2026-05-06

I thank the Minister of State for being here. A Labour Court recommendation on 22 October 2022 recommended that Stryker management in Carrigtohill should enter into negotiations with SIPTU, with a view to concluding a collective agreement that covers procedural arrangements within which normal industrial relations business can be conducted. It would have given members a voice at the negotiating table so that serious issues, such as improving health and safety standards, at both plants in Cork would be addressed. I raise this because it goes back to 2018. The said factory was subject to a Cork City Council health and safety motion. That was ignored. Around 2021, I was involved with Deputy Mairéad Farrell and former Minister, Michael McGrath, on the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act 2022 because I had possession of a protected disclosure on the failings of all the health and safety in this. I went to three separate taoisigh over a number of years on this. I have met with the HSE on this. There is a High Court case running at the moment. I will be careful not to mention any more about that, but it has been delayed continuously. Multinationals are coming into this country and they can rickshaw over Government policy. They will not recognise unions. Unfortunately, between working on protected disclosures - in protected disclosure law the most important one is the reversal of burden of proof for whistleblowers today who have more powers - and in my experience of dealing with this specific protected disclosure, every one of those whistleblowers were got at, so they have disappeared. I do not know about that court case I mentioned. When you are given a protected disclosure specifically on health and safety issues, you are duty-bound to report it. I do not know whether the DPP has got that evidence. That is serious. I do not know how to find out, which is very serious. If we move onto 2023, after numerous articles in most of the national papers reporting the failures in health and safety on this, we had a fatality. It is three years on and that family are still in limbo because that company is ignoring them. The company has refused to engage with any union. As recently as last week, I got another anonymous letter mentioning the said company and another pharmaceutical company in Cork, which I will not mention. I am here like anybody else as an elected representative and people put trust in us. These were red flags going back to 2018. We are now in 2026. If we go from 2018 to 2023, it had at least four to five major incidents where people were hospitalised. Health and safety were ignored. We are talking about titanium fires. I contacted Cork County Fire Service. It cannot put out a titanium fire. This individual died by burning. Titanium burns at around 2,000°F. To this day, I am stuck in limbo here. That is why I wanted to raise this tonight. The Labour Court recommendation is just to engage with unions that were concerned about health and safety. This is the decision in October 2022. We are now in May 2026. Nothing has moved forward. We have had a fatality. We have also had some major incidents that have been reported where people were left out in the car park - three in particular - with no health and safety officer. Nobody knew whether it was water, oil, gas or air before they were hospitalised. There is a breakdown in communications. I am just trying to understand why these companies will not engage in respect of the Labour Court recommendations. In this country, we have unions, and people have a right to be represented.

I thank Deputy Buckley for raising this very important issue. I have been asked to respond on behalf of my colleague the Minister of State, Deputy Dillon. Volunteerism has long been a defining feature of Irish industrial relations. It respects the autonomy of employers and workers, places a strong emphasis on dialogue and engagement and has served the State well over many decades. This model remains central to maintaining a stable and balanced industrial relations architecture. However, volunteerism also carries responsibilities with it for all parties. When disputes arise and engagement at workplace level breaks down, the State provides well-established institutions to support resolution. Chief among these is the Labour Court, which plays a vital role in offering independent, reasoned guidance aimed at restoring stability and constructive relations. Under Ireland's voluntary system, Labour Court recommendations in industrial relations disputes are generally non-binding. This is a long-standing and accepted feature of the framework. Nevertheless, such recommendations are intended to be treated with seriousness by both parties. They are the product of careful consideration of evidence and competing interests and are designed to support renewed engagement and resolution where voluntary processes have failed. I should also draw a clear distinction between industrial relations recommendations and decisions of the Labour Court made under employment rights legislation. Decisions under the latter - such as those relating to unfair dismissal or payment of wages - are legally binding and enforceable. Industrial relations recommendations, by contrast, are not for the reasons I have outlined. In essence, this reflects the Labour Court's central role in upholding statutory employment protections and the confidence placed by the State in its expertise and independence. At the heart of many disputes is the issue of voice - that is the ability of workers to raise concerns in a structured and orderly way and the ability of employers to have their perspectives heard. Labour Court recommendations frequently seek to establish or strengthen procedural frameworks that allow normal industrial relations business to be conducted between the respective parties without disputes escalating. This is particularly important in sensitive and high-impact areas such as health and safety, workplace change and terms and conditions. These matters are best addressed through engagement, dialogue and the confidence that both sides will be heard. It is important to say that volunteerism does not mean the absence of structure, nor does it mean that guidance from the State's highest industrial relations body can be set aside without consequence. A voluntary system relies on mutual trust and a shared commitment to engage in good faith when difficulties arise. When recommendations designed to promote dialogue are disregarded, workers may reasonably ask where they are expected to turn to resolve disputes constructively. I also acknowledge, as Deputy Buckley did, the tragic incident that occurred at Stryker in 2023. As investigations remain ongoing, however,it would not be appropriate to comment further on that workplace fatality at this time, but I did hear what he had to say. Any concerns regarding workplace health and safety can be raised directly with the Health and Safety Authority, which enjoys considerable legislative powers to inquire into and enforce occupational health and safety standards. If it is any help to the Deputy, I heard both what he said and his sincerity. I will bring this issue to the attention of the Minister.

I thank the Minister of State for her response. She stated, "When disputes arise and engagement at workplace level breaks down, the State provides well-established institutions to support resolution." I understand that the Labour Court recommendations are generally non-binding. She also stated, "Nevertheless, such recommendations are intended to be treated with seriousness by both parties." I understand that she cannot comment on the case, but I want to follow up on what she said about the recommendations being treated with seriousness by both parties. In 2018, when Cork City Council had a health and safety motion before it, I engaged with the Health and Safety Authority, HSA. It took a lot of work and it was difficult, but the families involved are relatively happy with the HSA. I have brought this up many times; it is frustrating. We have to wait for Europe to change the law on protected disclosures before we can change anything. In fairness, it was done by mutual consent in this Parliament. An office was set up. I met with the HSA prior to these accidents. It is not being taken seriously. I ask the Minister of State to put herself in my position. I have gone through three taoisigh in the context of protected disclosures. I have tried to raise the matter. I spent 18 months working on protected disclosure legislation in order to strengthen it for whistleblowers. I discovered that there have been constant breaches of health and safety standards, accidents and leakages in the meantime. I could write a book on the subject. How does the Minister of State think that makes me feel as a human being when I am sitting at home and hear that there has been a fatality? I feel that I have failed everybody in the factory who came to me. We are here again in 2026. I understand where the Minister of State is going, but I want to get on the record that the matter has not been sorted, that the union is not being recognised, that the company is ignoring everybody, that the family is being destroyed, that a person is dead and that nobody provides answers. All I am getting is that the matter is before the courts and that we cannot say anything. I am saying it now that this is not good enough. We have a separate protected disclosures office. It should have the power to investigate because that is what the protected disclosures legislation was for.

I go back to what I said initially, which is that our system of industrial relations is built on volunteerism, which is a model that values engagement, respect and good faith over compulsion. It has delivered stability and progress precisely because it prioritises dialogue rather than conflict. As I said, however, volunteerism only works when all parties participate responsibly. The Labour Court plays a central and indispensable role within the system. While its recommendations in industrial relations disputes are generally non-binding, they are neither incidental nor optional. They represent the considered judgment of the State's highest industrial relations body and are intended to guide parties back towards constructive engagement, and they are expected to be taken seriously. It is also important to recognise that the Labour Court's authority is firmly established in law. When recommendations designed to promote dialogue and provide workers with structured voice are set aside, confidence in the voluntary system is undermined and, as I said earlier, workers are left uncertain as to where they should turn. This debate is not about mandating outcomes or moving away from volunteerism; it is about reinforcing its foundations, namely engagement, good faith and respect for our industrial relations institutions. If volunteerism is to remain credible, Labour Court recommendations must be treated as more than advisory comment. They should be understood for what they are, a roadmap back to stability, fairness and mutual respect in the workplace. The Labour Court fulfils its role and it is incumbent on all parties to do the same. The Government's action plan to promote collective bargaining demonstrates a clear commitment to further strengthening the industrial relations framework through structured engagement with the social partners, improved data and practical initiatives, including public procurement pilots. The focus remains on expanding effective collective bargaining coverage and improving pay, working conditions and overall quality of life. As I said, I will speak to the Minister.

I thank the Minister of State.