John Gerard Hanafin (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister of State and I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this important Bill in the light of Sustaining Progress agreed with the social partners. Since Fianna Fáil brought the social partners together we have successfully developed the economy to the point of being one of the most developed countries in the OECD, with one of the highest GDPs per person in that group. This stems from working together and sharing and achieving a more equal and just society, as this Bill does. We have come through difficult times since the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre in September 2001 and the consequent stock market instability affecting world markets. Now the Central Bank is advising consumers to spend which is a sure indicator that the work of this Government with the social partners is paying dividends in the most difficult of times.

The purpose of the Bill is to implement the specific measures contained in sections 8.8 to 8.11 of part 2 of Sustaining Progress, the current social partnership agreement, one of the key aims of which is "to consolidate the progress of recent years and to achieve a medium-term growth rate capable of sustaining high levels of employment and facilitating the evolution of a more equal society". This legislation represents a significant step towards a more equitable society for employee and employer and the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, and his staff, should be commended for their work in preparing it. It is intended to enhance the effectiveness of existing dispute resolution procedures created by the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2001 and the code of practice on voluntary dispute resolution by introducing timescales. Section 8.9 of Sustaining Progress specifies "the introduction of an indicative overall timeframe targeting 26 weeks — with provision for up to a maximum of 34 weeks where necessary — for the processing of cases under the Dispute Resolution Code and Act", hence the necessity for this Bill.

We are very fortunate that industrial relations have always been dealt with on a voluntary basis. There has been consensus among the social partners that the terms and conditions of employment of workers are best determined through the process of voluntary bargaining. The Government has done everything it can to support this voluntary process, which has worked very well on our behalf over the years. In the course of time we have had to introduce certain dispute resolution services. The Minister of State indicated that he fully supports this and he outlined on Second Stage in the Dáil some figures indicating the success we have had.

The Labour Relations Commission chaired more than 2,000 meetings in 2002, 80% of which resulted in settlement of disputes. This is an excellent success rate which shows the mechanism has worked very well. It is unfortunate that from time to time issues are not resolved through the Labour Relations Commission and need to be referred for further investigation to the Labour Court. While the recommendations issued by the court are non-binding, there is an acceptance rate of more than 80% by the parties to the dispute.

The mechanism in place has worked well and it has served the country well to have a voluntary approach, which is welcomed by employer organisations, trade unions, staff organisations and individual staff members. However, a number of issues have arisen. One of the reasons for introducing this Bill is that there has been a degree of frustration particularly with the lack of timescales for dealing with disputes, which is specifically addressed in the Bill. There have been complaints over the length of time taken to process cases through the Labour Court. Matters should be brought to a head within a reasonable length of time.

Section 2 of the Bill deletes section 2(1)(b) of the Act of 2001 and replaces it with a provision which allows the court to investigate a trade dispute if one of the following three conditions has been met: a breach of the timescale in the amended code of practice on voluntary dispute resolution; the exhaustion of the timescales in the amended code of practice; or the receipt of a report from the Labour Relations Commission that no further efforts on the part of the commission will advance the resolution of the dispute. This section tries to deal with disputes in an effective way rather than allow them to go on endlessly with no resolution in sight. I welcome this provision.

Section 3 replaces section 3 of the Act of 2001. This section enables the Labour Court to allocate its resources more efficiently by allowing it to combine preliminary and substantive hearings in a dispute referred to it under section 2(1) of the Act of 2001. This goes a long way towards reducing the length of time taken by the Labour Court in conducting an investigation. It is still possible to take the preliminary hearings and substantial hearings separately. However, if the court feels time would be saved by combining them it will now be possible to do so, which is an important improvement to the 2001 Act. The length of time involved in resolving the dispute has caused considerable disquiet among parties that have had to go to the Labour Court.

Section 4 replaces section 10 of the Act of 2001 to enable a trade union or excepted body to apply to the Circuit Court for the enforcement of a Labour Court determination. If an employer has failed to implement its terms, the Labour Court determination is binding and enforceable by order to the Circuit Court. As I mentioned, in most cases the Labour Court is very successful and parties accept its decision. It is hoped this trend will continue. However, we are all aware of a number of past disputes that have been quite contentious. When the Labour Court makes its recommendations it is important that the parties to the dispute implement them. If they fail to do so, it should be possible to go to court to ensure the parties comply. I welcome this section, which will enhance the resolution of disputes and importantly will give this Bill some kick and power.

Section 5 provides for the processing of cases which had, at the date of enactment, been referred to the Labour Court under the Act of 2001. These cases will now be treated under the new legislation. This is a procedural matter and it is important that any benefits that may arise under the new Bill should be applicable for cases previously referred to the Labour Court under the 2001 Act.

As well as the issue of the timeframe, one of the critical areas for complaint under the current mechanisms is victimisation. I am delighted the Bill deals comprehensively with the issue, specifically under section 8 where victimisation is defined. It allows for acts to be specified and the code of practice on victimisation to be included in the definition. A complaint of victimisation may be made in circumstances where there is a trade dispute in which the code of practice on voluntary dispute resolution has been or is intended to be invoked, and arises where an employee's membership or activity on behalf of a trade union is challenged by an employer, or where a manager discharges his or her managerial functions.

When taken in conjunction with section 9, which deals with complaints of victimisation, it empowers a rights commissioner to hear those complaints from an employee, trade union or excepted body and to make a decision on the matter. The section also provides that a rights commissioner may award compensation where he or she considers that to be equitable. If we are serious about eradicating victimisation, the last part of the section, which allows compensation to be awarded, is important. It is important that victimisation is not tolerated in our system and that we are serious as legislators about its eradication. For that reason I welcome in particular these two sections which deal with victimisation.

It is also important that there is an appeals mechanism to the Labour Court arising from a decision of a rights commissioner. This is specified under section 10. It is one's right and entitlement to have an avenue for appeal. The Labour Court is empowered to take evidence on oath under section 11, to administer oaths and to compel a person to attend to give evidence where there is an appeal of a rights commissioner's decision in a victimisation case, which is critical. There can be parties who are guilty of victimisation and are reluctant to come forward and give evidence. It is important that they are compelled to do so in such circumstances. This part of the Bill's "get tough" mechanism shows our determination to tackle these problems.

The two most important sections deal with the timescale within which disputes can be settled and the victimisation issue. If we can cater satisfactorily for these two areas, it will allow an equitable system to exist within our industrial relations environment. It will also mean that disputes do not drag on endlessly without resolution and that people can see some light at the end of the tunnel. The voluntary manner in which we have dealt with industrial relations over the past ten to 15 years has been a great success. It is to be hoped that the mechanisms in place, such as the Labour Court, will be used as last resorts and that the voluntary system of resolving disputes about terms and conditions of employment will continue.

I take this opportunity to wish the two main dispute resolution institutions well for the future. The trade union movement in Ireland, ably represented by ICTU, has played an enormous role in developing relationships between employers and employees and in ensuring its members have proper conditions of employment. Without trade unions, workers would not have the conditions that exist today and for which previous generations have fought. I congratulate those involved in the movement on the excellent work they have done through the years.

I also praise IBEC, which is a registered trade union, because it has played a significant role in educating and advising employers about proper industrial relations and in getting involved at the coalface in negotiations on behalf of businesses. Small businesses in particular do not have the personnel with the necessary skills to negotiate agreements and conditions of employment with trade unions. IBEC has played a significant role in facilitating relations between employers and employees. Finally, I pay tribute to the staff of the Labour Relations Commission because they work hard to ensure all disputes are resolved. They are extremely committed to their work. I wish them continued success in the future.

Industrial disputes will occur occasionally, and it is important that the supportive legislation is in place to allow the voluntary mechanism to continue. I believe the Bill does this and I commend it to the House.