Display in: French - Spanish
Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body
Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body- 100. The Committee last examined this case, in which the complainants alleged acts of anti-union discrimination and the refusal to engage in good faith collective bargaining on the part of the enterprise Ryanair [a low-cost airline], as well as inadequate provisions in legislation to protect against such acts of anti-union discrimination and to promote collective bargaining, at its March 2012 meeting [see 363rd Report, paras 723–815]. On that occasion, the Committee made the following recommendations:
- (a) Considering that the alleged offer of conditional benefits by the company provided that it would not be required to enter into a collective bargaining relationship with the union, if true, would be tantamount to employer interference in the right of workers to form and join the organization of their own choosing to represent their occupational interests, and as the information available is insufficient to determine whether such an act occurred, and, if it occurred, whether it would have been considered to be contrary to Irish law if proven, the Committee requested the Government to ensure that the protection available against anti-union discrimination would adequately cover such acts, including through a thorough review of the protective measures with the social partners concerned.
- (b) In view of the seriousness of the allegations as regards the extent of interference on the part of the employer, the Committee requested the Government to carry out an independent inquiry without delay into the alleged acts of employer interference in order to establish the facts in this specific case, and, if necessary, to take the necessary measures to ensure full respect of the principles of freedom of association. It requested the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of such an inquiry.
- (c) In light of the above, and noting with interest the Government’s statement, contained in its communication from 11 July 2011, that the administration is committed in its Programme for Government to reform the current law on employees’ right to engage in collective bargaining (the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2011) so as to ensure compliance by the State with recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as the Government’s subsequent indication that its reply should not be taken as an indication that the Government will not be proposing any changes in the framework of the ongoing review of the procedures under the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2001, particularly in the light of the Ryanair case, the Committee invites the Government, in full consultation with the social partners concerned, to review the existing framework and consider any appropriate measures, including legislative measures, so as to ensure respect for the freedom of association and collective bargaining principles set out in its conclusions, including through the review of the mechanisms available with a view to promoting machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers’ and workers’ organizations for the determination of terms and conditions of employment.
- 101. The Government provided initial observations in a communication dated 14 September 2012 and transmitted the views of the Irish Business and Employers Confederation, which raised concerns about the recommendation to review the Irish legislation solely in the context of an individual complaint, in a communication dated 19 September 2012. In respect of recommendation (a), the Government expresses its commitment to reform the current law on an employee’s right to engage in collective bargaining and indicates that it is engaged in an ongoing review of the operation of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2001, which it expects will also address recommendation (c). As regards recommendation (b), the Government indicates that it is not able to reopen a dispute that has been determined by the Irish courts, while adding that the parties may resume the hearing before the Labour Court. In a communication dated 11 March 2015, the Government describes the subsequent introduction of draft legislation to amend the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2001, with a view to fulfilling its commitment in the Programme for Government to reform the current law on employees’ right to engage in collective bargaining so as to ensure compliance with recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The Government indicates that worker and employer stakeholders played a critical role in the development of this legislation, which would provide an improved framework for workers who seek to improve their terms and conditions in situations where there are no arrangements with their employer to do this through collective bargaining. The Government indicates that it was keen to respect the positions articulated by stakeholders to develop proposals that sustain Ireland’s voluntary system, but also ensure that workers have confidence that, where there is no collective bargaining, they have an effective system that ensures they can air grievances about remuneration and terms and conditions and have these determined based on those in similar companies and not be victimized for doing so.
- 102. In this respect, the Committee notes with interest the information provided by the Government, within the framework of the application of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), in relation to the new Industrial Relations Act 2015, which strengthens the statutory code on victimization to explicitly prohibit inducements to forgo trade union representation. The Act further provides for the reinstatement of collective bargaining registered employment agreements at the enterprise level and for new sectoral employment orders. The Committee further notes with interest the information provided concerning the adoption of the Workplace Relations Act in 2015, which streamlined five workplace relations bodies into two, greatly simplifying the system and facilitating access for those seeking to vindicate their rights. The Committee welcomes this information and considers that this case requires no further examination.
