Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senators for their contributions to this important debate. To respond to one of Senator Bradford's questions, the provisions we are discussing do represent a significant shift in or rebalancing of the industrial relations landscape in this country. What I mean by this is that the Bill addresses a major gap in the efficacy of our existing laws. There is a long-established right to collective bargaining in this country, as confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights. Since the 2007 Supreme Court judgment in a case involving Ryanair, we have not had what could rightly be called an effective collective bargaining system. That particular case had a chilling effect on the conduct of industrial relations in Ireland, which I will deal with in more detail presently.

We should not be under the false impression that there is some type of inconsistency between having strong industrial relations legislation and employment protections and, at the same time, a strong indigenous business sector and foreign direct investment culture. Those two principles are not mutually exclusive. They can manage to coexist, and it is the mark of a progressive society where that is the case. We can have strong industrial relations legislation with strong supports for employment rights.We can also have a flourishing business and job creation sector, where entrepreneurs and risk are rewarded and encouraged. I call it social democracy. It works very well elsewhere and there is no reason it cannot work here. We always have to manage to strike that balance and the legislation before us recognises the need to address that lacuna in Irish law, rebalance the position and level the playing pitch in terms of collective bargaining.

The Senator asked a question regarding the Circuit Court, which comes into the legislation in two respects. The first is the opportunity to access interim relief if it is a case that a worker is threatened with unfair dismissal in the context of the Act and the provisions in this Bill. It has been the case since the implementation of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2001 that a person can go to the Circuit Court to seek the enforcement of a Labour Court determination. That is not new and it is reiterated in this particular legislation.

Senator Naughton raised a couple of concerns about the legislation, one of which related to the issue of monitoring, compliance and enforcement. It is the role of the National Employment Rights Authority, NERA, and the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, to have sole responsibility for monitoring and compliance of this legislation and sectoral employment under the new Workplace Relations Act and this legislation. She also made a point regarding the incorporation of terms of a registered employment agreement, REA, into contracts of employment. Following the Supreme Court ruling in the McGowan judgment in 2013, existing terms and conditions in the former registered employment agreements were still incorporated into an individual's contract of employment and they, of course, can only be changed by agreement. That is the case in any contract. Newly recruited workers after the McGowan judgment of 2013 could be, and were, recruited on lesser rates, terms and conditions. That would have been by agreement, in essence, with employers. That was only subject to the national minimum wage legislation.

The Senator made a point about a three-year review. I consider it appropriate that the option should be open to the Minister of the day to request a review after three years. It may be the case that trade unions and employers might decide that they are happy to have the existing sectoral employment order continued in operation without change but that would be a matter for the parties and the Labour Court.

I apologise for my colleague, Senator John Kelly, who wanted to be here this evening to make a contribution but who has, unfortunately, been waylaid. I thank Senators for their contributions to the Bill. It is fair to say that the vast majority of them have welcomed the publication of this Bill and its principles as well as what it seeks to achieve. I assure Senator Mary White that the genesis of this legislation and the publication of various heads of Bills predates the current Dunnes Stores dispute. The legislation was committed to in the programme for Government of 2011 and we are now delivering on it. It provides for very significant reforms to Ireland's industrial relations laws. As I stated earlier, the process will balance the interests of workers and employers by providing certainty and clarity for businesses while enhancing collective bargaining in workplaces and it will provide for registered employment agreements to be re-established, with sectoral wage rates and conditions to be reintroduced. It will provide an improved framework, as we are required to carry out, for workers who seek to better their terms and conditions where collective bargaining is not recognised by the employer as well as providing a replacement for the registered employment agreement system in individual enterprises. There is a new mechanism whereby pay and pensions and sick pay provision in a particular sector can be introduced by way of sectoral employment order.

The legislation will provide new, clear, balanced and, crucially, evidence-based mechanisms to deal with specific industrial relations issues. This will address particular gaps that exist in protections for workers and the low-paid and it will also provide stability and certainty for employees, employers and businesses, both Irish and multinational, on whom we rely on to create the jobs that we need in our society and economy. As I stated, a lacuna has existed for several years in the framework for workers who seek to improve their terms and conditions, either through collective bargaining or registered employment agreements. This arose as a result of a Supreme Court judgment that struck down the old REA framework on grounds of constitutionality while the Supreme Court had also found fault with the application of the legislation that existed in terms of collective bargaining. This legislation is a direct response to these rulings.

The collective bargaining proposals in this Bill are in fulfilment of the programme for Government commitment to reform the current law on employee rights to engage in collective bargaining. In addition, the House knows that the International Labour Organization, ILO, in 2012 issued its report in response to a complaint referred to it by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and IMPACT, arising from the 2007 Ryanair Supreme Court judgment. As part of the Government's response to the ILO report, we indicated that these matters would be addressed in the context of the programme for Government commitment and they are being addressed in this legislation. Extensive consultation with stakeholders has taken place, both with respect to the experience of the operation of the 2001 and 2004 legislation before and after the Ryanair judgment.

The process also encompassed discussions on the import of certain European Court of Human Rights decisions. Comprehensive submissions and presentations have been received that contain a range of often conflicting but very rationally espoused positions. The extensive consultations have resulted in the broad areas of acceptance by employer and worker representatives and on the legislative proposals contained in this Bill. In developing the proposals, we have been very keen to respect the positions articulated by stakeholders to develop proposals that sustain our traditional voluntary system but also ensure that workers have confidence that where there is no collective bargaining, there will be an effective system that will ensure people can air grievances about remuneration and terms and conditions and these can be determined by the Labour Court, if necessary, based on those in similar companies and secured by way of Circuit Court order. The legislation also ensures workers will not be victimised for doing this and it includes new and enhanced protections for workers who may feel they are being victimised for exercising their rights in this regard by way of a new provision to secure interim relief through the courts in the case of potential dismissal.

I pay tribute to all involved in contributing to the development of these proposals. Enactment of this legislation is a key commitment of the Labour Party as part of the Government and one that I am very proud to be delivering and be associated with. I entered public life 16 years ago as a councillor in order to improve people's living and working conditions and the new collective bargaining legislation will do exactly that as part of a package of measures we are introducing to promote the dignity at work agenda. I ask colleagues to view this legislation in the context of the totality of legislation and innovations we are introducing around areas like low pay, for example.

The reintroduction of REAs and sectoral employment orders in a constitutionally robust manner will be of enormous benefit to both workers and their employers. Such mechanisms may be used in resolving disputes or potential disputes and we have seen a number of such disputes arise in recent years following the Supreme Court ruling. This new legislation will bring a sense of certainty to both sides of industry who engage in such agreements around terms and conditions, particularly when the employer is tendering for contracts. Ultimately, the legislation will improve industrial relations after a period of uncertainty. It will also help to prevent a race to the bottom in terms of skills, training and terms and conditions of employment.

A number of issues were raised by Senators and I have addressed a number of them to the best of my ability. I will elaborate on the enforcement provisions. I agree with some of the comments made by Senators and the importance of enforcement and compliance cannot be overstated. The compliance and enforcement provisions relating to REAs and sectoral employment orders are fully consistent with provisions contained in the Workplace Relations Act 2015, which was recently passed. In this context, the powers given to NERA inspectors are quite extensive. They include the powers to use reasonable force to enter a place of work or premises reasonably believed to be used in the employment of persons or keeping of records. NERA inspectors have powers to copy records and remove books, documents or records for a period that the inspector reasonably considers to be necessary. Inspectors can, under warrant of the District Court, enter a domestic dwelling with other inspectors or members of the Garda Síochána in pursuit of documents or records.In regard to enforcement and compliance, another issue about which Senators are concerned, although they may not have mentioned it today, is bogus self-employment. The issue has been raised in this House, in the Dáil and at committees, particularly in regard to the construction sector, and I share some of the concerns people have raised in regard to the issue.

NERA inspectors carry out inspections of employers' employment records and workplaces to determine compliance with employment law and an employee’s statutory entitlements. In 2014, NERA carried out over 5,500 such inspections, including on construction sites. The policy of NERA is to seek voluntary compliance where breaches of employment law are detected. NERA works with employers and trade unions and it allows employers every reasonable opportunity to rectify breaches. Allegations of non-compliance with employment rights legislation should be referred to NERA which investigates matters brought to its attention.

It is not within the remit of NERA to make determinations regarding the employment status, for example, of individuals vis-à-vis employment or self-employment. That is a matter of responsibility for the Department of Social Protection. Other agencies would be concerned with that area as well, including, for example, the Revenue Commissioners. It is important to restate that. It has been an issue in the construction sector, in particular, which has been brought to our attention and has been a matter of significant public focus. The very fact we are seeking to reintroduce a sectoral employment order approach is really designed to ensure that standards are retained in an industry like construction. If there were to be a sectoral employment order in the construction area, it is important we use it to try to promote industrial harmony to ensure people are paid adequately and fairly for the skilled jobs that the do and to ensure we have a level playing pitch in terms of tendering, labour costs and so on. At the same time, we must ensure that standards, skills and competencies in an important industry for this country are maintained and protected. Where we do not have these structures, standards slip and nobody wins and, in fact, we are all losers in such scenarios.

I thank Senators for their contributions. We will have another opportunity to deal with the matters raised today in some more detail on Committee and Remaining Stages. I look forward to that engagement.