Working conditions and social dialogue — Ireland:
Disclaimer: This information is made available as a service to the public but has not been edited or approved by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. The content is the responsibility of the authors.
This study examines the relationship between social dialogue and working conditions in Ireland as of June 2007. While Ireland has a well established national level system of social dialogue as a result of successive social partnership agreements since 1987 – under which the social partners negotiate and discuss various aspects of working conditions, such as training and lifelong learning - social dialogue at workplace level is quite rare. In short, the greatly expanded national level social dialogue in Ireland has not transfused down to workplace level.
A. Mapping of existing research and administrative reports
1. Surveys
Present a summary of the survey(s), its findings and methodology, including any caveats about the research
Present, where relevant, the exact wording of the questions that address the relationship between working conditions and social dialogue
This section could also include secondary analyses based on survey data
Is there a predominance of cases or more information available in certain sectors? Are any particular issues emerging? Has any monitoring or evaluation been carried out?
The most relevant and up-to-date survey in Ireland that identifies the relationship between social dialogue and working conditions was undertaken in 2004 by the independent Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), in conjunction with the National Centre for Partnership and Performance (NCPP). In 2003, the Irish government established the Forum on the Workplace of the Future under the auspices of the National Centre for Partnership and Performance (NCPP). The Forum was assigned the task of assessing the changes needed to meet the challenge of building Ireland’s knowledge and innovation driven economy. As part of its remit, the Forum commissioned surveys of the views and experiences of Irish employers and employees on the changing workplace. The ESRI/NCPP employee survey is entitled ‘The Changing Workplace: A Survey of Employees’ Views and Experiences’ (O’Connell et al., 2004). Under a series of headings, the employee survey sought to establish employees’ views on: work attitudes and experiences; workplace practices; trade union involvement; training; communication; involvement through partnership or participation; and the determinants of work stress and job satisfaction. The overriding message is that employees view the various practices associated with social dialogue in a broad sense as vital for improving their working conditions and standard of employment.
In terms of methodology, a fieldwork survey was conducted, in which employees were telephoned and questions were put to them. A total of 11,176 phone calls were made and 5,198 completed employee questionnaires were used in the report analysis. The questionnaire was divided into eight sections pertaining to: information on the respondent’s current employment status; work attitudes and experiences; workplace practices; trade union involvement; training; communication; involvement through partnership or participation; and the determinants of work stress and job satisfaction. The responses were then statistically adjusted or ‘weighted’ prior to analysis. It is the first time that such a comprehensive survey of worker views on social dialogue and working conditions has been conducted in Ireland.
The conclusion of the ESRI/NCPP employee survey was that although employees are highly committed to their work, employers are ‘under utilising the enthusiasm’ of their workforces, and employees ‘feel increasingly stressed and under pressure’. The survey findings are quite mixed, in terms of employees’ experiences of work, indicating both higher commitment and higher stress among workers. The average employee in Ireland is apparently hardworking and happy in their work. More than two thirds would work even if there were no need for them to do so, while nine out of ten declare themselves to be ‘satisfied in their jobs’. Eighty seven per cent declare themselves to be satisfied with their hours of work, while seventy per cent express themselves as happy with their wages. The survey also indicates a high level of willingness on the part of Irish employees to work harder and to take on more responsibility. Almost nine out of ten employees declare themselves to be ‘proud to work for the organisations they do’. But the message from the ESRI survey is that employers should not take this commitment for granted. Workers are feeling the pressure and many are at risk of burnout. Ninety-five per cent of respondents said they now had more responsibility than previously, while one in four felt under more pressure at work than two years ago. Half of employees also report that they work under a great deal of pressure, and fifty per cent say that they put in extra hours over and above their formal hours to get their work done. At the same time, three quarters of respondents also indicate that they would take on more responsibility at work, while nearly four fifths said that they would accept an increase in the skill levels required to do the job.
According to the ESRI, an important aspect of employees’ experience of work is the extent of autonomy or control over their work. The ESRI survey findings relating to autonomy are mixed: 27% of employees have low levels of control, around half (46%) have some level of discretion, but only 27% have a high degree of control over their time and work tasks. The majority of workers regard formal communication channels as the most important source of information. Despite this, high percentages of employees indicate that they are hardly ever provided with information in key areas such as product/service innovation, new technology, work practice change, etc. As many as 36-42% of private sector employees responded that they hardly ever receive information in such areas. Many employees also indicate a lack of prior consultation on decisions affecting their work – as many as 27% report that they are consulted rarely or almost never. Employees experience a higher incidence of direct participation than collective representation. Overall, 23% of all employees indicate that partnership committees involving management and unions exist at their workplaces, with about one quarter of those reporting such arrangements reporting personal involvement in such structures. Meanwhile, about 38% report direct participation provisions - such as teamwork/problem-solving groups – with over 70% of employees in such workplaces indicating that they are personally involved in such schemes. One of the implications of the ESRI survey is that there is a mismatch between what managers perceive as sufficient information and consultation, and what workers actually expect and experience in this area
A second survey of the extent and outcomes of workplace partnership arrangements and the relationship between social dialogue and working conditions by O’Dowd (2002) identified what he perceived to be about 150 workplace partnerships in unionised firms in Ireland as of 2000. O’Dowd suggests that the rate of formation of new partnerships had tailed off towards the end of the 1990s, as the early momentum provided by the first national framework agreement covering workplace partnerships (Partnership 2000), and the availability of EU funding of partnership initiatives, receded. In terms of outcomes, managers in O’Dowd’s survey identify a series of positive outcomes for organisations, including higher business performance and higher workforce productivity. Most managers surveyed also held the view that partnership and dialogue was linked to higher levels of job satisfaction and better pay and working conditions for workers. However, less than half attributed higher job security to partnership and only one fifth reported a positive link between partnership and staffing levels. Just over 50 per cent of managers recorded higher levels of union involvement on a day-to-day basis, and 76 per cent associated partnership with higher levels of union influence over management decision-making. Large numbers of managers reported positive outcomes in areas such as trust levels, quality of communications, and the incidences of disputes and grievances. Overall, O’Dowd concludes that the most positive outcomes from partnership are in the areas benefiting employers (better quality relationships and performance), with less pronounced benefits arising from social dialogue in areas favourable for unions (union influence in decision-making) and employees (job satisfaction, pay and conditions, employment security). This conclusion points to the fact that the share of mutual gains tends to be unequally distributed in favour of employers rather than workers. A big omission of O’Dowd’s survey, however, is that it only comprises management respondents.
2. Qualitative research
This section could include case studies and specific research work
Present a summary of the research, its findings and methodology, including any caveats about the research
Is there a predominance of cases or more information available in certain sectors? Are any particular issues emerging? Has any monitoring or evaluation been carried out?
A summary of qualitative research/case studies in Ireland on social dialogue and working conditions is provided below.
1. Occupational Health & Safety. In the area of occupational health and safety, Herbert Mulligan, Editor of Ireland’s Health and Safety Review (www.healthandsafetyreview.ie), describes joint actions taken by the social partners in relation to social dialogue on occupational health and safety (OCS). The requirement stipulated in European Community Health and Safety Framework Directive Council Directive of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (89/391/EEC), that employers consult with workers and/or their representatives and allow them to take part in discussions on all questions relating to safety and health at work, is enshrined in Irish national health and safety legislation. However the point could be made, Mulligan suggests, that the Irish health and safety model, which is based on the concept of social partnership, predates the EC policy and may even have been a source of inspiration for the European policy. In particular, in July 1983 the Barrington Commission Report was published: Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Safety, health and Welfare at Work. At workplace level, the Barrington Report, while stressing that health and safety is the responsibility of management, advocated co-operation between management and workers and in chapter 9 set out mechanisms for the involvement of the worker. The report proposed workers should have the right to appoint safety representatives, whose functions would include making representations, investigating complaints, carrying out inspections and liaising with inspectors. The report also proposed that safety representatives should be given the right to training, information and time off.
At the national level, the Barrington Report proposed the establishment of the National Authority for Occupational Safety and Health. The report also recommended that the Board of the proposed Authority should include representatives from bodies representing employers and employees. These recommendations were enshrined in the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 1989 and re-enacted in the SHWW Act 2005. The SHWW Act 2005 provides: that employees may appoint safety representatives (s25); that employers must consult with employees (s26); for the continuance of the HSA (s33); that the board of the HSA shall include three persons nominated by employee representative bodies and three persons nominated by employer representative bodies (s37) (the are 12 members of the board). Under this framework, the social partners, have over the years since the HSA was established in 1989, worked together at national level to develop health and safety policy.
The most notable example of this co-operation and social dialogue over OHS is to be found in the establishment of the Construction Safety Partnership in 2000 (negotiations for the renewal of which are currently ongoing). When the Construction Safety Partnership Plan was launched in February 2000, following a safety crisis in the industry in the late 1990s, it was hailed as a breakthrough for safety in Ireland. The objectives of the first Construction Safety Partnership (CSP) Plan were the enactment by the Government of regulations requiring the appointment of safety representatives on all sites with more than 20 workers, greater consultation and a requirement making certain training mandatory. Checking back on the list of measures set out in the original CSP Plans, while there have been successes there have also been failures. This includes a failure to keep the public informed of progress through the publication of quarterly reports - as promised by the former Minister for Labour Affairs and the former chairman of the Health and Safety Authority. Just one report has been published since the partnership was established. But there are two issues which are most likely to test the resolve of the Government, the HSA and the social partners when it comes to renewing the partnership. The first is the fact that though the HSA’s Construction Safety Advisory Committee submitted agreed draft regulations to the Government some considerable time ago, meetings are still taking place with representatives of the design professions, who have concern about the draft regulations. The other issue is that there appears to be some confusion and a crossover of issues being dealt with by the CPS and the HSA’s Construction Safety Advisory Committee.
2. General workplace social dialogue. In the broader area of workplace partnership and the relationship between social dialogue and working conditions, there are a number of qualitative case studies/research studies in Ireland. The growth of national level social dialogue through successive social partnership agreements since 1987 has not coincided with similar increases in social dialogue at workplace level – aside from relatively few ‘best practice’ exemplars. This is despite the fact that a National Centre for Partnership and Performance (NCPP) was established This is partly because under an industrial relations system still largely guided by voluntarism and with many competitive strategies open to firms, employers have adopted a diverse range of approaches to employment regulation, many of which are guided by managerial prerogative and/or weak and diluted forms of employee involvement in company decision-making.
The author of this national contribution completed doctoral research (Dobbins, 2007), comprised of two qualitative in-depth case studies on workplace partnership arrangements in Ireland, which, in large part, examined the relationship between workplace social dialogue and working conditions, in terms of the impact on worker experiences and industrial relations outcomes. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with management, union representatives and employees in order to secure a cross-spectrum of views on the nature and outcomes of social dialogue at the workplace. This primary research method was complemented by non-participant observation of the workplace, informal discussions, and use of documentary material. In the first case study, at a glass making plant, management made an attempt to introduce workplace partnership after a ten-year period of adversarial industrial relations. Workers experienced a mix of costs and benefits as a result. In terms of industrial relations outcomes, in comparison to the adversarial period, there had undoubtedly been a notable decline in conflict and increased consensus. But the extent of consensus fell some way short of active commitment to management objectives and values. Rather, it largely amounted to a pragmatic form of consensus, involving greater awareness of difficult competitive circumstances. It encompassed pragmatic worker consent to specific aspects of workplace change, rather than high trust relations and active commitment to broader management values. There were elements of mutual gains, but the balance of gains tended to favour management. This was partly because key parts of the partnership bundle were missing (notably employment security, opportunities for direct worker participation at the point of production, and the absence of harmonized single status terms and conditions of employment). Significantly, the move towards workplace social dialogue enabled management to introduce workplace change more effectively, and at a faster pace than was possible under the adversarial pattern. A joint management-union task group was particularly important in boosting innovation and problem-solving activity, and much higher investment in employee training, and better communications, has also been vital in this respect. Significantly, industrial relations improved dramatically in comparison to the adversarial period, with factors such as lower conflict and higher levels of productivity proving the practical benefits when competent management introduce partnership type arrangements. A number of new tensions also emerged, however, as a result of management's control strategies, which placed definite limits on the extent of mutual gains consensus. The main source of conflict is that management continually sought to tighten efficiency and cut costs in response to external competitive pressures. This has created tensions relating to threats of outsourcing, work intensification, industrial engineering techniques, shiftwork, employment insecurity, limited opportunities for direct participation, and dissatisfaction with pay and rewards. Management activities in these areas resulted in perceived violations of the psychological contract, because workers interests and values conflicted with management’s efficiency drive in fundamental respects.
In the second case study, at an Alumina refinery plant, the benefits of the new partnership approach for workers outweighed the costs. The alumina refinery has a full bundle of partnership practices, notably management-union partnership, semi-autonomous teamwork, training, gainsharing, annualised hours, communications, single status provisions, and an employment security clause. Workers experienced increased workplace participation and responded positively to this. There are limits to their autonomy, however, and they have been subjected to new indirect management controls, which have brought new demands, such as tighter performance targets. Workers have experienced some intensification of work effort, but, significantly, they do not necessarily object to this. On the whole, workers appear to have pragmatically accepted tighter performance standards and increased effort, because they perceive that management is more competent at organising work. There is considerable evidence that trust, job satisfaction and commitment have increased substantially. There is also evidence that labour productivity has improved considerably, while grievances, conflict, absenteeism and accident rates have also declined. The new partnership model has generated higher levels of mutual gains consensus than has been possible in the past. There were definite limits, however, to the diffusion of high trust and active commitment across the plant. Workers still retain some distance from management and see a need for trade union representation, and elements of conflict are still evident. It was significant that because the bundle of partnership practices was more comprehensive at the alumina refinery that the glass plant, workers experienced more benefits and superior working conditions, and the mutual gains accruing were more far-reaching.
There has been other research on workplace partnership/social dialogue. In particular, A team of academics from the National University of Ireland Galway (NUI) (Dundon, 2003) examined information and consultation (IC) arrangements in 15 Irish case study organisations (private and public sector, union and non-union) and the extent of social dialogue provided. Dundon concluded that many of the IC arrangements studied by his research team consisted of weak one-way or two-way direct information and communication systems - such as newsletters, workplace meetings, staff briefings, and e-mails - under which employees had very little say in matters that affect them. Managers tended to guard their own decision-making prerogative, while at the same time articulating the need to tap into employee ideas for successful change, the authors argue. The research referred to the rather different meanings often ascribed to information and consultation by managers and employees/unions respectively. Indeed, many employees and representatives interviewed in the case studies appeared more sceptical of the depth and extent of consultation and social dialogue than managers. Dundon (2003) concluded that partnership-oriented information and consultation methods were most effective when they were integrated, when direct and indirect methods were combined, when senior management strongly endorsed practices, and when informal dialogue supported formal arrangements. Dundon’s 2003 study has since been updated, and now encompasses 32 case studies. According to Dundon et al. (2006), most of the 32 cases studied constituted managerial sponsorship, in the sense that management sets the social dialogue agenda, with direct IC methods taking precedence over partnership with employee representatives. Only 2 of the 32 cases could be described as robust partnerships with strong employee representative forums, they argue. Dundon et al. (2006) add that although studies have consistently shown a link between bundles of IR/HR practices, including information and consultation forums, and better performance, and that workers want more information and consultation and social dialogue than provided for by their employers, few employers in Ireland involve and consult their employees to any real extent, the result being a representation gap. There are a number of barriers to effective employee consultation, it is argued, including opposition from corporate HQ; line managers being preoccupied and having their own agendas; and insufficient skills for management and worker representatives to engage in joint consultative arrangements. They point out that organisations are not undifferentiated, and that it is wrong to assume what works in one place will work elsewhere. Placing a strong emphasis on informality, they suggest that without the prior existence of informal dialogue, trust and goodwill, it is difficult to progress with formal partnership structures and processes.
In relation to the above, for the first time Ireland now has statutory provisions for social dialogue after the Government transposed the EU Information and Consultation Directive. The ICD came into operation in Ireland on July 24, 2006, under the Employees (Provision of Information and Consultation) Act 2006. However, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) is unhappy with the manner in which the Government transposed the ICD, perceiving it to be a minimalist interpretation of the spirit of the Directive. As of June 2007, there are few signs of employers and employee representatives negotiating social dialogue agreements around the new legislation.
3. Administrative reports
Do reports from Labour Inspectorate / Health and Safety Authorities exist where the absence of dialogue between the two sides of industry on OHS matters is mentioned? (present the findings briefly)
No.
Is there predominance in a certain sector?
When so, mention the five most quoted sectors.
The role of Labour Inspectorate in an advice / information role to get the social dialogue going whether establishment-specific or not.
In 2005, Ireland’s Labour Inspectorate produced a discussion document examining its own role, which called for a number of measures to be introduced to ensure that labour inspectors are better equipped to police workplace breaches of labour law in Ireland. Influenced by the furore unleashed by the bitter Irish Ferries dispute, the Irish Government has since set aside a substantial increase in resources and staffing levels for Ireland’s Labour Inspectorate, as part of a broader framework on new compliance and employment rights measures agreed under the current national social pact, Towards 2016, in order to prevent exploitation of vulnerable workers. In terms of the overall role of the Labour Inspectorate, its primary purpose is to monitor and secure compliance with employment rights legislation, and to assist employers and employees in understanding their rights and obligations and provide information and advice. One of the key proposals in the Inspectorates 2005 discussion document is to give increased priority to employment rights awareness/education and develop a highly effective information service using a dedicated budget line. Significantly, it proposed to extend social dialogue on employment rights to schools, suggesting that the school curriculum lacks employment rights content, and to rectify this, a module on employment rights should be put into the curriculum for second level students.
Is the gender aspect taken up in OHS, is it taken up in the OHS social dialogue, who puts it on the agenda and what is its outcome, if any?
The answer is a qualified no. There is no public debate on gender-related OHS issues at social partner level. Such debate on gender is more likely to occur at Health and Safety Authority (HSA) board level. If there were such a dialogue at HSA board level it would be around something like the Pregnant Employees Regulations.
B. Actual examples of social dialogue influencing working conditions
4. Examples of social dialogue
At national level, under social partnership agreements, the main social partners (the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Irish Business and Employers Confederation) and the Irish Government have engaged in a number of social dialogue initiatives relating to improving working conditions, notably in relation to various joint training and life-long learning initiatives, which are seen as vital for upskilling the labour force in the face of competitive pressures. The social partners have welcomed the planned publication of a National Skills Strategy by the Government later in 2007. Through the Steering Group of the Expert Group on Future Skills Needs, the social partners will support the National Skills Strategy. Trade union and employer representatives have significant involvement in the Expert Group on Future Skill Needs. In March 2007, the Expert Group on Future Skills Needs (EGFSN) unveiled an ambitious plan to raise the skill levels of over half a million people in Ireland by 2020. EGFSN is a body appointed by the Irish government – under the aegis of the National Economic Development Authority and Advisory Board (Forfás) and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment – to act as the central national resource on skills and labour supply issues and to develop an overall strategy for professional training in Ireland. The EGFSN plan is contained in the study report Tomorrow’s skills: Towards a national skills strategy, which predicts that workers in Ireland will need to increase their skill levels significantly by 2020. Some 9% more jobs will require degree level or higher qualifications; 4% more occupations will require third-level certificates or diplomas; and 2% more will require a minimum secondary school Leaving Certificate standard. Under the EGFSN plan, the skill levels of 480,000 people would be raised by at least one level, with the skills of another 30,000 being lifted by at least two levels over the period to 2020. Specifically, there is a need to upgrade the skills of: 70,000 persons from the National Framework of Qualification (NFQ) levels 1 and 2 to level 3; 260,000 persons up to levels 4 and 5 (equivalent to leaving certificate level); and 170,000 persons to levels 6 to 10. The Expert Group also emphasises that the skill levels of the workforce need to be augmented if current social and economic progress is to be underpinned. Although, the expert skills group is a national level social dialogue initiative it could have a significant impact on working conditions at workplace level.
In addition, at workplace level specifically, there are some examples of social dialogue that the social partners would view as successful, in terms of the perceived impact on enhancing working conditions.
The Allied Irish Bank (AIB) workplace social dialogue with the Irish Bank Officials Association (IBOA) appears to be evolving to an advanced stage, with the parties using the partnership process to help secure a groundbreaking three-year industrial relations agreement in 2003 incorporating a new 35-hour week in the bank - a major breakthrough in Irish industrial relations. The agreement includes a mutual commitment to business transformation, and best practice is to apply in regard to consultation and agreement, adherence to existing agreements and consensus-based bargaining (IE0305201N). The three-year working time agreement is the most concrete development in a process that was started as part of a wider effort to develop workplace partnership in AIB. The next stage involved the official launch of a formal partnership process in 2000, which was characterised by the use of joint working parties and a commitment to a series of principles. These principles included: improved communications; joint problem-solving; security of employment; commitment to adaptability and flexibility; and acknowledgement of the role of IBOA. Most recently, management and unions at the bank engaged in social dialogue on innovative new pension arrangements. The new AIB pension scheme will be available for all current and new AIB staff, except for some 3,000 or more who remain on an original pre-1996 defined benefit (DB) pension plan. That same year, a new defined contribution (DC) scheme was introduced, but subsequently proved to be a disappointment in terms of take-up. The proposed new fully integrated ‘hybrid’ pension scheme is essentially a DB scheme up to a cap equating to the salary of an assistant manager (around EUR61,000), and operates on a DC basis beyond that. The general secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) has said the proposed new hybrid pension plan at AIB ‘serves as a positive example for all other sectors and shows the pension crisis can best be tackled in a spirit of partnership, as opposed to unilateralism’.
Another lauded example of workplace social dialogue between employers and unions, in the engineering sector, can be found at Tegral Metal Forming. Partnership around changes in work organisation would appear to be at quite an advanced stage at engineering firm, Tegral Metal Forming (TMF) (IE0007153F). Partnership has proven to have staying power at TMF, having been introduced back in 1997 - and it has since become more advanced. Developments of particular note at TMF include the reorganisation of work around a skill-based pay system, annualised hours, and the bedding down of a seemingly effective gainsharing scheme, despite some initial teething problems. TMF came into being in 1977, and currently employs 80 people, and its main activities are steel forming and supplying steel roofing. Clerical workers are represented by the Services Industrial Professional Technical Union (SIPTU) and craft workers by the Technical Electrical and Engineering Union (TEEU). A joint union-management partnership forum was established in 1997 to address challenges such as new competitors, service demands from customers, and complying with the terms of the EU Working Time Directive. The day-to-day activities of this joint forum are conducted by an eight-member steering committee, and various joint task teams established to address special issues of concern. Initially, these task teams addressed core business issues that were deemed to be reasonably safe, which helped the partnership process achieve credibility and generate trust. Thereafter, the process became more ambitious, and eventually, a team-based system was implemented across the plant, incorporating a jointly agreed pay system based on skill levels, as well as a gainsharing system based on cost per tonne produced. However, there was early resistance from teams to this cost per tonne measurement, and a joint team was established to come up with an alternative; the result being that four key performance indicators were jointly established, and a joint monitoring team set up to jointly review performance against these indicators. The main benefits reportedly associated with partnership at TMF include: better working conditions; more stable work organisation; the near elimination of overtime; higher trust; very little time spent on industrial relations issues; reduced hours of work; and stabilised costs.
While the social dialogue success stories - such as those above - are often extolled, it is equally important to discuss partnerships that have 'failed' and broken down. For instance, at its zenith, the Aer Rianta airport company's (now called Dublin Airport Authority) 'Compact for Constructive Participation' was widely deemed to be the most advanced partnership in Ireland to date (IE0312202F). The Compact was without precedent in terms of the level of ambition in attempting to establish multi-level, direct and indirect, joint-problem-solving arrangements, and nothing has been attempted on the same scale since. One of the central principles of the compact was jointness. In other words, no one party would seek to impose unilateral change, and all proposals for change would go through an agreed partnership process involving those who would be affected by it prior to any decision being made to implement change. However, the compact has since imploded. Ultimately, the Aer Rianta partnership was a casualty because neither the management or unions believed in it sufficiently, nor were they prepared to invest enough faith in it. Various parties were also concerned with maintaining their own power bases, especially middle-management. Aspects of the Compact also appeared to be overly complex. It is also thought to have been as overly reliant on key senior management and trade union 'champions', and once this inner circle disbanded, there was little to prevent the process from breaking down. Above all, the social dialogue was primarily restricted to union-senior management level engagement over strategic issues and had not really percolated down to workers on the ground. For instance, the proposal to roll-out participative work teams did not really happen to any great extent in practice. In sum, it remained a truncated form of social dialogue, that was largely remote from the day-to-day experiences of many workers.
5. Social partner views
Ireland’s largest employer representative organization, the Irish Business and Employers Confederation (IBEC), provided the following views on the strengths and weaknesses of social dialogue in Ireland. According to IBEC, the Irish system of social partnership is very well developed at national level and has provided a means by which high level consensus can be arrived at in relation to socio-economic policy issues in Ireland. Centralised pay bargaining within the context of “Partnership” has been in place in Ireland since 1987. Undoubtedly Social Partnership has been one of the reasons for the rapid growth and success of the Irish economy in that period through giving significant real after tax income increases to employees, while establishing a platform of stability, industrial peace and competitiveness in payroll costs and productivity. This has fuelled investment, expansion, job creation, profitability and a restoration of the Government Finances. However, it is well to remember, IBEC suggests, that the wage increases, particularly during the earlier years of partnership, though moderate by historic Irish standards, were more or less in line with competitor countries. At the heart of Ireland’s economic and social transformation over recent years has been a sustained programme of investment, including Foreign Direct Investment. Particularly when viewed from abroad, the “Partnership Era” has been seen to provide what IBEC calls business certainty and to be characterised by competitive wage increases, low inflation, strong productivity gains, security of supply (including essential public services), a culture of compliance with agreements and a Government in tune with business realities .
However, IBEC suggest it would be wrong to suggest that these agreements have not been without problems. Towards the end of the fourth agreement Partnership 2000 and in the early years of the fifth agreement, the ‘Programme for Prosperity and Fairness’ covering 2000 - 2003, many of the benefits were eroded for business. The pay terms agreed in the latter agreement have since been shown to be uncompetitive, IBEC argue. This was exacerbated by many significant breaches driven by a combination of labour shortages, high inflation and trade union behaviour. In addition, the record of compliance and delivery at local level with regard to extra claims, industrial peace and productivity/co-operation with change was not as strong as employers had expected.
The agreement, Sustaining Progress, of 2003-2005 focused on two IBEC-driven priorities: compliance with the terms and an anti-inflation initiative. For three successive Budgets, government agreed to underpin this strategy and took no actions that would add to our inflation burden. Sustaining Progress included what IBEC view as truly groundbreaking measures to tackle the issue of compliance. The social partners agreed that Labour Court Recommendations would be binding in three key areas that had heretofore caused major difficulties in firms: disputes about what constituted ongoing change; inability to pay; and breaches of the agreement. This new approach worked, IBEC argue.
The current national programme, “Towards 2016”, focuses on creating an economically and socially sustainable economy as part of a 10 year framework. It aims to restore and improve Ireland’s competitiveness through adopting measures to encourage control of inflation, simultaneously advancing a socially inclusive and environmentally friendly society. Other elements of the agreement recognise the particular difficulties Ireland is facing today. The cushioned public service is growing, IBEC suggest, while the internationally traded sectors are caught in a pincer movement of rising costs and static output prices. To help address this, IBEC insisted the Agreement includes special measures to assist the manufacturing sector, which is experiencing competitive pressures, to address the energy crisis, to combat inflation and support balanced regional development. It also addresses pensions, research and development, better regulation, telecommunications and education and training. ‘Towards 2016’, took almost 12 months to negotiate owing to what IBEC saw as unsustainable demands by trade unions for labour market regulation and enforcement arising from misplaced fears and unsupported evidence about the risk of exploitation of migrant workers and displacement of Irish workers. The pay terms of the Agreement, concluded in May 2006 when inflation was 3.9% were regarded by employers as being the limit of what business and the country can afford but are now not unreasonable given other inflation pressures that have emerged.
Meanwhile, a major issue relating to social dialogue occupying the thoughts of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) is the lack of a statutory mechanism in Irish law to promote trade union recognition for collective bargaining purposes. An existing mechanism for processing disputes over trade union representation in non-union firms – the 2001-2004 Industrial Relations Acts - was basically rendered redundant following a controversial Supreme Court decision in a case involving the airline Ryanair and the IMPACT trade union. The Supreme Court judgment exposed the lack of a concise definition of collective bargaining in Irish law, concluding that internal non-union ‘excepted bodies’ may constitute an alternative mode of collective bargaining to trade union representation.
At the recent ICTU biennial conference, general secretary David Begg addressed delegates on the contentious union recognition issue. Mr Begg referred to the Industrial Relations Acts 2001-2004 as another ‘Irish solution to an Irish problem’ but he warned that in the aftermath of the Ryanair Supreme Court judgment, ‘we have run out of road on this issue’. It was a dichotomy in the social partnership system, a lack of recognition, he said. Mr Begg said he appreciated that Government had a tough job in balancing the needs of foreign direct investment firms with the needs of trade unions. ‘Truth be told, for the last 20 years or so we have gone along with that. We do not like it. We do not like how they have treated us. We don't like their lack of willingness to have us recognised or to recognise our existence at all. We thought that the 2001 and 2004 Acts were a good solution’.Mr Begg said that there had been a general level of contentment with what followed under the 2001-2004 Acts until the judges ‘living in their rarefied atmosphere of the Supreme Court, where, I suppose, most of them have never known a hard day in their lives’, had got hold of it. According to Mr Begg, ‘They do not understand that the world is not a courtroom. They do not understand, for example, that it is not possible for an ordinary worker to come into any court and say, yes, I stand up and give evidence to this effect. They do not understand the tradition of the trade union movement and how, back in 1913, when the movement started off, memorials, as they were called, had to be signed in a circle so the ringleaders could never be identified. They are totally immune to that tradition and do not understand it’.Mr Begg said that the situation arising from the Supreme Court ruling – in terms of the impact on union representation rights and collective bargaining - had to be confronted: ‘I think honestly that we have run out of road in terms of our capacity to accommodate a sort of dichotomy between our role in society in social partnership and its lack of recognition for our role in terms of the collective bargaining process’. In putting the fall out from the Supreme Court judgment in these stark terms, Mr Begg was laying down a strong marker ahead of talks on a new national partnership agreement. That said, he did not put forward what Congress wants to happen. Should the Government, for example, define collective bargaining as part of amended legislation, or should Ireland adopt a straightforward statutory right to recognition? In addition, any effort to amend the 2001-2004 Acts would have to have regard to the Supreme Court’s insistence on the requirement for higher judicial standards of evidence in such cases.
With regard other matters, there is consensus among the social partners in Ireland that a number of key bottlenecks still require urgent attention through social dialogue - particularly improvements in the area of boosting life-long learning and training opportunities for all - in order to move the Irish economy further along a high value-added high-knowledge trajectory. In relation to this, upskilling has been identified as a necessity by the social partners and the government for boosting Ireland’s competitiveness. It is now widely held that Ireland simply cannot compete on the basis of labour costs and price with eastern European and Asian economies. It is now widely accepted that the key to Ireland’s future economic and social success lies in moving to a 'knowledge economy' based on high value-added and high-skilled activities (Tony Dobbins, IRN Publishing).
Social partner contacts available upon request:
Key references:
Dobbins, T., 2007. “Workplace partnership in practice: a contradictory mix of (partial) mutual gains cooperation and re-casting management control”. PhD thesis, University of Limerick.
Dundon, T., 2003. “The State of Employee Information & Consultation in Ireland”. Labour Relations Commission Review, 2003, 1(2), 15-20.
Dundon, T. Curran, D, Ryan, P. and Maloney, M., 2006. “Conceptualising the dynamics of employee voice: evidence from the Republic of Ireland”, Industrial Relations Journal, 34(5), 492-512.
O’Connell, P.J, Russell, H, Williams, J, and Blackwell, S., 2004. The Changing Workplace: A Survey of Employees’ Views and Experiences. Economic and Social Research Institute/National Centre for Partnership and Performance.
O’Dowd, J., 2002. “Workplace Partnership – how does it affect industrial relations?” Paper presented at Industrial Relations News annual conference, February, Dublin.
Tony Dobbins IRN Publishing