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

144. To ask the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the current position in Irish law regarding the implications of the conclusion of the Sorensen and Rasmussen versus Denmark case (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10423/14]

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In a ruling delivered by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on 11 January 2006 in the case of Sørensen and Rasmussen v Denmark, the Court ruled that it is a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) for a person to be compelled to be a member of a specific trade union in order to be employed in a Danish enterprise. The question at issue was whether it is a violation of Article 11 of the ECHR to prevent people from obtaining employment if they refuse to be a member of a trade union that has concluded a closed-shop agreement with the enterprise in question.

Danish law specifically excluded from protection from dismissal on grounds of not being a member of an association or of a specified association, cases where the employee knew prior to employment that said membership was a condition of employment.The issue of the closed shop is not provided for specifically in Irish law.

Closed shops can be divided into two categories: pre-entry and post-entry. A pre-entry closed shop is a situation whereby persons are required to be members of a specific union before they can obtain certain jobs. A post-entry closed shop is a situation whereby existing employees are required to join a specific trade union after they have engaged in employment.

The Irish Courts have considered closed shop arrangements in a number of legal cases. The judgements suggest that employees have a right to disassociate where a closed shop arrangement is introduced and enforced against a worker already in employment (i.e. post-entry closed shop).

However, the Irish Courts have not ruled definitively on the constitutionality of either the pre-entry closed shop or the post-entry closed shop as it is applied to newly-recruited employees. In such an event, it is likely that any judgment would be informed by the Sorenson/Rasmussen case.