Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 161: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if her attention has been drawn to the fact that workers here are being denied their rights due to the inadequate transposition of the EU directive on part-time work; the steps she will take to ensure that clause 5.3 of the directive is implemented; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6658/10]

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am satisfied that Clause 5.3 of Council Directive 97/81/EC concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, has been correctly transposed by way of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001. I note that this is confirmed by a 2003 report on the implementation of the Directive undertaken by the European Commission's services. Clause 5.3 of the Framework Agreement is not a mandatory provision. It requires that, as far as possible, an employer should give consideration to a request by workers to transfer from full-time work to part-time and vice-versa. Ireland has, accordingly, met its responsibilities in relation to transposition of this clause of the Framework Agreement by way of a Code of Practice implemented under Section 13 of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001.

The Labour Relations Commission prepared a code of practice, based on the provisions in Section 13 of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001, following consultation with the social partners. It was deemed to be a code of practice and implemented, in 2006, by the Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Code of Practice on Access to Part-Time Working) (Declaration) Order 2006 (S.I. No. 8 of 2006). Under Section 42(4) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990, the code is admissible in evidence in any proceedings before a court, the Labour Court, the Labour Relations Commission, the Employment Appeals Tribunal or the Equality tribunal.

Chris Andrews (Dublin South East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 162: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if a company (details supplied) refuses to comply with the Labour Court recommendations, the next steps that can be taken by the employees' union; if there is any recourse for companies that refuse to comply with Labour Court recommendations, having gone through the process; if not, the reason for same; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6715/10]

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The industrial dispute involving workers from the company in question resulted from workers' concerns over the company's cost cutting proposals, involving redundancies and the introduction of new contracts of employment for the remaining workforce. The issues were referred to the Labour Court under section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and the union undertook to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th September, 2009. The company did not attend the Court hearing, but provided a written statement setting out its position on the matters in dispute. The Labour Court issued its recommendation on 12 October 2009.

The Labour Court recommended that the company should pay redundancy terms of 6 weeks pay per year of service, inclusive of statutory entitlement. Any outstanding issues that could not be agreed between the parties, including the issue of selection criteria for redundancy, should be referred to an Arbitrator for final decision. I understand that the company agreed to accept the Labour Court Recommendation. Subsequently, a resolution to several issues in dispute was achieved at talks between the company and the union. In November 2009, the Labour Court nominated Mr Finbarr Flood as Arbitrator to consider the remaining outstanding issues. The Arbitrator met with the parties and issued his final and binding decision to the parties.

The Labour Court is a court of last resort in the industrial relations process, and it is expected that the parties come to the process in good faith and consequently are prepared to give serious consideration to the Court's recommendations. Ultimately, however, responsibility for the resolution of trade disputes is a matter for the parties involved. In my view, the experience and expertise of the Labour Court undoubtedly offers the best avenue for resolving the issues in this difficult dispute. In this context, I would urge the company to give positive consideration to the Court's recommendation on the dispute and to abide by the final decision made by the arbitrator appointed by the Court in this matter. In view of renewed contacts that I understand to have been pursued in a constructive spirit between the parties subsequent to the Labour Court's recommendation, I would urge all concerned to bring that same spirit to bear on the current situation.