David Cullinane (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 106:

In page 47, after line 36, to insert the following:Safeguarding Employees

“55. In addition to existing provisions in enactments that to safeguard workers from penalisation and victimisation, an employer or any person acting on behalf of an employer shall not penalise an employee for seeking to exercise or having exercised any entitlement under employment legislation including availing or cooperating with the Workplace Relations Commission.”.

This goes to the heart of one of the problems we have in existing labour law, the relationship between employers and employees. I refer to the obvious victimisation by some employers. The vast majority of employers are decent and treat workers fairly but there are employers who are not. We have seen examples of sit-ins and workers who have been victimised because they joined trade unions or because they took cases. We do not have strong anti-victimisation legislation that protects workers in the State. It is not robust enough and any trade union will concede that.

The amendment provides safeguards against victimisation for employees who stand up for their rights. It is also an important statement to include in the legislation. Workers are often afraid to raise their heads above the parapet, particularly during a prolonged period of high unemployment. We have often heard the comment that people are lucky to have a job. That can have connotations of people not feeling they can raise employment rights issues in the workplace. The purpose of the legislation is to deal with the structures and mechanisms in dealing with complaints and not to deal with the primary legislative rights and entitlements of workers. However, trade unions have warned that the lack of universal protection in legislation may result in employees facing discrimination, victimisation and blacklisting. The Government needs to remove the fear of retaliation.

Workers face a number of problems and there are weaknesses in existing employment law. We do not have strong robust compliance and enforcement. I raised some of these issues in earlier amendments. We do not have strong anti-victimisation legislation. A good example of what I am talking about are the Dunnes Stores workers, the vast majority of whom are on low hour contracts. Most of them are on 15-hour contracts and the contracts can be spread over five days. This is done purposely by the employer so the worker does not qualify for social welfare payments. A survey carried out by the Mandate trade union showed that 85% of those working in Dunnes Stores say the insecurity of their hours and the nature of their contracts was used by the employer to control them. That is one of the criticisms of precarious employment and underemployment, which is becoming a big issue. This somewhat relates to the issue of victimisation and the fact that, in some instances, workers cannot stand up for themselves. It reverts to a point that I made in one of our previous discussions on the Bill, in that the power relationship between an employee and an employer is not always balanced. Often, it is very much weighted in favour of the employer. When an employer has power over how many hours someone works, it can influence whether the latter takes a case. If a worker takes a legitimate case, this amendment would mean that an employer could not victimise him or her subsequently. Unfortunately, it happens and needs to be stamped out.

The amendment seems reasonable. I am sure that the Minister wants people to use the system. We are setting up the workplace relations commission to make the system simpler and more effective for employees and employers. The majority of employers provide decent work and decent pay, but there are those who do not. The majority of cases that the commission will hear will involve those employers who do not pay their workers proper wages, something that leads to conflict in the workplace and cases being taken by employees. Those employers will probably be the ones who victimise workers.

This issue relates to collective bargaining. The heads of a Bill will be published at some stage. I gave an example of a survey. The same company does not recognise the trade union. The Mandate trade union cannot enter the workplace to sit down and have a conversation with the employer. Some of the workers were victimised because they wore union badges. Imagine that. They were banned from wearing the badges and told that, if they wore them, they would be sacked or would not receive hours. That is victimisation.

We have a major problem and it needs to be resolved. We are proposing an amendment. I have listened to the Minister's comments in previous debates, for example, that this Bill is not the best place to deal with the matter. When is the best time and where is the place to deal with it? This problem has been with us for decades, but no Government has dealt with it sufficiently. As long as employers are allowed to victimise workers, some will continue doing so. We have a responsibility as legislators to ensure that we have strong and robust anti-victimisation provisions in legislation to protect workers from unscrupulous employers who victimise them simply because they can.

Will the Minister take on board my points? I feel passionately about this issue. I will listen to his response. If he is not in a position to accept the amendment, I will withdraw it, resubmit it on Report Stage and push it to a vote. It is an amendment that should be tested via a vote. We will see where people stand on the issue.