Sir, – Cantillon asks “Why has Isme been left out of collective bargaining forum?” (Business, October 11th). One benefit to Isme’s inclusion in the working group might have been that it actually understood what it says. The report does not propose a minimum threshold for trade union representation of 10 per cent of the workers in a given business in order to engage the obligation of good faith negotiation; it proposes that a trade union should meet a threshold of “meaningful” representation within a workplace, with the meaning of “meaningful” to be developed by guidance from the Labour Court over time, taking into account the specific realities of different industries and businesses. The 10 per cent figure is mentioned in the report as a comparison with existing legislation requiring businesses with more than 50 employees to provide information and engage in consultation with workers on various matters, including through elected trade union representatives where the union represents 10 per cent of the workers in that business, provided at least 15 workers are members. It was precisely to avoid excluding SMEs with fewer than 50 employees that the working group declined to set a bright-line numerical threshold for meaningful representation (although of course it remains open to the Government to revisit this in drafting legislation). There are merits to bright-line thresholds, but the working group has favoured flexibility instead; as Cantillon says, “reasonable people can disagree” over this choice.
Cantillon argues that the exclusion of Isme from the development of the report will make it more difficult to “achieve buy-in from SMEs for any significant changes”. But the question Isme should be asking itself is how its member companies can get “buy-in” from their workers for business decisions, in the absence of collective bargaining. Isme is aggrieved at its exclusion from participation in the working group; and yet it apparently sees no problem with its member companies excluding workers, acting collectively and through experienced and independent representatives if that’s what the workers want, from participation in decisions that affect their daily lives. It is clear that for employers, that is the “natural order”, and any deviation from the managerial prerogative requires their approval.
It is worth remembering that new EU legislation will soon require any member state with less that 80 per cent of workers covered by collective agreements to promote collective bargaining. In Ireland, the figure is currently 34 per cent.
The Labour Employer Economic Forum proposals to reform collective bargaining at sectoral and enterprise level are now out there. They are not ideal, but the product of negotiation rarely is. The proposals still represent an improvement on the situation where Ireland is one of the worst performers among comparable EU countries for worker representation and participation in decision-making in the workplace (according to research published last year by Fórsa). Its public comments so far suggest Isme remains opposed to the very principle of mandatory recognition of trade unions for collective bargaining. The burden is therefore on Isme and its member companies to explain either how they intend to otherwise facilitate the meaningful participation of their workers in decision-making within their workplaces; or else why their workers (that is, the employees of 92 per cent of Irish businesses) should be denied such participation at the whim of the employer. – Yours, etc,
Shooting the breeze with trailblazer chemists
Kamala Harris is a descendant of an Irish slave owner in Jamaica
Tactical analysis: Clare got their numbers right, but it’s hard to measure sheer magic
Artist and shepherd Orla Barry: ‘Breeding animals is like making an artwork. You’re putting certain animals together’
ALAN EUSTACE,
Lecturer in Law,
Magdalen College,
University of Oxford,
United Kingdom.