What we do have an issue with is the imbalance. Similar commitments are made to workers, which, sadly, are never delivered upon. One after the other, we see this happening again and again.

The reality is that we are out of step in continuing to support such a voluntarist model. The Bill speaks to the beginning of moving to a situation where employers must recognise trade unions and the right to collective bargaining. In the European Union, we have a goal of 80% of collective bargaining coverage, but Ireland's rate stands at just 34%. If employers do not want to recognise trade unions, then they simply do not have to. This speaks back to the imbalance of power. I have worked in the private sector and the public sector and have been self-employed. As long as employers do not have to, they are not going to pursue anything that is going to affect their bottom line. This is just how the profit-making world works. The State, therefore, has to provide these supports for workers.

This situation speaks to the fact that, as a country, we have a long-standing tradition of trade unionism despite the poor record of Government. Tá tábhacht na gceardchumann fite fuaite i stair na hÉireann. Caithfimid foghlaim ón stair sin. We need to learn from that history and that is why the Social Democrats will be supporting this Bill.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

To back up my colleague, we very much support this Bill. I thank our colleagues in People Before Profit for introducing it. This is important legislation. Collective bargaining is key in terms of Ireland and our economy. When we look at it, the Irish economic model has, unfortunately, been built on an undermining of workers' rights by not ensuring collective bargaining is in place. When we look at the situation across the world, one of the key reasons inequality has risen to the level it has - the research shows this - is directly linked to the decline in trade unions and to workers being in trade unions. Part of neoliberalism was about smashing trade unions and ensuring workers did not have that bargaining power. That is the reality.

One of the issues in the context of Ireland's high cost of living is what is called excessive profiteering. This is because workers do not have the ability and right to assert that they get living wages. When we look at it, 145,000 workers are living at risk of poverty. In this economy that has been booming for so long, there is something problematic there. We still have large income inequalities for those in lower income jobs, who are suffering with low pay. This situation is linked to the inability to be in a trade union and the lack of a requirement for employers to have to support people and engage with workers in this regard.

While there are issues concerning the lack of trade union legislation, it is also important to highlight another aspect. Trade unions have done research - an example being the Respect at Work campaign - that has shown that union busting is going on in this country. The Respect at Work report found that 69% of workplace representatives had observed at least one form of anti-union behaviour by employers. The most common forms were the victimisation of union activists and discouraging workers from joining a union. It is disappointing because many workers, especially younger ones, want to join and be part of trade unions. The surveys show this. We need to see that trade unions can be and are an essential part of creating a sustainable, fair and socially just economy. If the Government was serious about protecting workers and supporting unions, it would support this Bill. It would act on the Low Pay Commission's recommendations, act on pension auto-enrolment, actually support unions and workers, and enact this legislation.

Jen Cummins (Dublin South Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am proud to stand here today as a member of the Social Democrats but also as a trade union member and activist for decades at this stage. I thank People Before Profit for introducing this Bill. At its heart, it is about fairness, dignity in the workplace and the fundamental right of workers to a collective voice. This is not a radical idea, but a democratic one. When workers organise, they are not just protecting wages or conditions. They are advocating for a safer, more sustainable and more equitable workplace for everyone. In the education sector, which I have a particular passion for, unions have been vital in defending not just teachers, SNAs, school secretaries, school caretakers and school completion programme workers, but also the quality of education itself.

I welcome the school group in the Public Gallery, and I hope they enjoy their visit.

Unions also fight for reasonable class sizes and supports for students with additional needs, and to ensure every worker has proper conditions such as parity of pay and a right to pension parity. Education unions have always looked beyond their own members' welfare, and yet too often their voice is sidelined. We have seen in our schools that temporary contracts and precarious work still exist. We have seen it during pay restoration struggles. We have seen it when Government have tried to divide teachers into tiers. If unions had not stood strong and been organised, their voice would not have been heard and there would not have been any progress. In further and higher education, staff are battling against precarious contracts, not being paid equitably and not having fair conditions. Lecturers are not being treated fairly and equitably and they have the responsibility of educating our next generation for the great creative thinkers and the people who will bring our economy forward. That was talked about extensively yesterday as being one purpose of education. I would argue that is one element, but not the be all and end all. In further education, teachers are on hourly contracts that do not recognise the hours of preparation put into every one of those classes, as well as marking assignments and work that comes back. These sorts of contracts are outmoded and should not be allowed. Those educators not only have to fight for their students but for pay parity and respect. It is deeply disrespectful and actually insulting. We will vote in support of this Bill. We are voting for the future of workers, so they do not have to beg for recognition they should have a right to. The Social Democrats believe in a republic where dignity in the workplace is not negotiable and where people in every sector, including education, healthcare, retail and transport, are not treated as cost lines, but as the backbone of the country. That is why I will be supporting this Bill.

Ken O'Flynn (Cork North-Central, Independent Ireland Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am impressed to hear the amount of credentials and the trade union members elected here, but unlike many of my colleagues I have never been a member of a trade union. I was employed while in college in the United Kingdom doing basic work behind bars and the rest of it. I never had an opportunity to join a trade union. I was self-employed. I ran bars and restaurants in Spain. I did not have an opportunity to get involved. I think I was a good employer as well. I then worked for a multinational company. I value the work of trade unions and I believe trade unions are an integral part of large organisations in particular. We can look at Dunnes Stores and hear the stories Deputy Coppinger spoke about and they are true. I have to commend Deputy Coppinger on the comments she made in the House today. I think they were fair and accurate, in particular when she spoke about how workers in Debenhams were let down by their trade union. I commend her on bringing that up in the House. I see the importance not only of money in the work trade unions do. It is also about the continuous bullying that goes on in a workplace. If you do not have the trade unions behind you, or if you do not have somebody to go to, it is very difficult and the workplace can be a lonely place. I do not think we put enough emphasis on the work trade unions do in sorting out, not big industrial actions, but the small negotiations and conversations between the union rep - the person on the ground - and the management team and getting cohesion before it ever escalates. That is work that goes unseen. That is work that is beneficial to the running of an organisation and to keeping an organisation happy.

When you look at mainland Europe, we are miles behind equity when it comes to trade unions. Look at what is happening right across Europe. You see the workers' rights there, particularly around bullying in the workplace. On the living wage and pension auto-enrolment, I understand why the Government has rowed back on that. I get it because it is difficult for businesses. It is difficult with tariffs coming down the line, but that should not be happening at the expense of the worker, at the expense of the person on the ground.

As has been mentioned in this House, there are many people working day in, day out doing everything right, but living below the bread line. We see every day in our shopping basket how difficult it is to make ends meet. Government has to stand up and take notice. It has to listen.

There is a tremendous amount of merit in this Bill. There are positives in this Bill. The Minister spoke about PRSI and tips and movement on that, which is important to note because I do not understand. I can hand over cash to somebody, for instance, a €50 tip, in a restaurant in Dublin tonight, or in Cork, but most of us are now tapping. That is the reality of life. That then has to go through the system. PRSI has to be paid on that. All the accounting has to be done on that if the worker gets it, so the €50 is no longer €50. However, if you hand over cash there is an exemption in the law already. Things like that need to be recognised and regulated. I commend my colleagues in the House on bringing this Bill through. I ask Government to look at it again and not to object to it for the sake of objecting because it is coming from this side of the House. There is a lot of merit in this.

Michael Collins (Cork South-West, Independent Ireland Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This Bill aims to improve workers' rights, but it also brings some challenges for small businesses, which would cause me to be concerned. I see Independent Ireland supporting this Bill going forward, but I want to raise concerns we have because there are a lot of concerns for small businesses in particular. Small businesses would no doubt have more paperwork and formal tasks like negotiations and dispute resolutions. This can take up their limited resources and distract from their main activities and running their business. Second, mandatory union recognition could make it harder for small businesses to make a quick decision about staffing and operations. This could slow down their ability to respond to market demands or internal issues. There are legal risks. If small businesses do not follow the new rules they could face legal actions, fines or other penalties without legal teams, which most small businesses do not have. It might be tough for them to handle these issues, increasing the risk of mistakes. Formal union negotiations and disputes could cause workplace tensions or disruptions. Even small disruptions can significantly affect productivity and customer satisfaction in small businesses. There are financial impacts. Collective bargaining might lead to higher labour costs like increased wages or better benefits for small businesses with tight budgets. These extra costs could be challenging. While the Trade Union Recognition Bill 2021 aims to strengthen workers' rights, small businesses may face challenges with administrative tasks, flexibility, legal compliance, workplace harmony and financial stability. Small businesses are at this time undergoing huge difficulties. If we look at the costs even for a cafe or restaurant, they have VAT, rates, power, PRSI, PAYE, Internet, refuse, repairs and foods to be purchased.

This Bill, while it aims to protect employees' rights, which are hugely important, might cause great and further difficulty. Some of these businesses are fighting for the reduction of the 13.5% rate to 9%, which is not happening. At this time, the local authority in Cork is even hitting them with charges for the seats outside their doors. They are being hit with rates for seating. One person in west Cork told me they paid €700. That is another crippling cost for small businesses, so I have concerns for small businesses.

We will be supporting this going forward. However, I often meet people who come to my clinic and who have problems in their worker space. I ask them what their union is doing, and the answer I get is, "Nothing". I begin to wonder if there is a watchdog over unions. We can talk about protecting workers and their having a union, which is hugely important, but we also need to see a watchdog over the unions to see if they are delivering because it looks to me that in many cases they do not deliver for certain people. It causes great frustration and leads to me, a politician, asking how I can resolve the situation when they are paying into a union and the union will not resolve it. Where do I have to go? That is where it leads to difficulties.

Like my colleague, Deputy O'Flynn, I was both an employer and an employee for 30 years before I came into the Dáil. I was never involved in a union in my life.

Thankfully, I was never involved in disputes, although in one sense I was in the community voluntary sector. We had issues with work schemes, although these people were not unionised. In one of the community voluntary groups I was involved with - I was chairman of it at the time - we had 70 workers through the rural social scheme, RSS, the HSE, the community services programme, CSP, Tús, the whole lot of them. Those workers, who were trying to deliver in the community, did not really have a union voice as such and that may have created protections for us as community and voluntary employers. However, being an employee and an employer for 30 years, I never felt the need to be in a union. I felt I was able to stand up on my own two feet and fight the cause if there needed to be a fight, although most of the time there was not. In the other situation, as an employer, I always tried to work closely with the people I was employing to make sure they were adequately looked after and that we did not bring a situation to a head. I find that many issues can be resolved before disputes get to a head. Unfortunately, there needs to be someone with some negotiating skills in every employment situation.

I saw the value in what happened with Debenhams, which Deputies O'Flynn and Coppinger mentioned. The employees of that company were treated terribly and that is where the benefit of a trade union came in. As I said, however, there needs to be a watchdog over the unions too. Some small people get chewed up and do not get representation from a union where they should. I have seen that over the years. The first thing I do when somebody comes to me with a problem is ask what their union says. They may say their union is not representing their view. There are questions as to why a union that is meant to protect a person's viewpoints is not doing so at that point.

I have worries about small businesses. This Bill would create difficulties and would probably create extra costs. As I said a while ago, some of these small employers do not have legal people, so there are extra costs in trying to bring on people like that. We just have to be little careful. As I said, we will be supporting this Bill, but there are concerns we have that might need to be acceded to.

Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank all Deputies for some of the very strongly held views expressed on this particular topic.

The Government is fully committed to supporting workers and employers and delivering further supports for collective bargaining this year, following the public consultation. However, the Bill as proposed would leave the resultant legislation open to the possibility of legal challenge as regards an employer’s right not to engage with or recognise trade unions.

Ireland’s system of industrial relations is voluntary in nature. The approach set out in the Bill would undermine the voluntarist approach to industrial relations that has existed down through the decades. Our industrial relations legislation offers robust protections to trade unions to allow them to go about their business of protecting workers’ rights. The freedom of association and the right to organise and bargain collectively, as set out in Article 40 of the Constitution, are also guaranteed in a number of international instruments the State has ratified and which it is, therefore, bound to uphold under international law.

The Government continues to fully support the right of any worker to join and be active in his or her trade union. Under the Unfair Dismissals Act, an employee cannot be discriminated against or dismissed because he or she is a member of a trade union. Additionally, the Workplace Relations Commission’s code of practice on victimisation refers specifically to "victimisation arising from an employee’s membership or non-membership, activity or non-activity on behalf of a trade union" in specific circumstances, including situations where there are no negotiating arrangements and where collective bargaining has not taken place. A complaint under the code may be made to the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004, providing for up to two years' remuneration in compensation.

I will highlight the many positive and progressive changes to workers’ rights the Government has introduced in recent years, resulting in significantly improved working conditions for workers. These include a new bank holiday in February; placing sick pay on a statutory basis; legislation on tips and gratuities; substantial increases in the minimum wage; enhanced protection for employees facing collective redundancies due to insolvency; legislation to provide the right to request remote working; and improvements to the employment permit system.

In 2025, we established a new employment law review group to look at issues such as unfair dismissals; provided that the statutory protection of the Organisation of Working Time Act is now applied to members of the Defence Forces; concluded a public consultation on extending the late working hours exemption for young persons to unlicensed premises - feedback from the consultation will guide our understanding of current working conditions for young people in both licensed and unlicensed workplaces; and advanced legislation to protect older workers with a contractual retirement age below the State pension age. We have also seen further developments across government, including the implementation of the EU pay transparency directive and the introduction of a pensions auto-enrolment system, which is also a programme for Government commitment and a key priority for the Minister for Social Protection.

This Government is committed to strengthening and protecting working conditions, fair treatment and fair wages for workers, and supporting businesses in addressing the challenges the enterprise sector is facing. The Government will finalise an action plan on collective bargaining by the end of this year, following the consultation process currently under way and in consultation with the social partners. I am confident this will address many of the issues of concern to the Opposition in a sustainable way, and I am firmly of the belief that this is the best way to support collective bargaining, businesses and workers in resolving issues of mutual interest.

Séamus Healy (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome and strongly support the Trade Union Recognition Bill 2021. I compliment my colleagues in People Before Profit on bringing it forward.

Not only do I believe in the right of workers to join a trade union, but I also believe that employers should be obliged to recognise the union and negotiate with it on the pay and conditions of its members. I have been a proud trade unionist all my working life, during school holidays working in a meat factory, as a member if the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union and as a farm worker on Bulmers apple farm. I was a member of the Federation of Rural Workers and as an employee of a local tannery, I was a member of the Amalgamated Transport and General Workers' Union.

From December 1971, when I started work as a clerical worker with Waterford County Council, I became a member of the Irish Local Government Officials Union, now called Fórsa, and served as a branch officer and activist for the next 30 years. I served on the national executive of that union and was chairperson of its health and welfare division when I worked with the South Eastern Health Board. I represented the union on Clonmel Trades and Labour Council and served as the council's president.

My family has a tradition of union membership and activism. My father, Jim Healy, was a founder of the Clonmel branch of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union in 1932, and his father before him, also called Jim Healy, was a union member at the turn of the 20th century when he worked as a carter with Murphy's Brewery in Clonmel and Thurles. My maternal grandfather, Patsy Meaney, was also a union member at the turn of the 20th century when he worked as a labourer with Clonmel Corporation Gas Company. My father-in-law was a branch officer with the Irish Union of Distributive Workers and Clerks and was condemned from the pulpit for leading a strike for better pay and conditions for members. As always, church authorities stood with the employers.

I strongly recommend union membership to all workers, especially young workers, at a time when casualisation, short-term and temporary employment are the order of the day. Unity is strength, and the trade union movement has won massive victories against all the odds, many of which we now take absolutely for granted. We won the eight-hour day - previously, workers worked for 14 hours in desperate conditions - the five-day week, public holidays, annual leave, pension and sick pay schemes and much more.

The trade union movement should go back to its roots and remember the example of the men and women of the 1913 Lock-out.

On this, the 109th anniversary of the Easter Rising, we should remember with pride the great trade unionist James Connolly, the 1916 leader executed 109 years ago last Monday in the Stonebreakers' Yard in Kilmainham Gaol by British crown forces, shot tied to a chair. Connolly's writings are as relevant today as ever. His book Labour in Irish Historyis a masterpiece. It is well worth reading and should be on the curriculum for our leaving certificate students.

Current Irish law entitles every worker to join a trade union but there is no obligation on an employer to recognise and negotiate with a union. It is at the whim of the employer to deal with the union or not. Trade union negotiated rates of pay and conditions are not only good for union members. Studies have shown that unionisation and trade union pay and conditions raise the wages and benefits of all workers.

This is a common-sense and reasonable Bill. It is important legislation which I fully support.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank all colleagues in all the Opposition parties who supported our Bill. I just point out that we will finish ten minutes early. The reason is that the Members of the Lowry group who fought so hard to get their time to speak on these matters presumably do not consider it important to come and speak about trade union rights or maybe they are embarrassed because they will be voting against trade union rights later on today.

I agree with one thing the Minister of State, Deputy Smyth, said in her response, namely, that the "approach set out in this Bill would undermine the voluntarist approach to industrial relations that has existed down through the decades". That is correct and is precisely the point of the Bill, because the voluntarist system of industrial relations that has existed through decades is one that has worked in the interests of employers, not in the interests of workers.

The Minister of State, Deputy Dillon, in the opening statement set out what he said were compelling reasons for the Government's opposition to this Bill. Effectively two were mentioned. First was the suggestion we often get in this place that it is unconstitutional and second was the reference to how great the voluntarist system is. In response to the suggestion that it is unconstitutional, Deputies Lawlor and Gibney addressed this point very well. This is a paper tiger that the Government hides behind to avoid acting. There is no basis or relevant rulings to suggest it will be unconstitutional. Compelling cases were made by Deputies Lawlor and Gibney. I want to add to that something the Minister of State, Deputy Smyth, said at the end when she spoke about rights that are "guaranteed in a number of international instruments the State has ratified and which it is, therefore, bound to uphold under international law." I draw attention to the European Convention on Human Rights and a decision in Demir and Baykara v. Turkey in the European Court of Human Rights which has enormous relevance here. Up until that case, the European Court of Human Rights had effectively held that the right of workers to bargain collectively did not constitute an inherent element of freedom of association. The European Court of Human Rights had a similar position to the Government, which is that workers have the constitutional right or the right protected under the European Convention to join a trade union but that does not imply that the employer is compelled to negotiate with workers collectively. However, that court decision changed things. I am quoting here from a very important pamphlet from Daryl D'Art. A human right, the court held, must be interpreted "in a manner that renders the right practical and effective not theoretical and illusory". Consequently the court concluded "the right to bargain collectively with the employer had become an essential element of freedom of association."

A year later, Demir was cited in another unanimous decision of the European Court of Human Rights upholding the right to union recognition and collective bargaining as integral to freedom of association. The way the Government is suggesting the right to freedom of association is protected is now effectively being characterised by the European Court of Human Rights as theoretical and illusory, lacking in legal validity.

There is already legislation which compels duties of consultation and recognition on employers - the Universities Act 1997, the Education Act 1998, the Institutes of Technology Act 2006 and the Railways Acts 1924 and 1933 - which have not been challenged on their constitutionality. It is not true that this would be unconstitutional.

On the idea that the long-standing voluntarist system has served us well over the decades, it was quite revealing that the Minister of State, Deputy Dillon, stated the following: "A strong and well-functioning collective bargaining system [which we do not have, by the way] supports productivity and fair wages, especially in low-paid sectors". The voluntarist model, whereby employers are able to accept that workers - all workers - have joined the union but the employer does have to deal with them, works for employers in low-paid sectors. It is part of the reason we have, relative to other European countries, the highest incidence of low pay. It is why we have such high rates of precarity. It is why we have fewer rights than workers in other European countries. That is facilitated by the Government's anti-union practice which is clouded in the language of voluntarism.

The Government's language on the adequate minimum wages directive is interesting. It has now said that there is no obligation on member states to reach any prescribed level of collective bargaining coverage within any defined timeframe. The Government has signed up to a directive requiring it to prepare an action plan to increase collective bargaining coverage to 80% - by the way the best way to do that is clearly by increasing union density and union membership - but then the Government says, "Don't worry; we don't actually have to reach that by any defined timeframe". This means it is signing up to it in the knowledge that we never actually have to do anything about it. It is quite revealing in that it reveals why the Government continues to drag its feet on it.

Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In accordance with Standing Order 85(2), the division is deferred until the weekly division time this evening.