Joe O'Toole (Independent)

The amendment in my name and that of Senator McDowell stipulates that employees' representatives means such trade unions as are representative of the employees where there is such a trade union or persons who are directly elected by the employees in the undertaking. I am taking into consideration the point made by Senator Quinn that not all workers or workplaces will be organised into trade unions. He also made the point very clearly that where the employees wish their trade union to represent them in any of these matters, they may do so.

Unions are always presented as stumbling blocks in much of the discussion about employer-employee relations and union-business relationships. Trade unions are a service industry. In the same way as a person at a certain level of management who is offered a severance or buy-out package would take it to his or her accountant to get advice on it, the person at the bottom of the line will very often go to his or her trade union for information, advice or guidance as to how to deal with whatever problem he or she faces. There is a certain view that we should be in some way afraid of trade unions. Trade unions and business can be very similar. As my colleague Senator Ross would say if he were here, sometimes it is hard to see the difference between IBEC and ICTU because they must fight the same battles together regularly. They come from different perspectives but they must recognise each other's function. We must also recognise that the best advice a worker will get is often from his or her trade union; it might be the only advice received. Half of the time, this advice will suit management far better than people trying to work matters out on their own because people will have a clearer and broader view, which is important to bring to bear on the matter. When an employee wishes to be represented or have the information passed through his or her trade union, this should be recognised, enacted and enshrined in the Act.

The other amendment in my name and that of Senator McDowell stipulates that the employer shall arrange for the election or appointment of one or more than one employees' representative under this section. In our earlier discussion, I said that I wanted an election and that I did not like the idea that an employer could select a person as a representative. The earlier definition stated that somebody could be appointed by the employer on the basis agreed by the employees. This is where the meat of the issue lies and where my concern arises. If there are 100 people on the staff and an unscrupulous boss decides that he or she will deal with two of them and sets up arrangements, any fair-minded person would say this was completely wrong. This is what the Minister of State is allowing to happen by allowing these words in there; this is a fair interpretation of what is written. The section is not balanced and is anti-worker. It allows something to be done by an unscrupulous employer; an employer with a bad mind about it, who does not want to do business with employees and who wants to run rings around the Act. This provision provides an opening for such an employer to do this; it is a gap in the fence and should not be there. There is no case for doing this in any way other than an electoral or democratic manner. If the Minister of State can reassure me about another method, I will be happy. It is not that I am hung up on a particular way. I am hung up on allowing a piece of legislation through that allows somebody to run rings around, misinterpret or reinterpret it. It does not seem acceptable that we would go down this particular road. I ask the Minister of State to listen carefully to what I have to say on these issues.