Written answers

Tuesday, 31 March 2015

Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation

Industrial Disputes

Photo of Terence FlanaganTerence Flanagan (Dublin North East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

301. To ask the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if his attention has been drawn to a current dispute (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13092/15]

Photo of Terence FlanaganTerence Flanagan (Dublin North East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

302. To ask the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if he will provide assistance to ensure that an organisation (details supplied) engages with workers through their union; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13093/15]

Photo of Terence FlanaganTerence Flanagan (Dublin North East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

303. To ask the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation his views on concerns that the majority of workers in an organisation (details supplied) say they are employed on part-time flexible contracts; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13094/15]

Photo of Gerald NashGerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose to take Questions Nos. 301 to 303, inclusive, together.

I understand that the current dispute revolves around a range of issues, including the introduction of banded hours contracts, individual and collective representational rights and a review of the use of temporary contracts. The trade union is seeking to engage with the company on these issues and the matter was referred by the union to the Labour Court under section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 in October of last year.

The company was not represented at the Labour Court hearing. In this regard, the Court found it regrettable that the company declined to participate in the investigation of the dispute or to put forward its position on the union's claims.

In its recommendation of 14th November 2014, the Court reaffirmed earlier recommendations it had made by noting that the Company and the union were parties to a collective agreement signed in 1996 which provides a procedural framework within which industrial relations disputes and differences arising between the parties can be resolved by negotiation and dialogue. The Court pointed out that the dictates of good industrial relations practice requires parties to honour their collective agreements in both spirit and intent.

I am disappointed that the company decided against attending the Labour Court hearing, contrary to good industrial relations practice in that regard. In my view, the experience and expertise of the Labour Court offers the most appropriate and effective avenue for resolving such issues.

I would urge both parties to avail of the services of the State’s industrial Relations machinery who remain available to assist the parties, if requested. It is my opinion that engagement with the State's industrial relations machinery offers the best way whereby the parties involved in this dispute can hope to resolve their differences.

Neither the Labour Court, nor I, can compel a company to comply with such recommendations. Ultimately, responsibility for the settlement of a trade dispute rests with the parties to the dispute. However, I would like to see an early and fair settlement to this dispute.

As regards representation rights, Cabinet approval was obtained at the end of 2014 to legislate for an improved framework for workers who are in dispute with their employer regarding their terms and conditions in situations where there are no arrangements with their employer to resolve the matters through collective bargaining.

This legislation will mark the fulfilment of one of the most significant commitments in the Programme for Government which indicated that reform in this area was needed. In developing these proposals Minister Bruton and I have been keen to respect the positions articulated by stakeholders to develop proposals that sustain our voluntary system, but also ensure that workers have confidence that, where there is no collective bargaining, they have an effective system that ensures they can air grievances about remuneration, terms and conditions and have these determined based on those in similar companies and not be victimised for doing so.

I expect this legislation to be published during this Dáil session and enacted as expediently as is possible thereafter.

As regards workers being on part-time or flexible contracts, in accordance with the Statement of Government priorities, I recently commissioned the University of Limerick (UL) to carry out a detailed study into the prevalence of zero hour and low hour contracts and the impact of such contracts on employees. While such contracts can provide flexibility to the benefit of both employees and employers in some situations, without pre-empting the outcomes of the report, if there is a need to legislate to address issues raised, we will do so.

The study will have a broad scope, covering both the public and private sectors, with a particular focus on the retail, hospitality, education and health sectors. The study will examine how zero and low hour contracts operate in practice and how they impact on employees. It will assess the advantages and disadvantages from the perspective of employer and employee and assess the current employment rights legislation as it applies to employees on such contracts. The study will also consider recent developments in other jurisdictions, including the UK in particular. The study may also identify how the information gap might be addressed in the future.

A wide range of stakeholders are being canvassed to contribute, and I expect the study, which commenced recently, to be completed within months.

The Deputy will appreciate that I cannot anticipate the outcome of the study or the Government’s consideration of the study’s findings.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.