David Cullinane (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 22, line 32, to delete “voluntary”.

This relates to the second last contribution of the Minister and the debate we had on the three grouped amendments. We seek to delete the word "voluntary" and we do so knowing it is not the solution that would be necessary to bring about mandatory trade union recognition, but we do so as an opportunity to again raise the issue and to have a discussion on it. While welcoming many of the Bill's provisions, we could not let it pass without raising the need for mandatory trade union recognition. When one uses a word such as "mandatory", it can conjure up images of draconian legislation where one is forcing somebody to do something, but in reality it is very simple. It is actually about rights - the right of a worker to be represented by his or her trade union.

I was elected through the Labour Panel to represent those who are in work, as were other Members. I wish all of them the best of luck in the next Seanad election. Some of them are present, although none of them have spoken on the Bill so far. Perhaps that is something they might have to consider if they are seeking re-election on the Labour Panel. Nonetheless, it is an important issue because if we continue along the road of the voluntarist way of doing things, even with the provisions in this Bill, we will still have big employers in the State who think it is acceptable to disregard trade unions and treat their workers with contempt. That is essentially what they do when they refuse to recognise trade unions. It is not that they are protecting some sort of right, that they see the provisions as being draconian or in contravention of their rights, it is a case of them being involved in a battle with trade unions and their employees. In effect, it is employers saying they will not recognise workers and they do not care who workers consider their representatives, that the employers will not talk to them or engage with them just because they can.

The vast majority of employers in the State are good, decent employers who recognise trade unions and the value of working out arrangements and resolutions to issues with the representatives of workers. Such a situation benefits everybody. That is why, by and large, employment regulation orders, EROs, registered employment agreements, REAs, and joint labour committees, JLCs, worked in the past, because employers and employees from various sectors came together, agreed and registered agreements and then had collective agreements in place. By and large, that worked until some unscrupulous employers decided they did not like it and they decided to challenge the system, which is what they did. We are dealing with the results of what happened. It will continue to be a problem in industrial relations law for as long as we allow it to be the case.

In reality, what we are doing is setting up a system for unscrupulous employers who do not recognise trade unions to be forced to go in the back door and to be obliged to resort to the industrial relations or employment rights bodies. At least that element is now in place, which is a step forward. While I am critical of the employers involved, I accept the constitutional limitations on the ability of the Government to introduce legislation. I accept that the Minister of State has done his best in the context of the existing constitutional position and also in the knowledge of the court cases and court challenges that have already taken place. I fully appreciate and understand that, but if we ever want to deal with the issue in its totality and to allow workers to be properly and fairly treated, including represented by their trade unions, which they should be, then we will have to take a step further. We will commit to that in our election manifesto in the next election. We want to see mandatory trade union recognition. We will have the courage to do so. I do not say the Minister of State or his party would not have the courage to support that. Let us work with the trade unions and get the best possible constitutional framework that balances the rights of both employers and employees. Unfortunately, at the moment the balance is skewed in favour of employers.

The reason we tabled the amendment is to raise the issue again and to debate what the next step will be. In any situation, when there is a gain, it can be a step or two forward but there is always the next step and the step after that. For all of us who are interested in labour rights, equality and workers rights, the next step is to have mandatory trade union recognition in the State, despite how it will be spun and challenged by some vested interests. The vast majority of employers would have no difficulty with the concept because they already recognise trade unions and they have a good relationship with trade unions but it is the minority, those who have something to hide or to fear, who do not want trade union recognition. For all of the criticisms multinational companies come under at times, very few of them have any difficulty with trade unions. They encourage them because they see it is an important function of democracy that people have a right to be represented by their trade unions. Employers see it as a benefit in that they deal with a small number of very qualified and skilled trade union officials. It is the next step along the road and I hope that after the Bill is passed and we net the gains contained in the Bill that we will move towards the next step at some point.