Derek McDowell (Labour)

I endorse what has been said by Senator O'Toole. It is an important argument to which I expect we will return. I wish to broaden the discussion on trade unions. On reading subsection (3) it appears that trade unions will have the right to appoint or elect a representative from among their members, subject to several different conditions. First, there must be a system of collective bargaining within the undertaking in the first instance. Second, the union must represent at least 10% of the workers within that undertaking. Third, as I understand it — the Minister of State should correct me if I am wrong — it appears to exclude the possibility that a trade union official who is not actually working in the undertaking, would be the representative.

Several important linked principles are in evidence here. For the sake of argument, I am willing to live with the threshold, although we could say it should be lower or whatever. Given that we are talking about big corporations, I would have argued for a lower threshold. We are then left with two basic principles. One is that a system of collective bargaining must be in operation. There are companies where more than 10% of the workforce are represented by a trade union, which, effectively, will not deal with a trade union. They accept, reluctantly, that workers have the legal right to join trade unions but they do their level best to frustrate them. They discourage them from joining in the first place and, effectively, they will not negotiate with them in any meaningful way. I assume that, under this subsection, those companies would be entitled to turn around and say that although more than 10% of the workers are represented by a trade union, it is not their practice to deal with them so, therefore, this section does not apply and they will not deal with a trade union in the context of information and consultation. That is fundamentally wrong. If somebody working in a particular workplace wants to be represented by a trade union or a trade union official, that is his or her right and he or she should be entitled to do that.

My second point relates to trade union officials. If my reading of the subsection, which is somewhat convoluted, is correct, it appears to insist that the employee representative must him or herself be an employee of the particular undertaking. It is not open to a member of SIPTU to say that he or she wants the SIPTU representative from Liberty Hall to represent him or her in terms of obtaining information. It will be said that the people in the workplace will have the primary interest in getting the information but we are talking about large companies and we must adopt a sense of reality. If one takes Aer Lingus as an example, the type of information that has been provided in the fora involving the employers' and employees' representatives is very detailed. It is commercially sensitive and convoluted. If one provides it to somebody in the workforce, he or she may not be able to understand it. It appears to be a basic right that staff would be entitled to bring in people whose full-time job is to understand such matters. In other words, they are entitled to expert support and assistance from their trade unions because that is why they joined them in the first instance. If the subsection means what I think it means, that they cannot do this. That is fundamentally wrong.