George Lawlor backs statutory union recognition and stronger remedies

Good evening, everyone. I'm very happy to introduce myself. I'm very happy to hear from you. I'm very happy to hear from you. I'm very happy to hear from you. It's a great time and it's a great time. I should say at the outset, Minister, that I have been preparing my own bill on Trained Union Recognition, which is a long-standing Labour Party concern. However, I believe that none of us have a monopoly on wisdom when it comes to law reform and I am happy to make my contributions by way of amendments to this bill if it goes to committee rather than launching my own separate proposal. Accordingly, I am happy to confirm that I and my party will be supporting this bill. This issue resonates deeply within the fabric of our society. In my own town of Wexford, the handed-down stories of the Foundry Workers' Lockout of 1911 still run deep in the veins of Wexford people. The reason the workers were locked out? The demand for union recognition amongst their fellow workers. The local leader of the locked out men was a man called Richard Corish. Such was the fondness and affinity for Mr Corish as a result of his leadership during the campaign for union recognition that he went on to become a local Labour TD and indeed was Mayor of Wexford for a remarkable 25 years in a row while serving as TD for Wexford concurrently. Following his death, his son Brendan Corish won the by-election and served as Labour TD for 35 years before my immediate predecessor Brendan Howland took over and served for 37 years as Labour TD. The cause of Labour and trade unionism runs deep in my town and constituency and courses through the veins of many Wexford people. The traditional model depended on trade unions mobilising a critical mass of employees to join and to participate in trade union action. But in a gig economy era with transient, insecure and poorly organised workforces, trade union density is bound to decline where it is most needed. And the issue of statutory recognition rights for trade unions becomes more pressing. The constitution guarantees the right of the citizens to form associations and unions but the courts have not to date had to consider specifically whether the constitution would impact on an attempt by legislation to require employers to recognise and negotiate with trade unions. It is true that at least one judge made one observation which suggests that there is a constitutional right for employers not to recognise trade unions. Mr Justice Gagan stated in the Supreme Court decision of Ryanair Ltd v. Labour Court in 2007 that, as a matter of law Ryanair is perfectly entitled not to deal with trade unions nor can a law be passed compelling them to do so. There is an obvious danger however in non-unionised companies that employees may be exploited and may have to submit to what most reasonable people would consider to be grossly unfair terms and conditions of employment. With a view to curing this possible mischief the industrial relations act 2001 and 2004 were enacted and given their purpose they must be given a proportionate and constitutional interpretation so as not unreasonably to encroach on Ryanair's right to operate a non-unionised company. With respect to the late Judge Gagan it seems far from obvious that his analysis on this point was correct. If a law cannot constitutionally be passed compelling trade union recognition then it must follow that a trade union strike aimed at compelling the company to recognise it would also be unconstitutional. It would be an unlawful conspiracy to infringe the company's constitutional rights. Any strike seeking trade union recognition would be an actionable wrong which could be injuncted and substantial damages would also be awarded. This is an important point. If Judge Gagan's line of reasoning was correct any industrial action at a non-union workplace in order to secure trade union recognition would be unconstitutional. Yet we all know that this is clearly not the law and that it has not been the law here since trade disputes were legalised in 1875. So if an employer cannot seek an injunction to stop a strike that is aimed at securing trade union recognition then it must follow that employers constitutional rights are not being threatened and it must follow that if constitutional rights are not breached when a strike attempts this outcome then neither would they be breached if the result is achieved by statute. It cannot be the case that the Oireachtas is prevented from legislating for something that a trade union is entitled to achieve by industrial action. This is not the end of it however. People talk of mandatory recognition as if conferring the status by law is simple and immediately effective. But it is all very well to say that you must recognise the union. Just as it is all very well to say that road users must drive carefully or alcohol must be consumed responsibly. When the law imposes a positive obligation like this the real test is what does the law provide when people fail to live up to those obligations. What are the remedies? It is not enough for a bill to state that the right of a union to represent its members for the purposes of collective bargaining shall be recognised by an employer. The problem is that while it expresses the right sentiment what is needed is something to give effect to it. Apart from declaring what ought to happen legislation must set out what to do when it doesn't happen. No law can force either workers or employers to sit down in the same room and negotiate in good faith. What the law can do is set out what will happen if the employer fails to do so. A third party such as the Labour Court must intervene and must decide the union's claim without any input from the side that does not participate. In fact it should be the very real fear that if they do not turn up to the meeting then things can be decided in their absence. That should bring sensible employers to the table. Giving effect to the concept of trade union recognition involves much more than writing a single sentence. It includes setting out the procedure for deciding on the terms and conditions to be imposed in the absence of recognition as well as a lot of practical considerations such as access to the workplace and to workers and facilitating workplace elections and meetings. In fairness I think that this bill ticks many of those necessary boxes. We at present have legislation that provides a remedy to employees who are disadvantaged while their employer refuses to recognise and negotiate in limited circumstances. I want to pay tribute to my colleague Jed Nash for steering that legislation through the Houses. It is open to us now to go further by extending that legislation in order to secure better and more effective trade union recognition and collective bargaining. I have just a final point. I think that any legislation has to recognise the phenomenon of poaching and to have a viewpoint about it. If a new union tries to recruit members who already belong to an established union with long-standing negotiation rights then the employer may well refuse to recognise it. The employer may be supported by ICTU's anti-poaching rules. Those of us who support the trade union recognition need to be careful to accommodate in our thinking precisely which union should be recognised and which union should not. It is in no one's interest to legislate for a free-for-all. Currently the legal framework for trade union recognition in Ireland is fragmented and inadequate. While the Industrial Relations Act of 1990 provided some protections for trade unions, it falls short of establishing a clear and consistent process for recognition. Many workers, especially those in non-unionised sectors, face significant barriers when attempting to organise. Employers often resist unionisation efforts, and without a legal obligation to recognise unions, workers are left with limited recourse. The lack of legal recognition disproportionately affects vulnerable groups, including migrant workers and those in low-wage industries. Workers in these groups often lack the resources and support needed to navigate the complexities of labour relations. By providing a legal mechanism for trade union recognition, we can level the playing field and ensure that all workers, regardless of their background or employment status, have the opportunity to join together and advocate for their rights. The need for a legal mechanism for trade union recognition in Ireland is not merely a legal or economic issue. It is a fundamental matter of human rights and social justice. By empowering workers to organise and negotiate collectively, we can create a more equitable and just society. So in supporting this bill, I believe we stand in solidarity, advocating for change, working to ensure that the voices of workers are heard and respected. The time for action is now. It is beyond time to build a brighter future for all workers in Ireland, one where their rights are recognised, protected and celebrated. I want to thank Deputy Coppinger and Deputy Murphy for bringing this bill to the House and I am proud to support it along with my party. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.