Joe O'Toole (Independent)

The argument in favour of amendment No. 22 is that it is good practice to move roles among different people so that it would not become similar to a role of club secretary held for 40 years. In such circumstances it becomes difficult to remove somebody because it becomes confrontational. It is better if someone must seek re-election. Requiring that somebody be re-established in the position is better than apparently appointing somebody for life. It does not make sense. It is not a question of deep principle. Both sides should examine this. I would be happy to hear arguments against it.

I am still not certain on the first issue. Is it correct that in a situation such as that in the example I gave, in a company with 100 employees, agreement on the representative could be reached with a number of them, and they would then be complying with the Act without any election? Perhaps I am misinterpreting it.

Subsection (4) states the number of employees' representatives shall be determined on a pro rata basis, but that is governed by the word "appointed" and by the definition of "appointed" under section 1. Unless I am completely misinterpreting it, I do not understand why we would allow a situation to continue whereby an election is not necessary. That is stated clearly. I do not agree with it but I understand it. There are no limits or description of the basis on which it can be agreed. It does not need to be agreed with all of the employees.

The Minister of State is leaving this issue open. An agreement can be made on behalf of everybody by people with no authority to make such an agreement. That is wrong no matter how one examines it. I am not pulling any tricks. It is wrong but somebody somewhere will do it. It will then end up in the Labour Court and we will be required to sort out the mess that has been created by people working within the legislation.

Senator White mentioned my views on employers. I can tell Senator White that over the years I have had more rows with trade unionists than employers, and I continue to do so. When I discuss issues here, people on both sides of the argument can turn matters upside down. It is not beyond the wit of man to consider a small group of workers within the workplace approaching the employer and stating they can agree to work in a certain way. An innocent employer may be convinced to act in a way that would cause a problem for him or her in the future. This works both ways.

Senator White can take it that when I state this can be abused, I mean that I have see both sides abuse situations and it can happen in any way. This is about certainty. The reason the Labour Court exists is to get closure on issues, and to ensure certainty. It is not to make life more difficult for employers or easier for employees. It is about having a reasonable adult relationship that works in a company with or without trade unions. That is not the issue.

I am arguing against some of my more basic principles. What I am proposing is what many multinationals did in order to keep trade unions out. They set up their own elections and presented that as more democratic than what the big trade union barons could propose. The Minister of State is well aware of the language they use. I am trying to achieve a balance that works. I feel strongly on this, not only because of principles but also for practical reasons.

A trade union official may get a telephone call from a worker who states he or she is not happy with how the representatives in a company have been appointed, selected or elected. He or she might explain that a few workers in one section, who have been there longer than anyone else, pulled a fast one by approaching the boss and explaining the way in which it should be done. The boss agreed without giving it much thought, and a mess was created.

In another situation, the worker might explain to the trade union official that the boss is far too smart for some of the other workers, took them out for lunch and they returned with an agreement to set up an undemocratic structure. The trade union official would have to deal with whatever argument is made. It might be member against member or members against the boss. Let us be clear about this. If he or she consults the legislation, he or she will conclude that it has been done precisely under the terms of the section which states "appointed by the employer on a basis agreed with employees". It does not even state "with the employees" or "with all the employees" but rather "with employees", which could mean any number of them. Where do we go from here? Now we have a row on our hands. Everybody knows this was never envisaged in the legislation. Everybody knows this was never meant to be the outcome. We have gone beyond that stage. People will say that that was then and this is now, that they did it correctly and that those with a problem should just buzz off. It will then go through all the processes of industrial relations and the various complaints procedures. People's time will, utterly unnecessarily, be wasted in the courts and elsewhere.

One might well ask who wins in such a situation. There is no gain for employers in what I am suggesting, nor are there any negative implications. It strengthens their position as much as it strengthens the union position. I honestly and firmly believe that to be the case. I accept Senator Quinn's point that this approach may be more cumbersome than two people agreeing something without going to any bother but what we are talking about is the cumbersome nature of democracy. We all find elections something of a nuisance at times but we have to go through them in order to obtain a result. A problem exists which will raise its head if we leave matters as they stand. I will say in the corridor to the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, that we discussed it and that is what they are trying to sort out in the Labour Court and that it is also causing a problem somewhere else. Everybody would be tied up as a result, which would be a waste of creativity, productivity and time. I urge the Minister of State to take on board my amendment.