Paul Murphy: Defends Trade Union Recognition and Collective Bargaining

Thanks, and thanks to all the colleagues and all the opposition parties who supported our bill. I would just point out that we are going to finish ten minutes early, and the reason we are going to finish ten minutes early is because the Lowry Group, who have fought so hard to get their time to speak on these matters, don't presumably consider it important to come and speak about trade union rights, or maybe they are embarrassed because they are going to vote against trade union rights later on today. I would agree with one thing that the Minister in response said, that the approach set out in this bill would undermine the voluntarist approach to industrial relations that has existed down through the decades. Correct. That is precisely the point of the bill, because the voluntarist system of industrial relations that has existed through the decades is one that has worked in the interest of employers, not in the interest of workers. The Minister in the first statement set out, what he said was compelling reasons for the government's opposition to this bill. Effectively there were two mentioned, one the suggestion that you often get in this place that it is unconstitutional, and secondly the reference to how great the voluntarist system is. Just in relation to the suggestion that it is unconstitutional, I thought deputies Lawler and Gibney actually addressed this point very well, this is a paper tiger that the government hides behind to avoid acting. There is no basis in terms of the relevant rulings to say that it would be unconstitutional. And compelling cases were made by deputies Lawler and Gibney. But I want to add to that something that Minister Smith at the end spoke about the state being bound to uphold under international law, and guaranteed a number of international instruments which the state has ratified. And I want to draw attention to the European Convention on Human Rights, and a decision in Demir and Baikara versus Turkey in the European Court of Human Rights, which I think has enormous relevance here. Whereby up until that case, the European Court of Human Rights had effectively held that the right of workers to bargain collectively did not constitute an inherent element of the freedom association. So the European Court of Human Rights had a similar position to the government, which is that yes, you have the constitutional right, or the right protected under the European Convention, to join a trade union, but that does not imply that your employer is compelled to negotiate with you collectively. But that court decision changed things. A human right the court held, and I am quoting here from a very important pamphlet from Darrell Darrell, the human right the court held must be interpreted in a manner that renders the right practical and effective, not theoretical and illusory. Consequently, the court concluded that the right to bargain collectively with the employer had become an essential element of freedom of association. A year later, Demir recited another unanimous decision of the European Court of Human Rights upholding the right to union recognition and collective bargaining as integral to freedom of association. The way that the government is suggesting the right to freedom of association is protected has now effectively been characterised by the European Court of Human Rights as theoretical and illusory, lacking in legal validity. There is also the point that there is already legislation which compels duties of consultation and recognition of employers. Universities Act 1997, the Education Act 1998, the Institute of Technology Act 2008, and 2006, and the Railways Act of 1924 and 1933 which have not been challenged in terms of their constitutionality. It is not true that this would be unconstitutional. A final couple of points is just this idea that the long-standing system or voluntary system has served us well over the decades. I thought it was quite revealing that the Minister earlier said, I believe that a strong and well-functioning collective bargaining system, which we do not have by the way, supports productivity and fair wages, especially in low-paid sectors. The Voluntarist Model, whereby employers are able to say, you have joined the Union, you have all joined the Union, but we do not have to deal with you, works for the employers in low-paid sectors. It is part of the reason why we have, relative to other European countries, the highest rate of low-paid, it is why we have such high rates of precarity, it is why we have less rights than workers in other European countries. That is facilitated by the Government's anti-union practice, which is clouded in the language of voluntarism. I also would say that it is interesting that the Government's language around the adequate minimum wages directive, where it was now said that there is no obligation on Member States to reach any prescribed level of collective bargaining coverage within any defined time frame. So the Government signs up to a directive which says, you have to release an action plan to increase your collective bargaining coverage to 80%, by the way the best way to do that clearly is by increasing union density and union membership, but then the Government says don't worry, we do not actually have to reach that by any defined time frame, so we are going to sign up to it, but we are going to sign up to it in the knowledge that we never actually have to do anything about it, it is quite revealing and it reveals why the Government has dragged its feet on it and continues to drag its feet on it.