Unions and employers gave mixed responses to the publication of legislation to reform industrial relations procedures in cases where employers do not deal with trade unions, or internal staff bodies.
Minister for Jobs Richard Bruton and Ged Nash, the Junior Minister for Business and Employment, published the Industrial Relations Bill, which was passed by Cabinet at its last meeting before Christmas.
However, employers will not be obliged to recognise or negotiate with unions under the measures.
The new Bill aims to set out mechanisms to allow workers to air problems in relation to terms and conditions where there is no collective bargaining and to, ultimately, have these determined by the Labour Court based on the circumstances applying in comparable companies.
Positive step
Siptu vice-president
Patricia King
said the legislation “is a very positive step as it provides for an effective system whereby workers who are not covered by collective bargaining can, through their trade union, improve their terms and conditions of employment”.
However, the American Chamber of Commerce, while welcoming aspects of the Bill, said Ireland "currently ranks as the top location in the world in terms of the adaptability and flexibility of its business operations".
Foreign direct employment
“This positive attribute has been one of the key factors that has continued to attract strong levels of foreign direct employment into this country. The chamber will be working to ensure a balance is struck between reforming the operation of the existing legislation while at the same time retaining our members’ ability to continue to enjoy a direct engagement with their employees.”
The new legislation follows on from a Supreme Court ruling in 2008, in a case involving Ryanair which found previous legislation in this area to be unconstitutional.
It sets out a new definition of collective bargaining and strengthens protections for workers against victimisation.
On the issue of victimisation, a spokeswoman for Mr Nash said two issues in particular arose during a consultation process.
One was offers of financial inducement to employees to forego trade union collection bargaining representation, while another was addressing the victimisation of employees because of trade union membership or activities.
