David Cullinane (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I fully understand and appreciate the legal and constitutional constraints under which the Government is operating in framing this Bill, both in terms of collective bargaining and of reinstating REAs. We are doing so against a backdrop of employers who have consistently challenged the industrial relations architecture of the State through the courts and have tried to dismantle it through the High Court and Supreme Court. We have seen that. I fully appreciate therefore the concern the Minister of State has that when he brings forward legislation within the confines of the existing Constitution, we must protect all of us and employees against further challenges of that nature.

I accept that, but the difficulty is that we are operating in that very narrow view. The provisions seem to be heavily weighted in favour of employers, where the rights of employers and the right to private property seem to take precedence on almost every occasion, above and beyond the rights of workers. It might sound draconian when we say there should be mandatory trade union recognition or it should be mandatory that a trade union official could walk into a place of employment without the consent of the employer, but no employee can prevent an employer from getting legal advice. An employer can spend huge amounts of money on getting advice from solicitors and barristers and get all the support and advice he wants. There is no problem in doing that and there is nothing employees can do about it. However, when they want to be represented in their place of work, or if they have a conflict with their employer and have paid union dues to be properly represented when there is conflict, they cannot do that if the employer does not want to engage with the trade unions.

Is it not telling that the very companies that do not engage with the trade unions, whether Ryanair, Dunnes Stores or any of those companies that will not recognise the trade unions, have the worst possible record when it comes to paying their workers and treating them fairly? There is a clear issue here that must be dealt with at some point. I believe we must have the courage at some point to go to the people on a constitutional referendum about mandatory trade union recognition. Essentially, that may be what is necessary to deal with the issues I have raised.

I am not saying the Minister of State is opposed to that. I understand the difficulties and the challenges this would present to the labour movement and to all of us who believe in fairness and justice for workers. However, the provisions currently are weighted very heavily in favour of employers. We see this all of the time and we must continue to challenge it. We cannot simply always accept there are constitutional constraints and that there is nothing we can do. We cannot continue to wash our hands of responsibility every time there is a problem - Vita Cortex, Lagan Brick, Game, Waterford Crystal, Clerys, Dunnes Stores - and say there is nothing we can do about it, because the situation is too complex. All of these issues are complex when we need to do something for workers, but there is no problem with introducing legislation for other issues.

If we are serious about having fairness for workers and a level playing field, we must grasp the nettle and deal with these issues. I accept the limitations on the Minister of State in framing this Bill. I have also spoken to many senior trade unionists, who would be very concerned about the possibility of a referendum, because of the forces of the Right and all the employer organisations that would line up against it, with all sorts of nonsense arguments. I accept that, but we must also accept that we cannot continue with the narrow constitutional framework we are all operating under currently while trying to get the best possible protections for workers, and then having to bring forward legislation that is rigid, narrow and quite limited because of these constraints we operate under. We need to have the vision to look beyond that and have the courage, at some point, to go beyond what is in this Bill. In saying this, I accept the huge steps forward being taken in this Bill.

I will say no more on this because similar issues will be raised with the next amendment coming forward.