Vol. 1049 No. 3
1. Deputy Louise O'Reilly asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment for an update on the action plan on collective bargaining coverage to be presented to the European Commission as part of its transposition of the EU directive on adequate minimum wages. [5921/24]
I ask the Minister for an update on the action plan on collective bargaining that will be presented to the European Commission as part of the transposition of the directive on adequate minimum wages. As I am sure the Minister is aware, this is something eagerly awaited by workers and employers alike.
Article 4 of the EU directive on adequate minimum wages, promotion of collective bargaining on wage setting, aims to promote collective bargaining on wages in all member states. The directive requires member states in which the collective bargaining coverage rate is less than 80% to provide “for a framework of enabling conditions for collective bargaining” and to publish an action plan to promote collective bargaining. The 80% threshold is an indicator triggering the publication of an action plan and not a mandatory target to be reached. Last year, my Department participated in the expert group on the transposition of the directive that was established by the European Commission. The group met eight times and adopted its final report in November. The group's report is clear that the design of the framework of enabling conditions and the content of the action plan is entirely up to member states in consultation with social partners. According to the EU expert group report, the action plan should be published by the end of 2025.
My Department, through the permanent representation to the EU in Brussels, is now engaging with other member states to share best practice with regard to the development of the action plans. I had a productive and constructive discussion with the social partners on this issue at the LEEF subgroup on employment and enterprise on 25 January. It has been agreed to establish a technical working group with the social partners and officials from my Department which will examine what elements might be appropriate for Ireland’s action plan. It is expected this group will hold its first meeting next month. The work of the LEEF subgroup on collective bargaining, chaired by the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, which is exploring mechanisms to encourage greater collective bargaining coverage in Ireland, will also be an important input to our action plan.
It is in train. We do not have to have the action plan until the end of 2025, but it is hoped we will be able to shape it long before then.
The Minister said one thing that was a little concerning. He stated it was not a mandatory target, which is fine, as I know it is not. However, he might indicate in his response if the 80% target, mandatory or not, will be the one the Government aims for. Does he believe the 80% coverage is desirable and should be the end goal for the transposition of this directive?
At the enterprise, trade and employment committee recently, the ICTU and IBEC gave a presentation on their own interpretations of the directive. There were differences in opinion from both groups as to how much legislation might be required and how this will be transposed. There were definitely diverging opinions between workers and business as to whether legislation will be necessary to give effect to this. It would be helpful if the Minister could give us an update or idea as to when this will be published, although I appreciate it is not due until the end of next year. I also welcome his opinion as to whether the 80% target is a desirable one for the Government or if it is seen as something of an optional extra.
First, we have not set targets. We have only started the process of real engagement and consultation. That real engagement will only get started in a meeting next month. We have had some initial discussions, and obviously accept the Government's responsibilities in putting an action plan together. However, it is important to say we are a long way short of that 80% figure. Ireland's economy is different from many other economies around Europe. There is not the same demand for union membership and representation in some sectors of the Irish economy as there is in others. I think it is far too early for the Government to be setting a specific target.
What we will do is facilitate and be part of discussions between employers and union representatives to see how we can have an appropriate action plan designed to ensure there are no barriers to the setting up of trade unions in the future and that the action plan is consistent with the approach being asked of us by the European Union, which we buy into. However, it is far too early for me to say what our target should be. I suspect we will have many more question and answer sessions before we finalise the action plan.
We are not under pressure, but I am loath to set a precedent.
Fair enough.
I am sure the people due in would appreciate if-----
I will try to drag it out as long as I can. I am good at that, as you know.
That sounds more like a threat than a promise, Minister.
In response to what the Minister has said, I agree that we are way short of 80%. We are miles away from it. Notwithstanding that, in my opinion, which may not be shared other people in this House, the best defence a worker can have at work us to join their union and be active in it. It is also presented as evidence that most workers, given the opportunity, will want to join, be part of and be active in their trade union. The view from IBEC was very different, so the Government will have to take a position on this. There were widely divergent views on how much legislation, if any, would be required. It would be welcome if the Government could be a little bit more proactive. I do not think there is anything wrong with setting the target or, while it is not in the gift of the Minister to directly organise workers and nobody is expecting him to do so, creating the conditions under which workers can more easily become organised. I do not think there is anything wrong with the target of 80%. That would be a worthwhile aspiration for the Government to hold in common with workers.
I hear the Deputy, and she takes a view that is consistent with trade union leadership, which is fair enough. The conversations between the different social partners have actually been constructive. The Minister of State, Deputy Richmond and I have been involved in those discussions. The Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, is involved in that too. The approach the Government is taking is delivering on the commitments we have made to put an action plan in place. I think there will be a lot of discussion and engagement in the coming months in trying to get the balance right between what is appropriate for the Irish economy and what currently works and does not work from an Irish perspective in terms of industrial relations. That needs to be part of that discussion too. We happen to be part of an economy in which industrial unrest is not a major feature. There is a lot working well in industrial relations and relationships between employers and employees in Ireland today. Can we improve it? I think we can, and this action plan can be part of that. Let us see how that debate progresses between the social partners.
4. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment what measures he is considering to ensure that workers in the film industry who are subject to multiple successive fixed-term contracts, have their rights under fixed-term workers legislation fully vindicated, and have their service to the industry properly recognised; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5798/24]
A little later this morning, the long campaigned for and long awaited film industry stakeholders forum will take place, convened by the Minister of State's colleague in the Department of arts. I presume the Minister of State's officials will be there. One of the key issues at stake is the use of successive multiple fixed-term contracts where workers never acquire any kind of security or recognition of their service or employment in the film industry. What does the Minister of State intend to do to address this issue?
I thank the Deputy for this question on an issue that he has raised consistently here and during our time on the finance committee together. As he knows, Ireland has a comprehensive body of employment, equality and industrial relations legislation, which offers the same protections to all employees legally employed under a contract of employment. All employers, regardless of sector, are responsible for ensuring that their employees receive all the protections afforded them under employment legislation.
The Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 transposes EU Directive 1999/70/EC concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work into Irish law. The Act provides for the improvement of the quality of fixed-term work by ensuring the application of the principle of non-discrimination, that is, that fixed-term workers may not be treated less favourably than comparable permanent workers. The Act also provides for the establishment of a framework to prevent abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts. If an employee has worked on two or more fixed term contracts, the combined duration of the contracts is limited to a maximum of four years. After this, if the employer wishes the employee to continue in its employ, that is deemed to be on the basis of a contract of indefinite duration unless the employer has objective grounds for renewing the contract of employment again on a fixed-term basis. Section 9(5) of the Act provides that the First Schedule to the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1973 to 2001 applies for the purpose of ascertaining the period of service of an employee and whether that service has been continuous. The European Commission has confirmed that Ireland has fully and faithfully transposed the directive.
The requirement to adhere to employment rights legislation is now part of the certification process to receive the section 481 film tax credit. An applicant company must submit an undertaking of compliance with all relevant employment legislation in respect of the film being certified. These conditions must be met, not only by the producer company, but also by the designated activity company, DAC, that is required to be set up to avail of the section 481 tax credit.
If a fixed-term employee feels that, as regards any conditions of employment, he or she is being treated less favourably than a comparable permanent employee or considers that he or she is entitled to a contract of indefinite duration and his or her employer refuses to provide this, it is open to that employee to bring a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission.
I have with me the declaration, and it is signed. I campaigned on behalf of film workers to get this declaration. When we bring the film producers that the Government gives the film credit to into our committee and I ask them simply how many workers who have worked on film productions have acquired contracts of indefinite duration, the answer is “Zero”. They go on to explain how it is not possible, given the nature of the industry. They sign a declaration saying they will apply it to fixed-term workers and they will comply with it, only for them to then say that it cannot be complied with. People work ten, 15, 20 or 25 years in an industry and they keep getting fixed-term contracts, which means they can be blacklisted at any time. Indeed, there was a ruling by the WRC recently that 38 workers had been blacklisted precisely on this basis. The Government has to address this and enforce the legislation.
I appreciate the point the Deputy is making. He refers rightly to the case in December before the WRC where it released decisions in respect of a sample group of complaints made by 38 members of the industry. Those decisions are, of course, being appealed to the Labour Court. Separately, the Labour Court issued a decision last month in respect of another complaint related to the industry. The Deputy is undoubtedly aware of that. There are further related courses still being adjudicated on.
Ireland has a robust legal framework in place to prevent employment law abuse. The Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act lays down measures to prevent the abuse of successive fixed-term contracts and ensures the principle of equal treatment and working conditions, including the means to recognise qualifying periods of service. The Acts are working, but we accept that they can be improved, which is why we have the WRC in place to ensure that cases are addressed.
The Minister of State has to look at this. The Acts are not working. The producers told us that no one had ever got a contract of indefinite duration and never would. It is not acceptable that people can work in an industry for 25, 30 or 35 years and never get a contract of indefinite duration. It means that the clock goes back to zero with every single film. It is as if they had never worked in the industry before. If the producer says people are not getting back on the next film, there is nothing they can do. The producer hides behind the DAC and actually goes to the WRC and tells people that it is not their employer. The producer is the one that gets the money to employ people, but it says that the DAC is the employer. When it is asked whether it set up the DAC, the producer says, “Yes, but it is not us because it is a separate entity.” This is what is happening and the Government has to do something about it. Workers are trying to take cases and the other side has barristers and all sorts of thing to muddy the waters. The Government has to crack the whip and insist that the fixed-term workers legislation is actually complied with and enforced.
I will make two points. Regarding the protections provided under the section 481 tax relief application, the application is clear that the relationship between the producer company and the qualifying company – the DAC – has to be informed by the 1994 Act, which entitles an employee to certain information about his or her employer, including full names and details, to ensure that the employer cannot be hidden. As to what the Department is doing specifically about blacklisting, the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015 provide protections to ensure that there can be no blacklisting. If an employer fails to follow procedures when dismissing an employee, a claim may be taken under the Industrial Relations Act 1969. Officials from my Department closely monitor labour market practices and case law in Ireland and abroad to react to emerging trends in all sectors, particularly this industry. That is where the WRC comes into play. It adjudicates on these cases and ensures that the law is enforced.
2. Deputy Ged Nash asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the reason for a pause in the increase to the minimum salary threshold in respect of the non-EEA general employment permit scheme for healthcare assistants; if he will consider the introduction of a JLC-ERO system to apply to healthcare assistants in the private nursing homes and home care sector; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5990/24]
Will the Minister of State elaborate on comments made last week about the Minister’s decision to pause the increase that was due in minimum salary rates in respect of the general employment permit for healthcare assistants and home care support workers from non-EEA areas? Consequent to that, will he consider the introduction of a joint labour committee or employment regulation order system for those sectors?
Last December, I published the outcome of the review of the occupations lists for employment permits, which signalled the Government’s intention to increase the minimum salary thresholds for employment permits, including those associated with healthcare assistants and home care workers. The purpose of this change is to ensure fair treatment for employment permit holders and to allow them to qualify for the minimum threshold for family reunification.
While the Minister has agreed to a deferral of this policy change, he remains committed to increasing the minimum salary thresholds for healthcare assistants and home care workers. The basis of this decision is a recognition that the nursing home and home support sectors are bound by existing funding agreements and this will impact on their ability to meet the new minimum thresholds in the short term.
The nursing home support scheme is a long-established statutory mechanism through which private and voluntary nursing homes are funded. Under this scheme, nursing homes negotiate the prices they can charge for their services with the National Treatment Purchase Fund. The maximum prices for individual nursing homes are agreed with the NTPF and are based on cost criteria such as costs incurred by the nursing home, local market prices, historic prices and overall budgetary capacity. These prices are agreed for a contractually set duration.
This deferral is a short-term measure to ensure continuity of service for vulnerable members of our society while the pathway to achieving the new minimum salary threshold of €30,000 is agreed and implemented. To achieve this move as quickly as possible, a consultation process to agree a pathway to the higher salary threshold is being established and will seek the input of sectoral employers, advocacy groups and Departments.
As to the Deputy's second question, joint labour committees may be set up by the Labour Court following an application from either the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, a trade union or any organisation that represents the workers or employers involved.
It is therefore open to the representatives of workers or employers in any sector, including in the healthcare and home care sectors, to proceed to request the establishment of a JLC when there are grounds to believe that the representatives are willing to engage constructively in collective bargaining to address the working conditions and pay of employees in the sector.
I believe that JLCs provide an important opportunity for employers and workers to negotiate wages and terms of employment. I therefore encourage both employers and workers to engage in the JLC process where available. A sectoral employment regulation order provides wage certainty and security for employees and helps employers attract and retain talented employees. I remain strongly supportive of the JLCs and their contribution to a positive industrial relations environment.
I thank the Minister of State very much for his response and he has explained the rationale as to why what I describe as an exemption has been provided to the private nursing home sector for non-EEA healthcare assistants and home support workers. I accept the Minister of State's good faith and bona fides here. We engaged on this in another context in this Chamber last week.
From the media coverage surrounding this, it seems to me that Nursing Homes Ireland made the case that private operators simply cannot afford to meet this new €30,000 salary threshold if they do not get more money from the fair deal scheme. How have the Minister of State and his officials in the Department been satisfied that is the case? Has that claim been independently verified or has it just been taken at face value? How has the Department been satisfied that is the case? This is an exemption that does not apply to any other economic sectors which are required to meet higher salary thresholds from this month?
Just to be clear, this does not apply solely to the nursing homes sector. It also includes healthcare assistants and home support workers, so while it is obviously a provision for people who are in nursing homes, be they private nursing homes or independent nursing homes, it is also for those who provide care in the home and those who provide disability services, many of the recipients of which would not be classed as nursing home residents. It covers two broad professions.
We met Nursing Homes Ireland and representatives of Migrant Nurses Ireland, Unite the Union and others, and we had discussions with the Minister of State, Deputy Butler, and others. We did not make this decision on the basis of one submission from one body. We made this submission in advance.
Something I really want to underline for the Deputy, and this is not just a matter of good faith, is that this is an extremely temporary measure. Regardless of what is happening, this deferral, at the very latest will be changed on 17 January 2025, but I hope to achieve the minimum threshold long before that. We are working constructively based on the fact that work permits for healthcare assistants and home support workers were only brought in 2021 after a consultation process. We are using that model to achieve this as quickly as possible.
It looks like there is another increase due in January of next year and a subsequent increase is due in January 2026. That will take the threshold to €39,000. That is some leap from €27,000.
There is one way to resolve all of this and to obviate the need for deferrals at all. We know the private nursing home sector is simply synonymous with low pay and poor conditions when it comes to healthcare assistants and home care support workers. I made a case for the joint labour committee and the ERO system for a number of different reasons. It is a way that organisations, both trade unions and employers, can customise a solution for any particular sector where a JLC-ERO system would apply.
I saw in the media coverage earlier on this year that Nursing Homes Ireland referred to the State as the paymaster of healthcare assistants and of home support workers in the private sector. The Minister for children, Deputy O'Gorman, acknowledged there are additional state subsidies being provided now to, for example, the early years sector, but the quid pro quo is that it would enter into the JLC system based on increased subsidies. Should that not be the case for the private nursing sector and the home care support providers to be included in such a way?
To get to the nub of the question, a decision was made to make a temporary deferral. I have laid out in depth the reason for that here, in our previous discussion on a Bill, and indeed to anyone who has raised a direct question, and I believe Deputy Barry raised it on Questions on Promised Legislation. These deferrals are temporary. The minimum thresholds for work permits are set in all sectors where they apply. We are increasing all those minimum thresholds across the board. We have a very clear roadmap we hope and intend to achieve.
On healthcare assistants and home care workers, we are engaging frankly and openly with both employers and the representative groups to achieve this as quickly as possible. If a JLC is required and if we were to receive such a request, and we have not received a request either from employers or employees in that regard, we would, of course, proactively consider it.
3. Deputy Louise O'Reilly asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment for an update on the WRC "code of practice" on remote working. [5571/24]
It was reported that the WRC intended to finalise the code of practice on remote working by 31 January. Clearly, that date has come and gone. We have not seen it as yet and it has not been published. I am looking for an update as to the status of the code and a date for publication. The Minister will be as aware, as I am, that both workers and employers are left in something of a limbo. On the one hand, we have employers demanding that workers come straight back into the office and, on the other hand, we have employers who want to be able to support their workers but, in the absence of a code of practice, do not necessarily feel able to do so when it comes to remote working.
I thank the Deputy and I am glad to have the opportunity to update the House because, to be fair to the WRC, it has concluded its work and I have seen a draft copy as of yesterday.
The Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act was enacted on 4 April 2023 and represents a significant advance in terms of workplace entitlements for all employees, parents and carers in particular. The right to request remote working will be available to all employees under the Act. The right to request flexible working arrangements will be available to parents and carers too. The right to request remote working is part of a broader Government vision to make remote working a permanent feature of Ireland’s workforce in a way that can benefit all economically, socially and environmentally.
Under the Act, employers will be obliged to have regard to a code of practice when considering applications for remote working arrangements. The purpose of the code is to provide practical guidance to employers and employees when complying with the right to request remote working provisions of the Act. Employees will be able to refer a dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission where an employer fails to meet their obligations under the Act.
Work on the development of the code of practice has been ongoing in the WRC since a public consultation closed in June 2023. In conducting its work, the WRC carried out a public consultation, reviewed submissions received, assessed relevant policy documents and research, and considered best practice in other jurisdictions.
The WRC has now completed its work and submitted a draft code of practice for employers and employees on the right to request flexible working and the right to request remote working to me on 24 January 2024. I will now review the submitted code of practice in consultation with the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, as is required under the Act. Following the approval of the code of practice, which I expect to happen soon, it is intended that the remote working provisions of the Act will be commenced as soon as is practicable.
I thank the Minister for his reply. The current Taoiseach promised that the legal right would be delivered before he left his role as Minister for enterprise, so the Minister present might forgive me if I am a little bit sceptical about the Government's intention in this regard. The Minister says he wants to make remote working a feature. Remote working is a feature of work at the moment. In fact, I have long argued that it should be recognised as a specific form of work, like shift work is, because it is a very specific form of work. At the moment, we have the worst of all worlds because there are workers who cannot put a permanent arrangement in place. They are on week-to-week or month-to-month arrangement because there is not a code of practice. There are employers who, to be fair to many of them, want to do the right thing but are waiting for this code of practice. I would like to hear some sense of urgency.
To be fair to the Minister's predecessor, he was all about the sense of urgency and nothing about the action, but we need to see this commenced as soon as possible. I would welcome to hear from the Minister that he understands there are workers now, some of whom are being forced back into the office and do not want to do so and others who want to put their working arrangement on to a permanent footing because they have to deal with childcare and everything else. They do not sense that there is any urgency coming from the Government. To be very clear, it is urgent for those people who need it.
There is a sense of urgency, but we also want to get this right. We set a very clear target that the WRC would report back to me with a code of practice by the end of January and that is what happened. I need to fully consider it now, which we are doing and we will get that done quickly. The Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, also has to do that under the legislation. We will finalise it and it will be a code of practice that will be in use under the legislation. We are on time, we are doing it and there is a sense of urgency around it.
I do not accept the Deputy's description that we have the worst of all worlds at the moment. Remote working has become a big part of the labour force environment over the last number of years and employees and employers have adapted to that reasonably well. We need more structure around that relationship and more certainty for both employees and employers, which is what the code of conduct is about. We now have that draft code of conduct and it needs to be signed off by two Government Departments. We are actively working on that and I suspect it will be done within the next couple of weeks.
To be clear, the Minister's spokesperson said it would be published before the end of January and it was not. That is the reason for this question.
It was completed.
It was not published. That is what the Minister's spokesperson said. I am not putting words into anyone's mouth. That is a fact.
My concern today is on behalf of both workers and employers. The Minister will appreciate that while he says there is a sense of urgency, I asked a priority question on this back in 2021 and it is now 2024. I do not know if the Minister's version of urgent is massively different to mine but there is three years in the difference. It is now 2024. This was promised by the Minister's predecessor, who assured me it would be done before he left his term of office. There was a clock ticking from the minute he took office so we understood exactly when that was going to be, as did he. It has not been delivered. The Minister will forgive me if I am somewhat sceptical about the Government's intentions in this regard.
For the avoidance of any doubt, work patterns are being established. Employers and workers are sitting down to establish work patterns because they want to put this on a stronger footing. They are waiting on the code to be published, so they want to see that sense of urgency.
We only got the draft code back ten days ago. We are now looking to approve that code and we are testing it, as the Deputy would expect in any process, before finally approving it and publishing it. It is probably a matter of days before that happens. We are now in a good place. We are moving towards putting a lot more structure, permanency and acceptance around how arrangements for flexible working and remote working are going to work. This is a challenging thing to get right. I speak to other Ministers, employers and trade unions about getting the balance right and ensuring we maintain a competitive workplace, while at the same time trying to adapt to the flexible needs of employees. From what I have read, this code of practice does get the balance right and I think it will be welcomed by employers, workers and worker representatives. I believe we will get it finalised in the coming days.
