Seanad debates

Wednesday, 25 February 2004

Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2003: Second Stage.

 

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

11:00 am

Photo of Michael AhernMichael Ahern (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On behalf of my colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Fahey, I am pleased to be in the Seanad to speak on the Second Stage of the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. The Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, has asked me to express his gratitude to the House for facilitating him in taking this Bill and to pass on his apologies for not being present today.

During its passage through the Dáil a number of amendments, which have strengthened the Bill, have been made. I will comment on the main amendments later when outlining the various sections of the Bill. First, however, I propose to summarise the background and context of the Bill, the basic aim of which is to strengthen the industrial relations procedures given effect through the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2001.

The system of industrial relations in Ireland is essentially voluntary in nature. The fundamental approach of successive Governments to industrial relations has been one of voluntarism. There is a consensus among the social partners that the terms and conditions of employment of workers are best determined through the process of voluntary bargaining between employers and workers and between employers' associations and one or more trade unions or staff associations. This approach to industrial relations has served us well over the years. In general, our laws do not try to impose a solution on parties to a trade dispute, but rather are designed to support the parties in resolving their differences. The State has, in general, confined its role to underpinning voluntarism through the provision of third party industrial relations machinery.

We have a number of dispute resolution services, which are at the disposal of workers and employers to assist them in resolving their differences. The Labour Relations Commission alone chairs more than 2,000 meetings per year and 80% of these cases are settled at conciliation. Issues not resolved by the Labour Relations Commission may be referred for investigation to the Labour Court. In 2002, almost 600 cases referred to the Labour Court under industrial relations and other legislation were completed. Despite the fact that the majority of recommendations issued by the court are non-binding, there is an acceptance rate of more than 80% by parties to the disputes.

The Government, however, has recognised and recognises there is a need for dispute settling mechanisms in situations where employees wish to be represented by a trade union or excepted body but collective bargaining does not take place. Under Partnership 2000, a high level group comprising representatives from IBEC, ICTU the Departments of Finance and Enterprise, Trade and Employment, IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland and chaired by the Department of the Taoiseach was set up to devise a mechanism for resolving such disputes. In its final report the group recommended two distinct procedures to be put in place. Its recommendations laid the foundations for the procedures we have in place today.

The first procedure is a voluntary one provided for through the code of practice on voluntary dispute resolution — SI 145 of 2000 — which was prepared by the Labour Relations Commission, in consultation with ICTU and IBEC, and promulgated by the Tánaiste in May 2000. In essence, the code of practice provides procedures for the negotiated resolution of these disputes.

The process under the existing code of practice for the successful resolution of a dispute can be summarised in four steps: (1) The dispute is referred to the Labour Relations Commission, which appoints an officer from its advisory service to assess the issues in dispute; (2) the advisory officer of the Labour Relations Commission works with the parties in an attempt to resolve the issues in dispute; (3) in the event that the issues in dispute are not capable of early resolution by the intervention of the Labour Relations Commission, an agreed cooling-off period is put in place. During the cooling-off period, the commission's advisory service continues to work with the parties in an attempt to resolve any outstanding issues. The commission may engage expert assistance, including the involvement of ICTU and IBEC, should that prove helpful to the resolution of any differences; and (4) if, after the cooling-off period, all issues have been resolved, the Labour Relations Commission disengages. Before disengaging, the commission may make proposals to the parties for the peaceful resolution of any further grievances or disputes. In the event of issues remaining unresolved after the cooling-off period, the Labour Relations Commission makes a written report to the Labour Court on the situation.

The second procedure, a legislative fall-back procedure, was provided for through the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2001. This Act gave new dispute settling powers to the Labour Court in cases where no arrangements for collective bargaining are in place. Under the 2001 Act, disputes may be referred unilaterally by an authorised trade union or excepted body to the Labour Court in a case where all of the following circumstances pertain: first, it is not the practice of the employer to engage in collective bargaining negotiations and the internal dispute resolution procedures normally used by the parties concerned have failed to resolve the dispute; second, the employer has failed to observe a provision of the code of practice on voluntary dispute resolution, which I mentioned earlier, or has failed to observe such a provision in good faith; third, neither the trade union nor the employees, as the case may be, have acted in a manner which, in the opinion of the court, has frustrated the employer in observing a provision of such code of practice; and fourth, neither the trade union nor the employees, as the case may be, has had recourse to industrial action after the dispute in question was referred to the commission in accordance with the provisions of the code of practice. Cases that have satisfied these circumstances may go through the following Labour Court procedures: an investigation of the case by the Labour Court, which may result in a recommendation giving the court's opinion and, where appropriate, its view as to the action that should be taken; a review of all relevant matters, which may result in the making of a determination by the Labour Court; a review of the determination by the Labour Court; and an application to the Circuit Court for an order directing an employer to carry out the determination or review of the determination. Ultimately the 2001 Act provides for the issuing of a binding determination by the Labour Court, enforceable through the Circuit Court.

The Bill proposes to strengthen the procedures in the 2001 Act in line with commitments in the national agreement, Sustaining Progress. In the negotiations on Sustaining Progress, the trade union and employer organisations agreed that there is a need to enhance the effectiveness both of the procedures put in place by the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2001 and the code of practice on voluntary dispute resolution. Under section 8.9 of Part 2 of Sustaining Progress, seven specific measures to enhance the effectiveness of existing procedures, as agreed between the Government and the trade union and employer representatives, are set out. Measure 1 states:

The introduction of an indicative overall time-frame targeting 26 weeks — with provision for up to a maximum of 34 weeks where necessary — for the processing of cases under the Dispute Resolution Code and Act to the point of issuance of a determination, save when an extension is agreed by the parties.

This measure sets out the timeframe agreed between the Government and the trade union and employer representatives for the completion of cases under an enhanced code of practice on voluntary dispute resolution and the amended legislation. Allowance has been made for the extension of the timeframe from 26 to 34 weeks, if necessary. The introduction of a timeframe will shorten the length of time required to process a case through the code of practice and Labour Court procedures.

Measure 2 states:

The amendment of Section 2 of the Act to provide that engagement by the Court could now take place on the basis of a breach of the timeframes within the Code, the exhaustion of the timeframes or the indication at any time by the Labour Relations Commission that it is unable to assist the parties. These provisions would be substituted for the existing Section 2(l)(b), while preserving the remainder of the Section.

This measure requires changes to the conditions to be met under subsection 2(1)(b) of the 2001 Act. This will facilitate the movement of cases from the auspices of the advisory service of the Labour Relations Commission to the Labour Court.

Measure 3 states:

The amendment of Section 3 so as to allow the Court to combine both the preliminary and substantive hearings, where it considers this to be appropriate.

Under section 3 of the 2001 Act, the Labour Court may hold a preliminary hearing to determine whether the conditions set out in section 2 of that Act have been met. This measure would allow for the combination of this preliminary hearing with the hearing of the case. However, the Labour Court may still hold a separate preliminary hearing, if it so wishes.

Measure 4 states:

The removal of the provision in the Act for the Labour Court to review a determination, prior to seeking enforcement of a determination by the Circuit Court, by deleting Section 9 and amending Section 10 to provide for an entitlement for the trade union or excepted body to apply to the Circuit Court for the enforcement of a determination immediately — or on expiry of whatever implementation period is provided for in the determination.

This measure was designed to contribute to the speeding up of the processing of cases to facilitate achievement of the agreed timeframes.

Measure 5 states:

The introduction of a new Code setting out the different types of practice which would constitute victimisation arising from an employee's membership or activity on behalf of a trade union or a manager discharging his or her managerial functions, or other employees, drawing, as appropriate, for consideration, on relevant definitions in existing Codes and legislation and best practice.

In this measure it was agreed to introduce a code of practice on victimisation. This code of practice will only be applicable in instances where the code of practice on voluntary dispute resolution has been invoked or where steps have been taken to invoke that code of practice. This code will cover victimisation of trade union members, managers and other employees.

Measure 6 states:

The amendment of the Act to provide that the Labour Court should have regard to breaches of the Anti-Victimisation Code and where appropriate should provide for redress in making its determinations.

This measure provides for redress in situations where a breach of the code of practice on victimisation has been established. The decision to provide for redress requires legislative provisions, which are included in this Bill.

Measure 7 states:

Transitional provisions will be developed to allow for the processing of cases in current disputes where access to the Code of Practice on Dispute Resolution as at the date of agreement is not available.

This measure provides for the introduction of changes to subsection 2(1)(d) of the 2001 Act. This subsection is one of the four existing conditions that must be complied with before the Labour Court can investigate a case.

Implementation of the measures agreed in Sustaining Progress requires a revised code of practice on voluntary dispute resolution; a code of practice on victimisation; a number of amendments to the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2001; and the introduction of legislative provisions to provide for a prohibition on victimisation, to provide for the processing of complaints of victimisation and redress where appropriate.

A new code of practice on voluntary dispute resolution will support the provisions of the Bill. This code of practice has been the subject of discussions between the Labour Relations Commission and trade union and employer representatives. Following these discussions the Labour Relations Commission prepared an enhanced code of practice on voluntary dispute resolution for the consideration of the Minister. The Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, has signed the necessary statutory instrument under section 42 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990, SI 76 of 2004, to give effect to this code of practice.

The enhanced code of practice on voluntary dispute resolution prepared by the Labour Relations Commission sets out the procedures for the effective and expeditious resolution of the issues in dispute. A period of six weeks will be provided for the processing of cases under the enhanced code. An advisory officer will be appointed to facilitate proceedings. Accordingly, a dispute, which has not been resolved by the Labour Relations Commission within six weeks, will be deemed to have been exhausted and the advisory officer will disengage. However, in instances where real progress is being achieved, the parties may agree a time extension during which the advisory officer will continue to work with the parties towards achieving a resolution. The code also sets out the actions or inaction involved in determining whether a breach of the timeframe has occurred.

It was agreed to introduce a code of practice on victimisation. This will set out the different types of practice which will constitute victimisation arising from an employee's membership or activity on behalf of a trade union or a manager discharging his or her managerial functions or other employees.

The Bill gives effect to the legislative provisions agreed in Sustaining Progress. I will outline to the House a summary of the sections of the Bill and the main amendments which have been made during its passage through the Lower House.

Section 1 is a standard section in all Acts. It provides for the interpretation of certain references which are mentioned later in the Bill and also permits abbreviated references to sections, subsections and to other Acts. This section was amended on Committee Stage in the Dáil to include definitions for the terms "Act of 2001", "Court", "excepted body" and "employee". As a result of a very useful exchange of views on the alternative definitions of "employee" put forward on Committee Stage, the Government brought forward a further amendment to the definition of "employee" on Report Stage which was agreed.

Section 2 deletes section 2(1)(b) of the 2001 Act and replaces it with a provision that allows the court to investigate a trade dispute if one of three different conditions has been met. These conditions are a breach of the timescales in the amended code of practice on voluntary dispute resolution; the exhaustion of the timescales in the amended code of practice; and the receipt of a report from the Labour Relations Commission that no further efforts on the part of the commission will advance the resolution of the dispute.

A further amendment to section 2 of the 2001 Act was brought forward on Report Stage in the Dáil to clarify that the provisions of the 2001 Act apply where the employer does not engage in collective bargaining negotiations with the grade, group or category of workers who are party to the trade dispute.

Section 3 replaces section 3 of the 2001 Act. This section enables the Labour Court to allocate its resources more efficiently by allowing it to combine preliminary and substantive hearings in a dispute referred to it under section 2(1) of the 2001 Act, if it considers it appropriate. This section would also have the effect of reducing the length of time taken by the Labour Court to conduct an investigation.

Section 4 replaces section 10 of the 2001 Act to enable a trade union or excepted body to apply to the Circuit Court for the enforcement of a Labour Court determination, if an employer has failed to implement its terms. The Labour Court's determination is binding and is enforceable by order of the Circuit Court.

Section 5 provides for the processing of cases, which had, at the date of enactment, been referred to the Labour Court under the 2001 Act. These cases will be treated, from a procedural perspective, as if they had been referred to the Labour Court under the new legislation. The cases being dealt with under the 2001 Act, as well as any new cases, will benefit from the streamlined procedures contained in this Bill.

Section 6 enables the Labour Court to investigate disputes where, at the date of the ratification of Sustaining Progress on 26 March 2003, access to the Labour Court was not available due to industrial action. An amendment to this section was agreed on Committee Stage in the Dáil to the effect that in order to avail of this provision, industrial action must have ceased when this legislation comes into operation.

Section 7 enables the Labour Court to give priority to cases referred to it under this Bill to enable it to resolve the dispute within the agreed timeframe. Section 8 defines victimisation and allows for acts which will be specified in the code of practice on victimisation to be included within the definition of victimisation. A complaint of victimisation may be made in circumstances where there is a trade dispute in which the code of practice on voluntary dispute resolution has been invoked, or where steps have been taken to invoke the code, and arises from an employee's membership or activity on behalf of a trade union, a manager discharging his or her managerial functions, or other employees. There were a number of minor amendments made to this section on Committee Stage in the Dáil.

Section 9 deals with complaints of victimisation and empowers a rights commissioner to hear such a complaint from an employee and to make a decision on the matter. Rights commissioners already hear complaints under 14 different sets of legislation and two sets of regulations and are experienced and well-positioned to adjudicate on the issues involved in any cases that might be taken under this section. This section also provides that a rights commissioner may award compensation, where he or she considers it just and equitable. The timeframe in which a rights commissioner can hear a complaint under this section was the subject of detailed discussion on Committee and Report Stages in the Dáil, with both Government and Opposition amendments put forward.

The Bill, as published, provided that a rights commissioner could hear a complaint of victimisation within six months of the occurrence of the alleged victimisation, or within six months of the most recent occurrence. A Government amendment to extend the period in which a rights commissioner could hear such a complaint by a further six months, where the failure to present the complaint was due to reasonable cause, was agreed on Committee Stage. While empathising with the Opposition amendment put forward on Committee and Report Stages in the Dáil, the Government considered that an extension of the timeframe by six months was a reasonable one while providing certainty to all parties.

Section 10 provides for an appeals mechanism to the Labour Court from a decision of a rights commissioner. Section 11 empowers the Labour Court to take evidence on oath, to administer oaths and to compel a person to attend to give evidence where there is an appeal from a decision of a rights commissioner in a victimisation case as provided for under section 10. This section was amended on Committee Stage to provide that a witness in a hearing of an appeal before the Labour Court has the same privileges and immunities as a witness before the High Court. Section 12 allows the Labour Court to refer a question of law arising in an appeal of a rights commissioner decision under this Bill to the High Court. Also, with regard to an appeal of a rights commissioner decision under the Bill, this section allows a party to the proceedings before the Labour Court to appeal to the High Court on a point of law only.

Section 13 enables a party to apply to the Circuit Court for an enforcement order of a decision of a rights commissioner or a determination of the Labour Court in respect of a victimisation case where the decision or determination has not been carried out within a period of six weeks. A new section 14 was introduced by amendment on Report Stage to provide for an amendment to the First Schedule of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. This amendment has the effect of increasing the level of fines which can be imposed by the courts in cases where there are breaches of registered employment agreements.

Section 15, an amendment of the Protection of Employees (Employers' Insolvency) Act 1984, was introduced by amendment on Committee Stage. This is a technical amendment to the Act to enable employees of insolvent companies to apply to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment under the insolvency payments scheme for payment of statutory minimum notice entitlements directly through the liquidator or receiver without having to obtain an award from the Employment Appeals Tribunal.

Section 16 repeals section 9 of the 2001 Act which provided for a review of a determination by the Labour Court. This amendment to the 2001 Act, as in the case of section 3, will facilitate achievement of the overall timeframe and more efficient allocation of Labour Court resources. Section 17 gives the Short Title, collective citation and construction and prescribes that the Bill shall come into operation on such day or days as may be appointed by ministerial order. This section was amended on Committee Stage to take account of the inclusion of section 15.

The purpose of this Bill is to strengthen the procedures of the existing legislation, as agreed by the trade union and employer representatives. The Bill provides employers and employee representatives with the opportunity to negotiate a solution to industrial disputes in situations where collective bargaining arrangements are not in place. Only if the voluntary process fails will the Labour Court become involved and, as under the 2001 Act, the court shall not, in its recommendations and determinations, provide for collective bargaining. I look forward to hearing Senators' views and I commend the Bill to the House.

Photo of Paul CoghlanPaul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Michael Ahern, to the House and thank him for his overview of the Bill. I welcome the Bill which makes further and better provision for promoting harmonious relations between workers and employers. It amends and extends the Industrial Relations Acts 1946 to 2001 and the Protection of Employees (Employers' Insolvency) Act 1984.

As the Minister of State outlined, the Bill flows from the national agreement, Sustaining Progress, and is another incremental improvement in our law. The Bill will strengthen the procedures of existing legislation as agreed by trade union and employer representatives. It provides them with the opportunity to negotiate a solution to industrial disputes in situations where collective bargaining arrangements are not in place. It is also welcome that the Bill puts time limits on and gives certainty to many of the procedures and processes of the industrial relations machinery for the resolution of disputes through the various bodies and structures established over the years. The various bodies provided for in law, such as the Labour Court and the Labour Relations Commission, and other mechanisms of arbitration which are in use have worked well. The Bill, once enacted, will bring some speed to the resolution of many conflicts by placing time limits on those disputes in a comprehensive and collective way, providing certainty for all parties involved. That there will be a time limit provided within which they must exhaust all the processes of an industrial dispute is also to be welcomed.

Much has been made of the fact that our system of industrial relations is essentially voluntary resulting in a consensus between the social partners that matters are best determined through the process of voluntary bargaining between employers and workers, or between their various associations and the trade unions. This approach to industrial relations has served us well and it is better to build on that, as this Bill does, than to provide for some radical new departure. The Bill therefore underpins that role through the provision of third party industrial relations machinery.

My party acknowledges the work done by employers and ICTU in coming to agreements to amend the 2001 Act. We are living in a different era from that in which we lived when partnership began in the 1980s. We have made significant economic progress over that period. The challenge for social partnership in the future is to set a new agenda of work to meet the great challenge of competitiveness which has been drifting in the wrong direction over recent years as national competitiveness deteriorates rapidly. The various studies carried out by the OECD and other reputable bodies show that our cost base makes Ireland far less attractive than it was approximately ten years ago. We have had a higher than expected notifiable redundancy rate in the past year which we should have done more to avoid and addressed through partnership. We failed to tackle the issue of research and development investment and infrastructural investment in our economy. We have not sustained the progress of the late 1990s and early years of this century to the extent we could and should have done and thereby have frittered away some opportunities for economic development. We approve of the giving of new dispute settling powers to the Labour Court in cases where no arrangements for collective bargaining are in place. This, together with the other measures, should enhance the effectiveness of the procedures put in place by the 2001 Act.

There has been much debate about whether membership of a trade union should be mandatory but the most important point is that people have a right to join a trade union should they so wish. We have quite a high level of trade union membership and the unions have made a major contribution to social partnership together with employers, in conjunction with the State. The partnership approach has worked exceptionally well in facilitating the development of greater economic activity, better realisation of the problems facing the country and a collective method of dealing with these problems. The spirit of partnership, together with industrial relations procedures, has led to this legislation. We graciously acknowledge the work done by IBEC and ICTU in coming to the necessary arrangements and agreements to facilitate this amendment of the 2001 Act. Since the inception of partnership in the 1980s there has been sustained progress and hopefully resources will continue to be available for further implementation of the agreed programme.

We are bedevilled by bottlenecks in infrastructural development such as road, rail, broadband and other measures needed to improve our competitiveness when we are under pressure from eastern European and Far Eastern countries. The National Competitiveness Council has warned us several times that we must improve. We are now playing catch up which is not easy. The national development plan has been cut back and there has been a slow-down in many projects. These are important for our towns and cities and essential for freeing up land, opportunities for investment and projects which would provide sustainable investment in the future. Partnership has changed in line with changes in the work agenda since the late 1980s. Employers and employees are being hung out to dry because of job insecurity and unnecessary market uncertainty following the deterioration in competitiveness.

Section 2 of the Bill introduces a new code of practice on dispute resolution which was part of the Bill in 2001. This is an improved and strengthened measure and the section also deals with the code of practice which will put a time limit on dispute resolution between six and 34 weeks, which is a reasonable length of time within which to come to an agreement. Some disputes were more protracted than others. The new machinery will bring certainty to the process and hopefully concentrate the minds of those involved at an earlier stage. Section 3 also seems a very worthwhile improvement because it establishes a single process to resolve the preliminary and substantive issues which are part of the problem or problems. Far too often preliminary hearings are held but the substantive issues are postponed for a period. While this may allow people to concentrate on the issues, the process of dealing with them at the same time will help to accelerate the process.

Section 8, dealing with victimisation, is one of the most important sections of this Bill and I assume it covers bullying in the workplace. Perhaps the Minister of State might say more on this when he comes to respond because in his speech he referred to the code of practice on victimisation which I take it has yet to be drawn up and agreed.

I welcome this legislation which brings to fruition the experiences gained from the 2001 Act which highlighted several issues requiring technical resolution. It will hopefully speed up the process of resolving disputes as originally intended by the 2001 Act on which this is a significant improvement. It will give greater clarity and early resolution to many of the problems prevalent throughout business and industry. No one wishes to see disputes drag on because extra time often entrenches cases more than necessary. Time limits for a resolution of disputes should advance the best prospect for resolution and enhance the industrial relations machinery provided.

Photo of John Gerard HanafinJohn Gerard Hanafin (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State and I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this important Bill in the light of Sustaining Progress agreed with the social partners. Since Fianna Fáil brought the social partners together we have successfully developed the economy to the point of being one of the most developed countries in the OECD, with one of the highest GDPs per person in that group. This stems from working together and sharing and achieving a more equal and just society, as this Bill does. We have come through difficult times since the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre in September 2001 and the consequent stock market instability affecting world markets. Now the Central Bank is advising consumers to spend which is a sure indicator that the work of this Government with the social partners is paying dividends in the most difficult of times.

The purpose of the Bill is to implement the specific measures contained in sections 8.8 to 8.11 of part 2 of Sustaining Progress, the current social partnership agreement, one of the key aims of which is "to consolidate the progress of recent years and to achieve a medium-term growth rate capable of sustaining high levels of employment and facilitating the evolution of a more equal society". This legislation represents a significant step towards a more equitable society for employee and employer and the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, and his staff, should be commended for their work in preparing it. It is intended to enhance the effectiveness of existing dispute resolution procedures created by the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2001 and the code of practice on voluntary dispute resolution by introducing timescales. Section 8.9 of Sustaining Progress specifies "the introduction of an indicative overall timeframe targeting 26 weeks — with provision for up to a maximum of 34 weeks where necessary — for the processing of cases under the Dispute Resolution Code and Act", hence the necessity for this Bill.

We are very fortunate that industrial relations have always been dealt with on a voluntary basis. There has been consensus among the social partners that the terms and conditions of employment of workers are best determined through the process of voluntary bargaining. The Government has done everything it can to support this voluntary process, which has worked very well on our behalf over the years. In the course of time we have had to introduce certain dispute resolution services. The Minister of State indicated that he fully supports this and he outlined on Second Stage in the Dáil some figures indicating the success we have had.

The Labour Relations Commission chaired more than 2,000 meetings in 2002, 80% of which resulted in settlement of disputes. This is an excellent success rate which shows the mechanism has worked very well. It is unfortunate that from time to time issues are not resolved through the Labour Relations Commission and need to be referred for further investigation to the Labour Court. While the recommendations issued by the court are non-binding, there is an acceptance rate of more than 80% by the parties to the dispute.

The mechanism in place has worked well and it has served the country well to have a voluntary approach, which is welcomed by employer organisations, trade unions, staff organisations and individual staff members. However, a number of issues have arisen. One of the reasons for introducing this Bill is that there has been a degree of frustration particularly with the lack of timescales for dealing with disputes, which is specifically addressed in the Bill. There have been complaints over the length of time taken to process cases through the Labour Court. Matters should be brought to a head within a reasonable length of time.

Section 2 of the Bill deletes section 2(1)(b) of the Act of 2001 and replaces it with a provision which allows the court to investigate a trade dispute if one of the following three conditions has been met: a breach of the timescale in the amended code of practice on voluntary dispute resolution; the exhaustion of the timescales in the amended code of practice; or the receipt of a report from the Labour Relations Commission that no further efforts on the part of the commission will advance the resolution of the dispute. This section tries to deal with disputes in an effective way rather than allow them to go on endlessly with no resolution in sight. I welcome this provision.

Section 3 replaces section 3 of the Act of 2001. This section enables the Labour Court to allocate its resources more efficiently by allowing it to combine preliminary and substantive hearings in a dispute referred to it under section 2(1) of the Act of 2001. This goes a long way towards reducing the length of time taken by the Labour Court in conducting an investigation. It is still possible to take the preliminary hearings and substantial hearings separately. However, if the court feels time would be saved by combining them it will now be possible to do so, which is an important improvement to the 2001 Act. The length of time involved in resolving the dispute has caused considerable disquiet among parties that have had to go to the Labour Court.

Section 4 replaces section 10 of the Act of 2001 to enable a trade union or excepted body to apply to the Circuit Court for the enforcement of a Labour Court determination. If an employer has failed to implement its terms, the Labour Court determination is binding and enforceable by order to the Circuit Court. As I mentioned, in most cases the Labour Court is very successful and parties accept its decision. It is hoped this trend will continue. However, we are all aware of a number of past disputes that have been quite contentious. When the Labour Court makes its recommendations it is important that the parties to the dispute implement them. If they fail to do so, it should be possible to go to court to ensure the parties comply. I welcome this section, which will enhance the resolution of disputes and importantly will give this Bill some kick and power.

Section 5 provides for the processing of cases which had, at the date of enactment, been referred to the Labour Court under the Act of 2001. These cases will now be treated under the new legislation. This is a procedural matter and it is important that any benefits that may arise under the new Bill should be applicable for cases previously referred to the Labour Court under the 2001 Act.

As well as the issue of the timeframe, one of the critical areas for complaint under the current mechanisms is victimisation. I am delighted the Bill deals comprehensively with the issue, specifically under section 8 where victimisation is defined. It allows for acts to be specified and the code of practice on victimisation to be included in the definition. A complaint of victimisation may be made in circumstances where there is a trade dispute in which the code of practice on voluntary dispute resolution has been or is intended to be invoked, and arises where an employee's membership or activity on behalf of a trade union is challenged by an employer, or where a manager discharges his or her managerial functions.

When taken in conjunction with section 9, which deals with complaints of victimisation, it empowers a rights commissioner to hear those complaints from an employee, trade union or excepted body and to make a decision on the matter. The section also provides that a rights commissioner may award compensation where he or she considers that to be equitable. If we are serious about eradicating victimisation, the last part of the section, which allows compensation to be awarded, is important. It is important that victimisation is not tolerated in our system and that we are serious as legislators about its eradication. For that reason I welcome in particular these two sections which deal with victimisation.

It is also important that there is an appeals mechanism to the Labour Court arising from a decision of a rights commissioner. This is specified under section 10. It is one's right and entitlement to have an avenue for appeal. The Labour Court is empowered to take evidence on oath under section 11, to administer oaths and to compel a person to attend to give evidence where there is an appeal of a rights commissioner's decision in a victimisation case, which is critical. There can be parties who are guilty of victimisation and are reluctant to come forward and give evidence. It is important that they are compelled to do so in such circumstances. This part of the Bill's "get tough" mechanism shows our determination to tackle these problems.

The two most important sections deal with the timescale within which disputes can be settled and the victimisation issue. If we can cater satisfactorily for these two areas, it will allow an equitable system to exist within our industrial relations environment. It will also mean that disputes do not drag on endlessly without resolution and that people can see some light at the end of the tunnel. The voluntary manner in which we have dealt with industrial relations over the past ten to 15 years has been a great success. It is to be hoped that the mechanisms in place, such as the Labour Court, will be used as last resorts and that the voluntary system of resolving disputes about terms and conditions of employment will continue.

I take this opportunity to wish the two main dispute resolution institutions well for the future. The trade union movement in Ireland, ably represented by ICTU, has played an enormous role in developing relationships between employers and employees and in ensuring its members have proper conditions of employment. Without trade unions, workers would not have the conditions that exist today and for which previous generations have fought. I congratulate those involved in the movement on the excellent work they have done through the years.

I also praise IBEC, which is a registered trade union, because it has played a significant role in educating and advising employers about proper industrial relations and in getting involved at the coalface in negotiations on behalf of businesses. Small businesses in particular do not have the personnel with the necessary skills to negotiate agreements and conditions of employment with trade unions. IBEC has played a significant role in facilitating relations between employers and employees. Finally, I pay tribute to the staff of the Labour Relations Commission because they work hard to ensure all disputes are resolved. They are extremely committed to their work. I wish them continued success in the future.

Industrial disputes will occur occasionally, and it is important that the supportive legislation is in place to allow the voluntary mechanism to continue. I believe the Bill does this and I commend it to the House.

12:00 pm

Photo of Joe O'TooleJoe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome this legislation. During the negotiations on Sustaining Progress, the issues contained in the Bill were central to a resolution. In welcoming it, I also have some regrets. I regret that the Irish employers and business people do not have the confidence and courage to recognise fully the right of employees to be represented by trade unions. While there is a constitutional right for people to associate and by virtue of that to join a union, it is very churlish and shows a complete lack of understanding of industrial relations that they are afraid in some cases to deal with trade unions.

In welcoming the Minister of State to the House, I would be far happier if he were introducing legislation giving the right of recognition to trade unions representing workers in whatever enterprise, industry or service they were based. I fought for this during the Sustaining Progress negotiations with the particular backing of the ICTU and SIPTU. There were long nights of argument, negotiation and fighting on that particular issue. We did not get what we wanted out of it. I recognise, however, that we did make progress. Today's Bill fully reflects the final compromise agreement that was reached at that time. When the Bill was published some weeks ago I was less than enchanted by what I read. I welcome the improvements made in the other House, particularly on Report Stage, which will be crucial in gaining wider acceptability for the Bill.

In many ways, this legislation should never have been here. The agreement of 2001 to which the Minister referred was supposed to deal with these issues. However, we found unscrupulous employers once again using the structures of the Labour Court, the industrial relations process and the agreement to repeatedly delay matters that needed to be dealt with. This was a good lesson for us; an agreement that was negotiated in good faith was exploited mischievously by employers, so it quickly lost the trust and confidence of the workers being represented by trade unions. Once this had happened, it was no longer of any use in industrial relations. The same could happen with this legislation. I welcome the step-by-step approach the Minister explained in his speech, but there are still gaps. We have tried to plug some of these gaps by providing for access to the courts to ensure enforcement. Other gaps were filled by moving away from the voluntarism that characterised earlier agreements in this area.

This legislation is a major step forward. The most important thing about it, as mentioned by Senator Hanafin, is that it brings resolution. It is not always the case in disputes — in fact, it is rarely the case — that somebody is clearly right while someone else is clearly wrong, even in the eyes of the most objective judge. Generally, by the time a problem has escalated into a major dispute, matters have become clouded. It is always the case that the lower the level at which resolution is reached, the better. My hope is that this legislation, as the Minister said, will be a clear signal to enterprises, business people and employers that it is better to deal with things locally. It is better to sort out problems on the ground by reaching agreement with the local trade union office or group of workers. That is also the view of the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court.

The fight is still going on for trade union recognition. It seems extraordinary, after the last 100 years or more of trade union involvement in Irish society, that trade unions are still fighting with some employers for recognition. It is extraordinary that after 17 years of partnership there are still people on the employers' side who refuse to recognise trade unions — and on the Government side also, although no members of the Government have said so publicly. Many questions have been raised by Government Members on this issue. I have heard the Taoiseach, to his credit, say that he supports trade union recognition, but I would like to see this reflected in legislation. As Senator McDowell said last night, Fianna Fáil Members are good at telling us how things should be but when they are in a position to achieve this they do not do so.

I would prefer a simple resolution mechanism. If a group of workers choose to be members of a trade union and say they want to be represented by the trade union in the course of a dispute, that should be the end of the story. I have argued this with employers time and again. I have asked them to leave their prejudices and their anti-trade union feelings at the door so that we can talk about the issue in some other way. If somebody needs representation in court or in a dispute resolution process, nobody has any problem with allowing a lawyer or somebody else, even a best friend, to represent him or her. If employers have a difficulty with trade unions they should envisage them as a service industry looking after the interests of the members they represent.

There is currently a complex range of industrial relations law. Those of us who have been dealing with it daily, in our working lives and legislatively, have great difficulty in advising people on aspects of the law without checking first. My colleague, Senator McDowell, coming from a legal background, might be more confident, but I always need to reread a piece of legislation before I advise somebody on any issue of equality, equal status or unfair dismissals. The range of legislation has been a huge success for the trade union movement, from the early 1970s, when the then leader of the Labour Party introduced some important legislation, culminating in the Employment Equality Act 1977, to the various Industrial Relations Acts we have today. The Taoiseach, as Minister for Labour in 1990, brought in the Industrial Relations Bill and moved things forward substantially.

Today's Bill is important because this legislation will allow trade unions to represent their members fully in disputes. Now that there is a process that can be followed, trade unions will finally be able to get past the difficulty of dealing with employers who will not recognise their right to represent workers. I hope this will give employers a final opportunity to accept the way things are in the world. We are in a society based on partnership. The rights of workers are represented by their unions just as the rights of businesses and employers are represented by IBEC and other groups. There is nothing wrong with that. We need to be able to sit around a table and listen to and argue with each other, accepting and assimilating the views, objectives and arguments of the other side. That is how disputes are resolved. In the current climate there is no way IBEC should accept from any of its members the antediluvian idea that trade unions cannot be dealt with.

The idea that trade unions are there to undermine the work of the business is completely wrong. Less than three years ago it looked as though Aer Lingus was going under, as had happened to half the airlines in Europe. It is a tribute to the workforce and the unions representing them that this was turned around. Aer Lingus is now fighting for business with the most competitive airlines in Europe. This was achieved through an act of partnership. It was achieved because people were committed to making their industry work. The view of the modern Irish trade union movement is that workers bring their brains to work and have views on the service, commodity or industry in which they are involved. This should go all the way up to their trade unions.

I welcome this legislation. I ask the House to facilitate its being dealt with quickly. The Leader has indicated that it can probably be concluded next Tuesday. This legislation is needed in the workplace. Over the past ten years Irish workers have had the best productivity record of any workforce in Europe. It is worth pointing this out to those who ask what trade unions and partnership are good for. We have also had the fewest industrial strikes in Europe over the past ten years. This is important when we consider how places such as Belgium, Italy, Germany and France are sometimes completely brought to a halt because they have failed to grapple with trade union issues, agreements, arrangements and legislation such as that we are dealing with today. This is an important move forward. I hope it is a step towards full recognition of trade unions. In the meantime, we should make use of this legislation and move on from there.

Photo of Martin ManserghMartin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the legislation.

It has resulted from, and is a vindication of, social partnership. Over a 60 year period we have developed a sophisticated labour relations machinery and culture which was well described earlier by the Minister of State.

There are persistent problems and a degree of reluctance with regard to recognition of trade unions and this legislation is a means of dealing with the problem. It mainly occurs in small firms but there is a number of large firms which do not recognise trade unions for one reason or another. However, many of them have a sophisticated parallel type of machinery. It is important to have dispute resolution mechanisms which avoid the need for strikes. Furthermore, in the case of small firms, there is a great danger of closure and job losses if the climate becomes embittered. This legislation is a welcome element of the implementation of Sustaining Progress. It is a credit to partnership.

I wish to take this opportunity to comment on industrial relations in general. Under the partnership process industrial relations have been pretty good. The number of days of work lost is relatively small. However, there are still some problems. I regret, for example, the dispute that is taking place at present in Irish Ferries, where there appears to be a stand-off between management and the National Union of Seamen. Another trade union is also involved. There is always a difficulty when there is more than one trade union and they do not see eye to eye. If their action is not co-ordinated, it is difficult for the employer to deal with it without the danger of a type of salami exercise developing.

There is also a temptation on the part of a minority section of the trade union movement to import a more confrontational culture and practice from across the water. We have seen that in the past and, to a degree, in the present in some of our public transport undertakings. I am not referring to the main trade unions.

In most instances there is, or should be, a common interest in best conditions for employees and an agreed method for solving disputes and moving forward together. That need not be incompatible with good pay and conditions. The ESB is an obvious example. We must keep working at improving industrial relations. The old adage, that if we do not hang together, we will hang separately, applies even more in a small country such as this than in some of our larger neighbours.

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Many members of the Labour Party have an ambivalent attitude to this legislation and the 2001 Act that preceded it. It is, in essence, an admission of failure on the part of the partnership bodies — the employers' representatives, the trade unions and the Government — to reach agreement at national level to deal with the issue of union recognition. This legislation provides a mechanism to get around that. There is now an enforceable procedure of arbitration in those cases. It is a reasonably adequate second best but it is a second best.

It is remarkable that after 17 years of partnership, the fact that representatives of workers spend hours in Government Buildings negotiating issues of great importance, which range from housing through social affairs to workplace issues, is now accepted as the norm at national level but we find it impossible to agree a mechanism whereby it can happen at local workplace level. We still cannot find it in ourselves to pass legislation, if that is necessary, to ensure employers recognise the basic right of employees to be represented by a trade union of their choice. Purists would insist that if an individual worker wishes to be represented by a trade union and wants the trade union to negotiate on his or her behalf, he or she is entitled to do that. However, most people will acknowledge that there must be a critical mass of workers in a workplace who want that right in order to make it work at a practical level. It is a pity we have been unable to secure agreement in this regard and, in default of agreement, that we do not feel able to legislate on the issue.

It is incorrect to state that people do not have the right to join a union; they do. It has long been established in law and is also a constitutional right. It is also established that people have the right not to join a trade union or to dissociate from a union, if that is their choice. There is no power in this country to enforce a closed shop as there is in the United Kingdom. However, there is no right in this country to recognition, the right to be represented by a trade union. It is still possible for employers, while acknowledging that people are entitled to join a trade union, to blithely or wilfully refuse to negotiate with the trade union on behalf of workers. That is something I and my party consider unacceptable.

In the absence of agreement at national level to deal with it, a mechanism of the type provided for in the 2001 Act was inevitable and represents a reasonable compromise. However, there are people in the trade union movement and in the Labour Party who probably feel that accepting a second best will make it impossible to achieve the desired outcome, namely, recognition of trade unions.

This is, in a sense, a reflection of our corporate culture, if I can call it that, with regard to partnership issues and where we stand vis-À-vis Boston and Berlin. This Bill is firmly in mid-Atlantic in that it is not in the tradition of corporatist Germany where, essentially, matters are dealt with by large trade unions and employer bodies. Likewise, most of us do not feel comfortable with the tradition in the United States where workers are dealt with on an individual basis, largely without corporate representation by trade unions or otherwise. The Bill is largely a compromise.

The Bill shortens the time limits. If the legislation is to work, it is important that the time limits are realistic. There have been cases where employers have gone through the mechanisms provided for in the 2001 Act but in many cases there was a suspicion in the workforce that there was never any real intention to carry through on the recommendations that were ultimately made and that it was, in fact, a delaying process. I welcome the tighter time limits in this Bill. It is less likely that the process provided for will be deliberately used as a delaying mechanism by employers.

The Bill is, in a sense, a stick mechanism in a carrot and stick situation. It is intended, I hope, not to be used. If employers know there is a mechanism whereby they can be obliged to go through what amounts to a compulsory arbitration process, they will negotiate. The less often this Bill and its predecessor Act are brought into play, the better for all concerned.

I welcome the prohibition of victimisation in sections 8 and 9. The definition in the Bill is broad and it will be underpinned by a code of practice. As far as I know the code has not yet been published but work is being done on it by the Labour Relations Commission. I am not quite clear about how exactly it will work. I appreciate that the prohibition of victimisation provision can only be invoked in the context of this Bill or of the 2001 process and that it is not intended as a general prohibition of victimisation. In his response, will the Minister of State elaborate on how it will come into play and how it will relate to the provisions of this Act rather than the general prohibition on victimisation and discrimination as contained in the equality legislation?

I read the report of the debate in the Dáil much of which dealt with the general issue of partnership. There appears to be a seething resentment among some politicians, particularly on the Opposition side of the House, regarding the partnership process, which many see as sidelining the Houses. I, too, am somewhat ambivalent on this issue. We in the Labour Party have a particular difficulty in so far as we have a close relationship with the trade union movement which is locked in negotiations in Government buildings. On the other hand, as part of the Opposition we also have to discharge our responsibility to oppose. While we empathise, work and consult regularly with our trade union colleagues, we nonetheless are obliged then to leave our meeting rooms and come into the Houses and oppose what has just been agreed to in Government buildings.

Photo of Martin ManserghMartin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A Fianna Fáil-Labour coalition was the ideal solution.

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This difficulty would be best resolved by putting us in Government as it only arises in the context of Opposition. I suppose in a sense we are just moaning about our impotence on the Opposition benches, or as may be, on the Government back benches. There is no doubt that the existence of the process, particularly as it expanded over the years to include the voluntary and community sector, has tended to sideline politicians, whether in Government or Opposition. Many of us feel the need to re-establish a relationship, whether by bringing the process into this House or to the committees. We need to re-establish a better balance.

I wish to address the issue of immigrant workers. When setting out these mechanisms we leave an increasingly large group of workers, namely immigrants, totally unprotected within our system. This is largely because employers own the work permits and the immigrant workers come here on the basis of the permit issued to the employer. They do not have the right to work for whomever they wish but only in a particular job for a particular employer. This establishes a relationship where the employee is very much the junior partner and not in a position to negotiate, good, bad or indifferent.

Some EU directives on the matter are awaiting implementation in this country and this is an issue of which we must become increasingly conscious. Our colleagues in the trade union movement have made an effort to organise immigrant workers, with some success in many larger enterprises but without success in many others. We are in the position where we must deal with the issue directly. We must acknowledge the particular position in which immigrant workers find themselves. I ask the Minister of State to address that issue and to outline whether it is the Government's intention to legislate with regard to immigrant workers, specifically to change the provision whereby the permit is in the hands of the employer.

Photo of Terry LeydenTerry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Michael Ahern, who is here on behalf of the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey. I also welcome his officials to the House.

I commend the Department on bringing forward the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2003. I congratulate the Minister of State on the legislation which has arisen out of commitments in Sustaining Progress as agreed between the Government and the social partners and which has been very successful. I am confident the Bill will enhance the effectiveness of existing dispute resolution procedures where collective bargaining arrangements are not in place, that it will strengthen the industrial relations procedures giving effect to the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2001, and voluntary work, through the provision of third party industrial relations machinery.

I am pleased that the Government recognises the need for a dispute settlement mechanism in cases where employees wish to be represented by a trade union or an excepted body but where collective bargaining does not occur. I am also satisfied that the Bill has arisen from extensive talks between ICTU, IBEC, the Departments of Finance and Enterprise, Trade and Employment, industry, IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland the aim of which was to devise a mechanism for resolving such disputes. The reluctance of the Government and lawmakers to indulge in the temptation to impose solutions is welcome and this ideology has served us well over the years through voluntary bargaining procedures between employers and employees. We should continue this good practice in so far as possible to facilitate and provide solid foundations for conflict resolution.

In 2002, a year in which the number of industrial disputes recorded by the Central Statistics Office reached a 30-year low, referrals to the Labour Court increased by 6% compared to the previous year. Since 2000, total referrals to the Labour Court have increased by more than 20%. The court completed 13% more cases in 2002 than in 2001. Public sector organisations, especially in the health and transport sectors, accounted for more than a quarter of industrial relations cases completed during the year. This is a symptom of the revolving door phenomenon where parties involved in a dispute fail to acknowledge the role of the Labour Court as a court of last resort and use it as a staging post rather than the last step in the dispute resolution process. On many occasions the court has expressed its concern, which I share, that this practice damages the operation of industrial relations procedures generally.

This is the background against which we must examine the Bill. This legislation is not the first employee related legislation which has arisen from Sustaining Progress. Earlier this year the Redundancy Payments Act provided for a doubling, and in some cases a quadrupling, of statutory entitlements in this area. The Government and the Tánaiste must be congratulated on the speedy dispatch of that legislation. The Minister of State with responsibility for taking this legislation through the House has also acted to give equal rights to fixed contract workers.

The Redundancy Payments Act was a great step forward. It has been an enormous help to those unfortunate to lose their jobs and the Government should be commended on its introduction. This legislation does not have a high profile and has not attracted much media attention. However, it is of great significance and has met support from all sides of the House, because Members realise how important it is in the long term. We look back on the grim days when many disputes brought us to our knees. I recall the electricity disputes when there was no continuity in supply. What occurred in the 1970s was frightening and this new forward looking legislation is welcome.

The Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2002 and the code of practice on voluntary dispute resolutions instigated a new system, more than two years ago, to resolve issues in disputes where there was no existing arrangements for collective bargaining. However, there has been a considerable degree of dissatisfaction and irritation with these measures due to a lack of a timeframe for dispute resolution for the existing code of practice. Frustration also exists because to refer a dispute to the Labour Court, the onus is on the union or excepted body to show the employer has failed to act in good faith.

There is also discontent with the length of time taken to process cases through the court before obtaining legally enforceable Circuit Court orders. Accordingly, this new legislation will enable the Labour Court to examine cases where the specific timeframe to be set out in a new code of practice on voluntary dispute resolution has been acceded. It will also enable the Labour Court to act where the Labour Relations Commission has acceded that no further work on its part will assist settlement of the dispute. To facilitate this the Labour Court will be able to link its preliminary and substantive hearings where it considers this to be correct procedure.

I welcome the provision in the Bill which prohibits any victimisation of employees arising from membership of, or activity on behalf of, a trade union, from a manager discharging his or her managerial functions or from disputes relating to trade union recognition. We must stand by the fundamental right of an individual to join a trade union. My father was a member of the Cuffe Street union of stonemasons and bricklayers. He was proud to hold that membership throughout his life and like most members of trade unions he was also a member and supporter of the Fianna Fáil Party, which always represented the cause of this country's workers. I became a member of SIPTU and I am delighted to be in this union. I am also on the labour panel of the House so it is appropriate that I have an opportunity to speak on this important Bill.

I am pleased that SIPTU takes individual membership. Many companies which do not recognise unions have employees who are individual members of the largest trade union in Ireland, which gives them great support and service at certain times. I encourage all employees, irrespective of the companies involved, to obtain the support of the union movement, which has been most progressive in this country to date.

I commend the Minister on getting us to this stage. Various sections have been carefully outlined to us by the Minister of State which faithfully parallel section 8.9 of Sustaining Progress. I look forward to the early enactment of the legislation, which arises from the experience of the 2001 Act which threw up a number of issues in need of technical resolution.

It will speed up the process of resolving disputes as originally intended under the 2001 Act. This is an improvement on the Act and will give clarity and early resolution to many of the problems which bedevil companies. If disputes drag on, parties can become more entrenched than need be the case. Time limits to the resolution of disputes will advance the best scenario for resolution and enhance the industrial relations machinery of the companies involved and the State apparatus.

The current dispute between the Prison Officers Association, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Prison Service should be resolved. I am disappointed it is taking so long to resolve the issues involved, which have caused hardship to staff and prisoners, particularly prisoners from the Curragh and Spike Island which have been closed. The introduction of the Bill provides an opportunity for all concerned to sit around the table and resolve matters and this must be done sooner rather than later. I hope all concerned, the Prison Officers Association, its officials and the Minister, Deputy McDowell, will sit down and resolve this issue which is causing great distress and concern to prison officers, their families and the prisoners to whom we have a responsibility.

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Ahern, and congratulate him on the legislation, which I commend to the House.

Photo of Mary WhiteMary White (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Ahern, who has responsibility for trade and commerce, and his departmental officials. Ireland is a role model for countries in Europe and worldwide for its successful partnership between employees, unions and employers. This partnership has been one of the drivers of the Celtic tiger.

I am most supportive of trade unions. In the mid-1970s I was on the national women's committee of the Federated Workers Union of Ireland. Senator McDowell should not smile. I was privileged to be elected to that committee.

The main aspects of the Bill relate to voluntary dispute resolution and victimisation and I do not intend to go into the details of these issues. If timescales under the voluntary dispute resolution code have been breached and the Labour Relations Commission indicates that no resolution seems forthcoming, the Labour Court is entitled to investigate that trade dispute. The Labour Court is also entitled to investigate trade disputes which were ongoing at the time of the ratification of Sustaining Progress, 26 March 2003, and which the court could not investigate because of industrial action. A trade union can apply to the Circuit Court to have a Labour Court ruling enforced as soon as may be after that ruling has been communicated to the parties involved. The Labour Court can give priority to cases it receives, as appears reasonable to the Labour Court at that time.

There was no code of practice on victimisation in the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2001. This code was introduced in section 8.9 of the Sustaining Progress document. It is now enshrined in law in the 2003 Bill. Some of the key provisions include a definition of victimisation provided in section 8. This definition will include that covered by the code of practice on victimisation as devised by the partnership of the Labour Relations Commission, ICTU and IBEC. Section 9 empowers a rights commissioner to hear a complaint of victimisation from an employee and to make a decision based on that complaint. The decision of the rights commissioner can be appealed to the Labour Court under section 10.

My company, Lir Chocolates, was a very maternalistic one in the early years. We did not have a personnel department because we could not afford specialist staff. I was delighted when a trade union came in because as a small company it was very helpful to the employers, Connie and I. The trade union let us know in a professional manner to what our staff were entitled. It had a positive effect on us. That is the other side of it, from my point of view as an employer and from my participation on the national women's committee of the Federated Workers Union of Ireland.

Photo of Michael AhernMichael Ahern (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On behalf of the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, I thank Senators for their contributions to the debate on the Bill, which I am pleased to conclude. The Bill amends and enhances the provisions of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2001. That Act was groundbreaking legislation in that for the first time it provided a dispute resolution mechanism in situations where collective bargaining arrangements were not in place. Given the innovative nature of the 2001 Act, the Government and social partners agreed in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness that the Act and code of practice on voluntary dispute resolution which supports the 2001 legislation would be monitored during the course of the programme. The outcome of this monitoring process has resulted in the Bill before the House.

Like the 2001 Act, the Bill has emanated from an agreed approach by both the trade union and employer organisations to enhance the effectiveness of existing procedures for dealing with disputes where negotiating arrangements are not in place. I congratulate the trade union and employer organisation representatives involved in the negotiations on enhancing existing provisions.

The Bill will be supported by a new code of practice on voluntary dispute resolution and the code of practice on victimisation. The effect of the codes of practice essentially will be to enhance and strengthen existing procedures with a view to processing cases within a specific timeframe and to introduce a prohibition on victimisation of employees who are members of a union, managers discharging their managerial functions and other employees in the context of a dispute where the code of practice on voluntary dispute resolution has been invoked or where steps have been taken to invoke the code.

I welcome the general support for the Bill expressed by Senators on all sides of the House. Important points were raised during the debate and I wish to respond to a number of them. Senators raised issues in regard to the code of practice on victimisation. A new code of practice in this area has been prepared by the Labour Relations Commission following discussions with ICTU and IBEC. The purpose of the code is to outline for the guidance of employers, employees and trade unions the different types of practice which would constitute victimisation. I understand the new code of practice will be submitted shortly to the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, for his consideration. As Senator McDowell pointed out, the prohibition on victimisation only comes into play in the context of the code of practice on voluntary dispute resolution having been invoked or where steps have been taken to invoke the code. This is in line with what was agreed in Sustaining Progress.

Senators O'Toole and McDowell raised the issue of trade union recognition. Our system of volunteerism is strongly supported by both workers and employers. While the legislation may not be as revolutionary as some would wish, it reflects consensus between the ICTU and IBEC. The Minister has deliberately refrained from introducing legislation that was opposed by either unions or employers. It is not Government policy to impose legislation in the industrial relations area where parties are prepared to work together towards achieving progress.

Senator McDowell asked whether there would be a change for immigrant workers in holding work permits. I will raise this matter with the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey.

In conjunction with codes of practice, this legislation will result in more effective and efficient procedures in the dispute resolution arena. It will also contribute to greater stability in industrial relations. On the basis of the all-party support we have seen so far, I hope this Bill will be swiftly progressed through the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Kathleen O'Meara (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Photo of Mary O'RourkeMary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is proposed to take Committee Stage on Tuesday, 2 March 2004.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday,2 March 2004.

Sitting suspended at 12.40 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.