STUDY LABOUR AND SOCIAL JUSTICE TRADE UNION ACCESS TO WORKERS Barriers faced by representatives in Ireland within a comparative European context Dr. Michelle O’Sullivan& Dr. Caroline Murphy July 2024 Ireland has comparatively low collective bargaining coverage in the European Union making the Directive on Adequate Minimum Wages of particular interest there. This report ex­ amines the views of Irish union officials on the current chal­ lenges pertaining to increased collective bargaining. The findings reveal that union officials are largely positively disposed towards the Directive and optimistic it will contrib­ ute to addressing the current challenges. However, it was felt that the impact of the Directive is dependent upon how it is transposed. The report offers recommen­ dations for policy changes based on the findings and examples from other inter­ national contexts.

LABOUR AND SOCIAL JUSTICE TRADE UNION ACCESS TO WORKERS Barriers faced by representatives in Ireland within a comparative European context

Contents 1 INTRODUCTION  3  OF THE DIRECTIVE IN AN IRISH CONTEXT  5 2.1 Worker representation and access to unions for workers  6  MEASURES TO SUPPORT UNIONISATION AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING  8 3.1 Union Default Model 8 3.2 Worker Access to Unions: Australia  8 3.3 Compulsory Collective Bargaining: Romania  9 3.4 Compulsory Collective Bargaining: Sweden  9 3.5 Industry-level Collective Bargaining: Germany  9 4 SURVEY DESIGN AND RESULTS 11 4.1 Description of survey design and distribution process  11 4.1.1 Survey responses  11 4.2 Barriers to organising, bargaining and representation  12 4.3 Facilitators to organising, bargaining and representation  14 4.3.1 Worker Access to Unions  14 4.3.2 Supportive environment  14  official preferences on measures to support organising, bargaining and representing workers  15 4.5 Union Recognition  17 4.6 Employer actions towards union officials  19 4.7 Views on the AMW Directive  20  OF FINDINGS 22 6 RECOMMENDATIONS 23 6.1 Policy Measure  23 6.2 Internal union practices  25 7 CONCLUSION 26 Appendix  27 References  29 1

FRIEDRICH-EBERT-STIFTUNG – UNION ACCESS TO WORKERS FIGURES Figure 1 Awkward Stuff Tacticsl 12 Figure 2 Fear Stuff Tactics 13 Figure 3 Sweet Stuff Tactics 13 Figure 4 Evil Stuff Tactics 13 Figure 5 Facilitating access 15 Figure 6 Facilitating a supportive environment 15 Figure 7 changes to improve organising, bargaining and representation 16 Figure 8 Changes to facilitate ease of access 17 Figure 9 Most important function of Union Recognition 17 Figure 10 Change in ability to secure union recognition 18 Figure 11 Outcomes of union organising campaigns 18 Figure 12 Effectiveness of approaches in achieving recognition 19 Figure 13 Cases of De-Recognition 19 Figure 14 Employer Actions Experienced by Union Officials 20 Figure 15 Impact of employer actions on union officials 20 Figure 16 Potential Impact of the AMW Directive 21 TABLES Table 1 Bargaining in Transnational Charters and International Guidelines 6 Table 2 Participant Data 11 Table 3 Schema of Employer Anti-union Tactics 12 Table 4 Preferences by union official roles 16 2

INTRODUCTION 1 INTRODUCTION There has been increasing acknowledgement of the role of unions and collective bargaining in society. This has been coupled with the recognition of the need for legislative support for unions by Irish national institutions and organ­ isations including the 2021 Citizens Assembly report on Gender Equality and the 2023 Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission report on collective bargaining and the Irish Constitution. The right to freedom of association in the Irish Constitution has in the past been viewed by the courts in a»severely restrictive« manner(Murphy and Turner, 2020: 122), but the Supreme Court in a recent sem­ inal judgement rejected restrictive interpretations of the Constitution and the Industrial Relations Act 1990 and held them as positively disposed to the union functions of organising, campaigning, and industrial action. 1 The value of union recognition and collective bargaining is widely recognised internationally. The positive impact of unions and collective bargaining are evident within work­ places, across workplaces, and in wider society(Fiorito and Padavic, 2022; Doellgast and Benassi 2020). From an eco­ nomic perspective, collective bargaining can facilitate high employment and lower unemployment, reduce income and wage inequality, and protect vulnerable groups in soci­ ety(Berg, 2015; Dorigatti and Pedersini, 2021; Bank for In­ ternational Settlements 2019; Jaumotte and Buitron 2015; OECD 2018; Hayter, 2015; McDonnell, 2024; Freeman and Medoff, 1984). Collective bargaining alleviates the»demo­ cratic deficit« individual workers face from the imbalance in power in the employment relationship by allowing em­ ployees to participate in self-government to some degree and limiting the arbitrariness of employer decision making (Davidov, 2004). Unions enable workers to have a say and challenge organisational decision making and without this, workers may be unlikely to»truly voice their opinions« without collective representation(Freeman and Medoff, 1984: 8-9; Wallace et al., 2020). In addition, union recogni­ tion and collective bargaining have been recognised as es­ sential features of a democratic society. There are ›spillover‹ effects of union membership from the workplace into soci­ ety. There is a relationship between unions and improved quality of democracy because unions help increase wages, 1 H.A. O’Neil Ltd. v UNITE and Other s[2024] IESC 8. O’Donnell, J. para 59 and 72; Hogan, J. para 7; Murray, J. para 57. challenge government power, and foster democracy and member participation internally in union structures(Budd and Lamare, 2020; Turner et al., 2020). Union members are more politically active than non-members and have positive attitudes towards democracy(Turner et al., 2020). It is the union-wage relationship that has attracted EU level attention with the introduction of the Directive 2022 / 2041 on Adequate Minimum Wages(AMW) in the EU. The Di­ rective aims to improve living and working conditions by strengthening workers access to adequate minimum wage protection, whether through minimum wages, or through collective bargaining. It has sought to strengthen collective bargaining structures for two reasons. One reason is the recognition of the role of»strong collective bargaining« particularly at sectoral and cross-industry levels to ensuring adequate minimum wage protection(Recital 16). The Direc­ tive acknowledges the relationship between high collective bargaining coverage and high minimum wages and a low proportion of low wage workers(Recital 25). The Directive is underpinned by a perspective that sees strong collective bargaining and minimum wages as necessary for inclusive growth rather than as barriers to competitiveness(Natali and Ronchi, 2023: 4). Secondly, the need to strengthen collective bargaining is viewed as necessary because of the erosion of»traditional collective bargaining structures« in recent decades and key contributing factors have been »the decline in trade union membership, in particular as a consequence of union-busting practices and the increase of precarious and non-standard forms of work«(Recital 16). The Directive provides that it»is essential that the Member States promote collective bargaining«(Recital 24). In this context, with the aim of facilitating the exercise of the right to collective bargaining on wage-setting and of increasing collective bargaining coverage, the Directive states that Member States shall(a) promote the building and strength­ ening of the capacity of the social partners to engage in collective bargaining on wage-setting in particular at sectoral and cross-industry level;(b) encourage constructive, mean­ ingful and informed negotiations on wages between the social partners on an equal footing, where both parties have access to appropriate information;(c) take measures to protect the exercise of the right to collective bargaining on wage-setting and;(d) to protect workers and trade union representatives from acts of discrimination in terms of their employment; and take measures to protect trade unions 3

FRIEDRICH-EBERT-STIFTUNG – UNION ACCESS TO WORKERS and employers’ organisations participating or wishing to participate in collective bargaining against any acts of inter­ ference by each other(Art. 4(1)). In addition, each Member State where collective bargaining coverage is less than a threshold of 80 percent shall provide for a framework of enabling conditions for collective bargaining and shall also establish an action plan to promote collective bargaining. The action plan shall set out a clear timetable with concrete measures to progressively increase the coverage rate (Art. 4 (2)). The deadline for transposition of the directive into the national law of all Member States is 15 November 2024. Collective bargaining is defined in the Directive as negotia­ tions between an employer(s) / employers’ organisations and trade unions for the purposes of determining working conditions and terms of employment so non-union employ­ ee representatives cannot satisfy the Directive’s provisions. The Directive iterates that Member States should take meas­ ures to promote collective bargaining on wage-setting and these might include measures easing the access of trade union representatives to workers(Recital 24) but it does not elaborate on what these might look like. The Commission services clarified that, although Article 4(1) does not explic­ itly mention a right of access, facilitating the access for trade unions to workers can be a measure a Member State may take to protect and promote collective bargaining on wage-setting(European Commission, 2023: 25). In April 2024, several Irish trade unions initiated the Respect at Work campaign(respectatwork.ie) with the aim of achiev­ ing a strong worker-centric transposition of the EU Directive on Adequate Minimum Wages such as through stronger rights for workers to have access to a union. This represents a critical juncture in Irish industrial relations in providing an opportunity to mould new institutional arrangements conducive to workers interests, but also in facilitating a renewed approach to dialogue and bargaining between unions and employers. There are two elements to this report. The first is a deskbased review of the policy and practice on worker access to union representatives for the purposes of bargaining and representation in Ireland and internationally. The second part presents the findings of a large-scale survey of union officials in Ireland, examining their experiences of attempting to represent and organise workers in Irish workplaces, in particular centring on the achievement of union recognition for collective bargaining and representation purposes. 4

TRANSPOSITION OF THE DIRECTIVE IN AN IRISH CONTEXT 2 TRANSPOSITION OF THE DIRECTIVE IN AN IRISH CONTEXT The potential impact of the Directive will likely be greater in EU countries with low levels of collective bargaining cov­ erage(Pasquier, 2021). Eustace(2024) describes Ireland as now being at a ›crossroads‹ for where the government must decide how best to implement the requirements and pursue the objectives laid down in the Directive. The average rate of collective bargaining in the EU is 56 percent while Ireland’s is 34 percent 2 and only a little over a fifth of workers in the private sector are covered by collective bargaining (European Commission, 2020). The Irish industrial relations environment has, Doherty(2013) argues, provided one of the weakest legal protections for collective bargaining rights in the Western industrialised world. This environment has supported employers’ capacity to avoid dealing with trade unions and the collective bargaining process(Murphy and Turner, 2014; 2016; Geary and Gamwell, 2019). While Irish unions report satisfaction with the results of decentralised bargaining(in employment terms and condi­ tions) when compared to centralised national bargaining (Paolucci et al. 2023), instances of decentralised bargaining are far from the norm in many sectors of the economy. Without substantial changes to facilitate union representation at workplace level, the extension of collective bargaining in a meaningful way to workers in the private sector presents a considerable challenge. A decline in union representation has occurred even though survey evidence indicates that the demand for trade union membership has remained strong in Ireland(D’Art and Turner, 2008; Geary and Belizon, 2022). A primary reason for the decline in union presence has been the difficulties unions have faced in securing union recognition from increasingly recalcitrant employers(D’Art & Turner, 2003). At workplace level no adequate legislative route existed through which unions could pursue recognition. Conceding recognition has remained purely voluntary on the part of the employer and the outcome in terms of dwindling density reflects the imbalance in resources avail­ able to unions and employers. Given the consistent refusal by governments to allow a statutory mechanism to facilitate union recognition, a compromise in the form of a body of so-called ›right to bargain‹ legislation(Industrial Relations (Amendment) Acts 2001 / 2004 / 2015) was enacted that 2 The Irish figure is for 2017 and is from the OECD / AIAS ICTWSS database while Geary and Belizon put the figure at 43 percent from their 2021 survey. was supposed to empower trade unions to instigate indi­ vidual cases against organisations that did not engage in collective bargaining. In essence, these Acts provided a form of union representation rights to union members in non-union firms. The legislation, however, has not had a discernible positive impact on the capacity of non-union members to be collectively represented by a union(Duffy, 2019). The Labour-Employer Economic Forum(LEEF) High-Level Working Group on Collective Bargaining acknowl­ edged union difficulties in using the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2015 and that they had rarely used its provisions(LEEF, 2022). The High-Level Group did not, however, propose changes to the legislation but recom­ mended the Labour Court make use of technical assessors in the process. Alongside this, the High-Level Group recommended a pro­ cess to encourage»good faith engagement« between unions and employers where a trade union has organised members in the enterprise, but where the employer does not engage in collective bargaining with a trade union or excepted body(LEEF, 2022). This process included the potential to oblige parties to engage in good faith engagement but not an obligation to reach any outcomes or agreement(LEEF, 2022). A non-exhaustive list of suggested elements of good faith engagement were provided including: participating in a meeting within a reasonable timeframe; giving genuine consideration to representations made by the other party; providing relevant information in a timely manner; giving a clear, considered written response to representations made by the other party following a good faith meeting within an agreed timeframe. Since the LEEF publication, reports indicate that Ibec’s(Irish Business Employers Confederation) view of ›good faith‹ engagement amounts to a ›one-off meeting‹ and does not oblige employers to have additional meetings(Prendergast, 2024). Ibec has argued there is»little if any legislative changes required for the transposition of the directive« due to existing industrial relations legislation and, in its view, the 80 percent threshold in the Directive »imposes an obligation of effort, not result«(Houses of the Oireachtas, 2024). In much of Europe, sectoral level bargaining and extension agreements bring large segments of the workforce into collective bargaining(Bosch, 2015). Schubert and Schmidt (2020) argue that extensions become increasingly difficult 5

FRIEDRICH-EBERT-STIFTUNG – UNION ACCESS TO WORKERS to justify in countries with minimum wage legislation and a large amount of employee protection legislation. Further­ more, union representation in the workplace and opportuni­ ties to engage in good faith bargaining with employers at the workplace level are not necessarily advanced through a mod­ el of extension agreements. As De Spiegelaere(2024a: 21) notes,»countries with broad systems of extensions have collective bargaining coverage rates that are far above the trade union density rates«. The ETUI has stated that trade union density is more important to bargaining coverage in Ireland than in most other states(Eustace, 2021). Within the voluntarist system that operates in Ireland, density and bargaining coverage are relatively coterminous. France, in contrast, is a case where collective bargaining coverage is amongst the highest in Europe(98 percent) but union den­ sity remains low(five percent private sector). Low union density rates also pose challenges for the quality of agree­ ments under extension arrangements. Eustace(2021:37) concluded that if an employer wanted to derogate from extended agreements»…it is relatively easy to do so, by concluding an enterprise agreement with unions who suf­ fer from a very weak position at the enterprise level due to low membership rates«. To avoid such pitfalls, the position of unions at enterprise / workplace level is vital to securing meaningful agreements for workers. In addition to meeting with provisions of the Directive, en­ hanced provisions for collective bargaining will also bring Ireland into line with provisions from other transnational charters and international guidelines(Table 1). 2.1 WORKER REPRESENTATION AND ACCESS TO UNIONS FOR WORKERS ILO Conventions and Recommendations and decisions of the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association have estab­ lished the following to support the principles of freedom of association and right to collective bargaining. – Workers’ representatives should be granted without undue delay access to the management of the undertaking and to management representatives empowered to take decisions, as may be necessary for the proper exercise of their functions. – Workers’ representatives should enjoy such facilities as may be necessary for the proper exercise of their functions, including access to workplaces. – Workers’ representatives should be granted access to all workplaces in the undertaking where such access is necessary to enable them to carry out their representation function. – In regard to non-unionised workers, negotiation between employers and organisations of workers should be encouraged and promoted. – No person should be dismissed or prejudiced in employment by reason of trade union membership or legitimate trade union activities, and it is important to forbid and penalize in practice all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of employment(ILO, 2018). For some time, evidence has indicated that there is a rep­ resentation gap in Ireland meaning there are employees who would join a union but are unable to(D’Art and Turner, 1999; Murphy, 2016). Geary and Belizon(2022) found that 44 percent of non-union workers generally and over two thirds of non-union workers aged 16-24 would vote to es­ tablish a union in their workplace. Evidence suggests that workers have limited access to trade union representation and unions face considerable challenges in accessing work­ places. Research completed more than two decades ago Table 1 Collective Bargaining in Transnational Charters and International Guidelines Document Statement OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct Universal Declaration on Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union Enterprises should within the framework of applicable law, regulations and prevailing labour relations and employment practices and applicable international labour standards respect the right of workers to have trade unions and representative organisations of their own choosing recognised for the purpose of collective bargaining, and engage in constructive negotiations, either individually or through employers' associations, with such representatives with a view to reaching agreements on terms and conditions of employment. Sets out fundamental human rights and recognises»The right to join trade unions and the right to collective bargaining«(Article 23.4). Specifies trade union membership as an important political right essential to democracy:»Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests«(Article 11). Recognises the right of collective bargaining and collective action including the right to strike (Article 28). 6

TRANSPOSITION OF THE DIRECTIVE IN AN IRISH CONTEXT among full-time trade union officials working in private sector unions found that just 27 percent of employers permit­ ted union access to the workplace, with 56 percent denying access. Furthermore, officials reported that 66 percent of employers discouraged workers from joining the union, 63 percent used managers to brief workers against the union, 48 percent victimised activists and 44 percent used manage­ ment consultants to avoid recognition(D’Art and Turner, 2005). 3 A 2022 IRN-CIPD Pay and Employment Practices Survey of company representatives found that 75 percent of non-union companies had no intention of considering collective bargaining with a trade union, with large companies more likely to indicate they would not engage in collective bargaining than small companies(Prendergast, 2022). To date in Ireland the State has approached union recognition and the collective right of workers to bargain as constitutional rather than legislative issues where Article 40.6.1.iii of the Constitution allows workers the right of association but not the right to representation(D’Art, 2020). Indeed, the Constitution has traditionally been interpreted as supporting an employer’s right not to recognise a union(Turner et al., 2017) but the recent decision of the Supreme Court in O’Neil rep­ resents a marked change in this regard. Referring to Art. 40.3.1.iii., Hogan J. stated It is arguably implicit in these provisions that the right to form trade unions implies in turn at least some – perhaps as yet undefined – zone of free­ dom for those unions to organise and campaign. The effet utile of this constitutional provision would otherwise be compromised. 4 Case study evidence illustrates management hostility to­ wards unions and the difficulties experienced by workers attempting to secure recognition for union representation and collective bargaining(Geary and Gamwell, 2019; Geary, 2022). Extant relations between employers and un­ ions, it has been argued, places few constraints aside from minimalist regulations on employer actions leaving Irish workers more exposed than those in regulated European labour markets to the structural contradictions of capital­ ism(Dobbins, 2010). There are important differences in the formal structures for employee representation at the workplace level in the 27 EU Member States and Norway. A report by Eustace (2021) showed how institutional rights of unions can be reserved for those that pass a threshold of ›representativeness‹ in some countries. This approach was found to encourage consolidation among unions, as well as vigorous recruitment efforts to keep membership rates sufficiently high. This approach was also found to be advantageous to ensuring the efficiency of collective bargaining processes and the stability of agreements. 3 195 full-time union officials in eight trade unions organising in the private sector were sent a survey of which 82 completed question­ naires were returned, representing a response rate of 42 percent. 4 O’Neil[2024] IESC 8, 7. Müller and Schulten(2024) note the importance of measures to strengthen the capacity of unions including a right of access of unions to organisations in advancing collective bargaining(especially at a sectoral level) as well as meas­ ures to prevent union busting and support time / facilities for union representatives. Despite the significant and longstanding nature of rights of entry, the body of literature on the topic is relatively small(McFarlane, 2022). A right of entry is fundamentally important for workers to have union representation and for unions to communicate with members, as well as gaining insight into terms and conditions. A 2020 survey of affiliates of the European Trade Union Congress (ETUC) identified a pattern of employers using General Data Protection Regulation laws as way to deny unions a right to contact workers. The ETUC(2020) called on the European Commission to include digital access to workplaces as part of its initiative on fair minimum wages. The Code of Practice on the Duties and Responsibilities of Employee Representatives gives guidance to employers, employees, and trade unions on the duties and responsibili­ ties of employee representatives, including the protection and facilities they should be afforded to carry out their duties (LRC, 1993). As the Code notes, the manner in which em­ ployee representatives discharge their duties»significantly affects the quality of management / labour relations in the undertaking or establishment in which they work, its efficient operation and future development«(LRC, 1993). However, the Code is limited in supporting trade union officials to access workers and workplaces. A significant weakness of the Code is that»there is no requirement that the parties in any particular employment adopt them« and even in the early years after its introduction, there was a reported low take-up of it(Wallace and McDonnell, 2000). An enhanced right to access has been a motion called for by ICTU affiliated unions for some time. A right to entry also provides unions with the ability to mon­ itor and inspect how existing statutory and negotiated terms and conditions are implemented. The ETUI(2017) notes »the first professional labour inspection bodies appeared in Europe during the second half of the 19th century. They were the result of a very simple observation: that it was pointless adopting legislation to protect the working environment if you did not monitor what was happening in practice, discreetly, within businesses. Very soon, it became clear that the system would be incomplete unless the workers’ movement was able to play a role in these inspection systems«. Ireland continues to lack an enforceable legal framework supporting union presence in the workplace, arguably a key factor for unionisation(Toubøl and Jensen 2014; Marra­ cone and Erne, 2023). The next section discusses a number of relevant approaches for consideration in addressing this deficiency. 7

FRIEDRICH-EBERT-STIFTUNG – UNION ACCESS TO WORKERS 3 INSTITUTIONAL MEASURES TO SUPPORT UNIONISATION AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING There has been considerable attention paid to the legislative and institutional factors that contribute to higher levels of union recognition and collective bargaining in other countries in several recent national reports as well as in academic literature. These are very instructive, and it is not our inten­ tion to repeat their content(Eustace, 2021; Thomas, 2022; D’Art and Turner, 2003). In this section, we briefly present five examples of institutional measures that can support union recognition and collective bargaining. The first, a union default model, has been proposed by researchers. The re­ maining examples are of institutional measures in four countries: Australia, Romania, Sweden and Germany. The Romanian example is noteworthy given its recent history of government hostility towards unions. 3.1 UNION DEFAULT MODEL As Harcourt et al.(2019: 66) argue, an»effective freedom to associate critically depends upon the availability of a union present in the workplace to join« but»workers are defaulted to being non-union in employment relationships across the world«. In contrast, a union default approach involves au­ tomatically enrolling workers in a union with bargaining coverage over their work, and the right to»be the appropri­ ate default union… would be gained by the union passing a low minimum support threshold«(Gall and Harcourt, 2019: 409). The implementation of a default union could stream­ line the process of providing union representation, making it more accessible and efficient for those who want to be union members, potentially bridging the representation gap(Freeman et al., 2007). Although a union default does not guarantee enhanced union bargaining, it is viewed as one of the necessary conditions for it(Harcourt et al., 2023). In the Irish context where the constitutional right of association / dissociation has received so much attention, a default system preserves this right, facilitating with greater ease the freedom to associate while also preserving the freedom not to associate with a union(Harcourt et al., 2019). The approach resolves constitutional issues relating to closed shops because, in contrast to closed shop arrange­ ments, a union default system would allow for opting out on an unrestricted basis(Harcourt et al., 2023). Research in Anglo-Saxon industrial relations regimes suggests a union default would receive majority support and prompt most workers to join unions and proponents of the approach have identified Ireland as one of the countries with the legal infrastructure by which a union default system could be established(Harcourt et al., 2019; 2021; 2023). 3.2 WORKER ACCESS TO UNIONS: AUSTRALIA Rights of entry were initially conceived as a means for unions to investigate and secure compliance with industrial awards on behalf of workers in the context of Australia’s traditional conciliation and arbitration system(McFarlane, 2022). The Workplace Relations Amendment(Work Choices) Act 2005 tightened rules governing rights of entry by unions to workplaces and unions responded angrily to the restrictive nature of the Act(Wooden, 2006). The Fair Work Act 2009 made subsequent changes which did not refer explicitly to a union right of entry but to»provide a balanced framework for cooperative and productive workplace relations that promotes national economic prosperity and social inclusion for all Australians«(Raftos, 2022). The Act refers to the objectives of»fairness and representation at work« including »recognising the right to freedom of association and the right to be represented« in line with the ILO Conventions. In the context of such, union officials have a right to enter workplaces for the purposes of investigating any suspected contraventions of the Fair Work Act or any breaches of en­ terprise level agreements. The Act also permits access for the purposes of holding discussions with employees. This element is crucial in advancing capacity to organise and establish bargaining. A right of entry permit is issued to unions officials to exercise their right of entry to a workplace and other entry requirements must also be met. A right to entry permit holder must be an elected officer of the union, or an employee of the union. Permits are valid for a threeyear period, unless revoked or suspended by the Fair Work Commission(FWC), or the holder ceases to hold a position with a union. Permits provide for a right to access the workplace at 24 hours’ notice to management, however, an exemption certificate can also be issued by the FWC to allow for entry without notice in special circumstances. Where a permit holder requests a right to entry for the purposes of holding discussions with employees they can meet or interview those who work on the site, are entitled to be represented by the union and are willing to meet with the union. Such discussions must be held during breaks and not paid work time in an area of the building agreed by the employer / occupier. Where no set location is 8

INSTITUTIONAL MEASURES TO SUPPORT UNIONISATION AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING agreed, discussions can take place in any area that employ­ ees would normally take breaks. The legislation provides that an employer must not prevent, obstruct or intentionally delay a permit holder from entering the workplace and neither can they lawfully refuse or fail to comply with a permit holder’s lawful request to produce or provide access to records or documents. Employers are prohibited from taking adverse action against a worker for being a union member or engaging in lawful union activity. Unions also have a right of entry where they suspect a contravention of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. A recent court decision concluded that while workers names do not have to be disclosed to management, unions did not have a right under the Act to consult with workers on a confidential basis (workplacelaw.com, 2023). McFarlane(2022) found that restrictions imposed at work­ places during the pandemic raised unprecedented issues for trade unions seeking to exercise rights of entry in accord­ ance with Part 3–4 of the Fair Work Act 2009. This had led to disputes about the appropriateness of occupational health and safety(OHS) requirements imposed by employers to mitigate the risk of COVID-19 infection and transmission. 3.3 COMPULSORY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: ROMANIA New legislation in Romania(Law 367 / 2022) is significant for giving unions stronger powers to represent workers and for supporting the development of collective bargaining (Roethig and De Spiegelaere, 2023). It is particularly important given the sweeping attacks on collective bargaining insti­ tutions by the government during the global financial crisis which weakened unions and reduced collective bargaining coverage from over 90 percent in 2010 to 36 percent in 2011 and to 15 percent by 2019(Trif, 2013; Trif and Stochita, 2024; Schulten and Müller, 2021). Key provisions of the new legislation include: company-level collective bargaining(though not conclusion of an agree­ ment) is obligatory for employers with at least ten employees; unions can secure recognition at the sectoral level if they represent at least five percent of the workers in the sector; multi-employer and sector-level bargaining is facilitated and, in some cases, sectoral agreements can be made binding upon the whole sector depending on the proportion of the sectoral workforce employed by members of the signatory employer organisations(Trif and Stochita, 2024; Kinstellar, 2023). Cross-sectoral agreements can also be extended to the entire labour force in certain circumstances. There are obligations on employers to provide information to employee representatives during collective bargaining, to invite the trade union representative to board of director meetings on certain issues impacting employees, and great­ er information and consultation obligations on employers on a range of business issues(Popescu, 2022). In non-unionised workplaces, employers are obliged at the request of union federations to hold information sessions once a year on the individual and collective rights of employees and to invite union representatives(Kinstellar, 2023). 3.4 COMPULSORY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: SWEDEN Sweden along with Finland, Denmark, and Belgium are no­ table because they are a group of countries where there is support for union membership through public policy and law(Harcourt et al., 2019). Their collective bargaining rates are above 80 percent due to the presence of the union union-operated employment insurance scheme, the Ghent system, and in some cases, frequent extension of collective agreements(Müller and Schulten, 2024). In addition, these countries can have legal systems which support unions. In Sweden, a union has the right to negotiate with an employer on any matter relating to their union member while employ­ ers are obliged to initiate negotiations with a union where there are significant changes in its activities or work of a union member. This means employers are less likely to use procedures to delay resolving a dispute(O’Sullivan et al., 2015). While employers are not obliged to sign an agree­ ment, they have a duty to negotiate even if a union has only one member in a workplace(Nyström, 2020). In addi­ tion, there are extensive obligations on employer to share business information with unions; regional union repre­ sentatives are guaranteed access to the workplaces; and trade union representatives in the workplace have rights to facilitates and time off and have extended employment protection(Nyström, 2020). Institutional support for unions extends into dispute resolution processes so that in certain disputes, unions have a ›priority right of interpretation‹ and where there is a collective agreement, a national level union can veto an employer decision in certain instances. Volun­ tarism as it exists in Sweden, »…essentially means encouraging trade unions and employers to settle collective and individual disputes between the parties without resort to state mecha­ nisms and agencies. However, this voluntarism is situated in a regulated statutory framework that provides a relatively even balance of power and obligates employers to engage with unions in the resolution of disputes«(O’Sullivan et al., 2015: 244). 3.5 INDUSTRY-LEVEL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: GERMANY Germany was historically known for relatively high collective bargaining coverage(74 percent in 1998) underpinned by a»dual system of interest representation« where collective agreements were set by unions and employers at the industry level and their implementation was monitored by companybased works councils(Müller and Schulten, 2019). While works councils are non-union bodies, most of their members are unionised. Collective bargaining is supported to some extent by legislation. The Collective Agreements Act provides that collective agreements are legally binding on signatories and can be extended across an industry by the federal or regional Ministries of Labour. Extended collective agreements, however, are not widespread primarily because employer organisations have the power to veto them(Müller and Schulten, 2019). Industry-level bargaining has also been 9

FRIEDRICH-EBERT-STIFTUNG – UNION ACCESS TO WORKERS increasingly undermined by employer organisations favour­ ing company level bargaining, by employers’ withdrawal from employer organisations, and by the increasing use of derogations from industry level agreements(Müller and Schulten, 2019). Unions and employer organisations agreed to wide ranging derogations from industry agree­ ments through ›opening clauses‹ on foot of government pressure in early 2000s(Schulten and Bispinck, 2018). The result of these changes, along with falling union density, is that collective bargaining coverage had declined to 51 percent by 2020 and there have been proposals to increase state support for collective bargaining, such as by strengthening extension mechanisms, using public procurement to advance collective bargaining, and offering tax relief to companies with collective agreements(Müller and Schulten, 2019; Hassel, 2022; Schulten and WSI Collective Agreement Archive, 2022). Nevertheless, collective bargaining coverage is still higher than in Ireland, for example, almost 40 percent of workers in hotels and restaurants are covered by an agree­ ment(Müller and Schulten, 2019). 10

SURVEY DESIGN AND RESULTS 4 SURVEY DESIGN AND RESULTS 4.1 DESCRIPTION OF SURVEY DESIGN AND DISTRIBUTION PROCESS The survey instrument is based on an extended and revised version of one used in 2003 by Turner and D’Art(2005) in their study which captured the experiences of union officials from eight trade unions in union recognition campaigns. The survey instrument for this report took into account more recent scholarly research on union recognition and collective bargaining, as well as decisions and principles of the Free­ dom of Association Committee of the Governing Body of the ILO on the 1948 Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention and the 1949 Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention. The survey instrument was designed with feedback from the ICTU and was piloted. 4.1.1 Survey responses The survey was distributed online to union officials in April 2024 by individual ICTU affiliated unions. Approximately 293 union officials were sent the questionnaire and a total of 179 responses were received, representing a response rate of 61 percent. The majority of respondents(83 percent) worked in roles where they were primarily engaged in collec­ tive bargaining and industrial relations while the remainder were primarily engaged in organising workers(17 percent). Union officials were asked to indicate what broad category of union they worked for(general union, public sector union, craft union and private sector industry union) though some unions have considerable membership across the public and private sectors(Table 2). Table 2 Participant Data Parameter Category Gender Length of employment Category of union Job Role Number of recognition campaigns respondent involved in Type of union recognition campaigns respondent most frequently involved in Prefer not to Under 5 years 6 – 10 11 – 20 Over 20 General Public sector Craft Private sector(industry specific Primarily engaged in collective bar-gaining / industrial Primarily engaged in organising 11 – 20 Campaigns in workplaces or sectors targeted by the union for Campaigns in new workplaces with no recognition Campaigns initiated after a grievance raised by workers in a non-unionised 31 % 62 % 1 % 6 % 27 % 23 % 29 % 21 % 56 % 23 % 7 % 14 % 83 % 17 % 12 % 53 % 18 % 6 % 11 % 47 % 30 % 23 % 11

FRIEDRICH-EBERT-STIFTUNG – UNION ACCESS TO WORKERS 4.2 BARRIERS TO ORGANISING, BARGAINING AND REPRESENTATION In the survey, union officials were asked to indicate what employer actions they had experienced acted as barriers in their organising, bargaining or representing roles. We have classified the barriers according to a schema developed by Roy(1980) and adapted by Gall(2004) who identified catego­ ries of actions by employers who oppose union recognition, and the schema has been used in studies on employer tactics in the USA and UK(Table 3). In addition to graphs below, the Appendix provides a detailed breakdown of responses. Table 3 Schema of Employer Anti-union Tactics Category Form Examples Awkward stuff Sweet stuff Fear stuff Evil stuff Stonewalling Union substitution Union suppression: acts of intimidation and suppression to sabotage attempts at union organisation Ideological opposition to unions Refusing / delaying responding to union meetings& access to workplace Resolving grievances; improvements in pay / conditions; open communications; non-union consultation Targeting shop stewards / activists; use of anti-union consultants; threats of closure; worker surveillance Distribution of literature& presentations denigrating unions Source: Schema from Roy, 1980 and adapted by Gall, 2004. Additional material from Dundon, 2002. AWKWARD STUFF – The most commonly encountered employer tactic in this category was the employer stonewalling union approaches followed by the employer preventing union officials from entering workplaces. – Over two thirds of respondents had experienced employers refusing to facilitate digital access to contact employees while just under two thirds had reported that employers restricted employees’ opportunities to interact with unions in public spaces such as car parks. FEAR STUFF – The most commonly used employer action is this category according to respondents was victimisation of union members / activists(92 percent either occasionally or regularly). – This was followed by employer use of management consultants(82 percent), employer monitoring of employee communications(77 percent) and employers threatening closure or relocation (63 percent). Figure 1 Awkward Stuff Tactics 70 60 50 48 40 33 30 20 19 10 0 Employer prevented physical access 37 33 30 Employer refused digital access 66 44 38 18 29 5 Employer restricted Employer delayed/ stonewalled interactions responding to union Never Occasionally Regularly 12

SURVEY DESIGN AND RESULTS Figure 2 Fear Stuff Tactics 70 60 52 50 40 30 24 25 20 10 0 Employer monitoring of employee communications 62 30 8 53 29 18 47 38 16 Victimisation of union Management consultants used Employer threatened members/ activists for union avoidance purposes closure or relocation Never Occasionally Regularly Figure 3 Sweet Stuff Tactics 70 60 54 50 40 30 23 24 20 10 0 Employer established alternatives to a union e.g. employee representation committee 48 34 18 Employer improved pay& conditions to reduce demand for union 54 28 18 Employer resolved grievances to reduce demand for the union Never Occasionally Regularly Figure 4 Evil Stuff Tactics 70 60 50 50 44 40 30 20 10 6 0 Employer distributed anti-union literature 53 35 12 Line managers briefing workers against the union Never Occasionally Regularly SWEET STUFF TACTICS There were similar levels of sweet stuff tactics reported with 82 percent of employers improving pay and conditions to reduce union demand, 82 percent resolving grievances and 78 percent of employers establishing alternative fo­ rums to unions. EVIL STUFF – 88 percent of respondents reported that line managers briefed workers against the union. – Half of respondents reported employers distributing anti-union literature. 13

FRIEDRICH-EBERT-STIFTUNG – UNION ACCESS TO WORKERS We also invited respondents the option to indicate»other« factors that acted as a barrier to organising, bargaining and representing and over 83 respondents answered this. The most common barrier cited in comments was employee fear of employer reprisals or actual examples of employer reprisals, as shown by the following examples: »targeting of activists, constructive dismissals in the knowledge that they[employer] could lose a case in the WRC but willing to pay the settlement«. »use of non-disclosure agreements to prevent /  scare workers from talking to each other« and the »use of bogus self-employment, abuse of nature of construction industry to let workers go«. The combination of actions referred to in this section, some more widespread than others, indicate the breadth of barriers that exist which undermine union’s ability to organise, bargain and represent workers. Another barrier noted in qualitative comments was worker apathy: »fear of being targeted for being representative / shop steward«. »workers believing they need to take no action and leave all the work up to the organiser«. »worker dismissed, unfair dismissal case settled, but had chilling effect!«. »worker apathy and fear of joining unions is quite usual even in well organised employments«. »actual or perceived fear of reprisals«. Long established fear tactics associated with union busting tactics were referred to which included examples such as a »sham redundancy process initiated«, the»isolation of activists, i. e. moving to areas of workplace with limited opportunity with colleagues«,»worker apathy, fear of standing up to management lest it would reduce promotional prospects, poor performance ratings given to activists«. 4.3 FACILITATORS TO ORGANISING, BARGAINING AND REPRESENTATION Respondents were asked to indicate what actions they had encountered that they believed facilitated organising, bar­ gaining, and representing workers. We divided facilitators into two categories: those that facilitated worker access to unions and those that established a supportive workplace environment for unions. 4.3.1 Worker Access to Unions Migrant workers for whom English is not their first lan­ guage are particularly vulnerable as language was referred to as a barrier to organising and as a source of control by employers: »Language barriers and fear of reprisals« »Language barriers and racism, sponsoring of work visas, provision of company accommodation as leverage«. New forms of power and control also emerged in the tactics used by employers. Control over working hours and arrange­ ments were noted: – The most common facilitator officials experienced in this category was the employer allowing organisers physical access to the workplace. – Three quarters reported they had experience of employers allowing a union presence at induction. – Two thirds of respondents had been given digital access to employees(usually refers to employer providing employee contact details or facilitating union digital communications to workers). – Quite a high percentage of union officials had never experienced employers providing an employee list or contact details(58 percent). This may relate to General Data Protection Regulations, and this was something which officials noted in the barriers to organising workers also. »in non-union workplaces use of power and control (over working hours, access to annual leave etc) used against union reps sends a message and is effectively union busting«. »GDPR is often cited(bogusly) as a way of refusing to share contact details of member and / or potential members« 4.3.2 Supportive environment Of note was that home and remote working was referred to as something which workers feared being withdrawn for their involvement with the union: »home working threatened for following union instruction«,»blended working arrangements threatened, changes implemented with no consultation«. Other control practices referred to were: – In this category, being provided with facilities for union meetings was a commonly encountered facilitator by officials. – Only 10 percent of respondents had regular experience of employers encouraging employees to be join a union, though 53 percent had experienced this as a facilitator at some point. – Almost a third of officials had no experience of a closed shop, but over half had some experience of this acting as a facilitator. 14

SURVEY DESIGN AND RESULTS Figure 5 Facilitating access 70 60 58 50 40 30 27 20 11 10 0 Employer provided union with employee list& contact details 56 54 37 38 29 27 21 22 4 Employer allowed organisers physical access to workplace Employer facilitated digital Employer permitted union access to employees presence at induction Never Occasionally Regularly Note: The percentages above do not add to 100 percent as the‘non-applicable’ responses are not included in the diagram. Figure 6 Facilitating a supportive environment 70 60 54 50 40 40 30 20 10 5 0 Employer offered facilities for union meetings 41 31 14 Closed shop arrangement in place Note: The percentages above do not add to 100 percent as the‘non-applicable’ responses are not included in the diagram. 53 36 10 mployer encouraged employees to join Never Occasionally Regularly 4.4 UNION OFFICIAL PREFERENCES ON MEASURES TO SUPPORT ORGANISING, BARGAINING AND REPRESENTING WORKERS Respondents were presented with a list of measures that could support officials work in organising, bargaining and representing workers and they were asked to identify their top three preferred measures. – Two thirds of respondents felt that strengthening legislative routes such as creating a statutory route to union recognition would be the most effective change that could be introduced. – This was followed by the introduction of penalties for employers who engage in union busting tactics (52 percent). – The next most commonly cited measures among respondents were the introduction of effective penalties for employers who victimise union representatives, and measures to facilitate organising such as ease of access. – A small percentage of respondents indicated that other measures would be most effective. These are discussed in more detail further below. – There were some differences in views on preferred measures between respondents in collective bargaining and industrial relations roles, and those in organising roles.(Table 4). – When we examine union types, strengthening legislative routes was favoured by officials in general unions, public sector unions, and private sector industry unions(along with measures to facilitate organising and mobilisation). There were lower numbers of respondents from craft unions, but they favoured penalties on employers who inhibit union organising and penalties for employers who victimise union representatives. 15

FRIEDRICH-EBERT-STIFTUNG – UNION ACCESS TO WORKERS Figure 7 Effective changes to improve organising, bargaining and representation 80 70 66 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Strengthen legislative routes e.g statutory route to recognition 52 46 45 lntroduce penalties on employers who engage in union busting lntroduce effective penalties on employers who victimise, penalise, and dismiss union reps Measures to facilitate organising and mobilisation 40 27 20 5 Greater sanctions on employers who inhibit union organising Measures to ease workers access to union reps both in the workplace & digitally Measures strengthening ability to proceed to industrial or strike action Other, please state Table 4 Preferences by union official roles Respondents in collective bargaining and industrial relations roles(n=133) 1. Strengthen legislative routes such as a statutory route to union recognition(73 percent) 2. Introduce penalties on employees who engage in union busting (54 percent) 3. Introduce effective penalties on employers who victimise, penalise& dismiss union reps(44 percent) Respondents in organising roles(n=27) 1. Measures facilitating organising& worker mobilisation (56 percent) 2. Introduce effective penalties on employers who victimise, penalise& dismiss union reps(52 percent) 3. Strengthen legislative routes such as a statutory route to union recognition(48 percent) Suggestions mentioned within the ›other‹ category included the introduction of nationally agreed time allocation for union representatives to interact with workers, and national pay agreements to apply exclusively to union members to avoid the free rider effect. Some suggestions also referred to changes within the union movement itself including greater cooperation between unions, for example, through joint initiatives targeting companies or having fewer unions operating in a sector. Other comments were: »A complete overhaul of mindset amongst union officials and senior elected representatives of unions to move away from servicing and towards organising« The creation of»better relationships between different unions«. Reference was also made to the education of young people: »trade unions should be part of education in schools, we need trade unions to be a normal part of starting work«. Such a measure could be viewed as a measure to address the ›never member‹ phenomenon whereby the percentage of people who have never been union members has grown (Bryson, and Gomez, 2005). Two respondents recommend­ ed the introduction of a union default system or compulsory union membership while, relatedly, another referred to the negative impact of free riders. Specifically in relation to measures supporting ease of access, the preferred choices of union officials were: – A right to enter workplace for the purposes of meeting workers(75 percent). – Better facilities for union representatives to carry out their functions(67 percent). – Penalties for employers who curtail or restrict workers’ ease of access to union representatives (54 percent). – There was no difference between the two categories of union official role in their preferences on measures to support ease of access. 16

SURVEY DESIGN AND RESULTS Figure 8 Changes to facilitate ease of access 80 75 70 67 60 54 50 40 30 20 10 0 Union officials should have a right to enter workplaces for the purposes of meeting workers and/ or members Better facilities for union representatives to carry out their functions in the workplace(e.g. meeting new hires at induction) Penalties for employers who curtail or restrict workers ease of access to union representatives 39 Union officials should have the right to enter workplaces to discuss/ ballot on the outcome of collective bargaining 31 Unions should have the right to enter workplaces for the purpose of ensuring observance with workplace rights 21 Employers should be required to facilitate a union's digital access to their workers 16 Employers should be required to circulate union materials to workers – A right to enter workplace for the purposes of meeting workers was favoured by general unions, craft unions, and private sector industry unions. Better facilities was favoured by public sector unions. 4.5 UNION RECOGNITION Respondents were asked to indicate their view on the most important function of union recognition. Three quarters of respondents indicated that engaging in collective bargaining with an employer is the most important function(Fig. 9). However, 23 percent of respondents indicated instead that they believed the most important function was that the union can act a collective representative for members in the workplace or as a representative of individual members in workplace matters such as grievance and discipline. When asked about achieving union recognition, 31 per­ cent of union officials indicated that union recognition has become more difficult to secure during their time working for the union, while 29 percent indicated it is much more difficult to secure(Fig. 10). Only six percent noted a posi­ tive change in this regard. All union types found union rec­ ognition more difficult to secure, but private sector industry unions were more likely to report union recognition was more difficult or much more difficult to secure(89 per­ cent). While respondents in public sector unions were the least likely to indicate that union recognition was more dif­ ficult or much more difficult to secure, only 13 percent said that union recognition was easier or much easier to secure. »A significant number of publicly funded organisations have a non-union position which is totally wrong«. Figure 9 Most important function of Union Recognition 80 74 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 That the union engages in collective bargaining with an employer 23 That the union can act as a collective representative for members in workplace matters e.g. workplace change/ restructuring 2 That the union can act as a representative of individual members in workplace matters e.g. grievance and discipline 17

FRIEDRICH-EBERT-STIFTUNG – UNION ACCESS TO WORKERS Figure 10 Change in ability to secure union recognition 15 29 34 31 Recognition is much easier to secure Recognition is easier to secure No change Recognition is more difficult to secure Recognition is much more difficult to secure The survey asked respondents about the outcomes of union recognition campaign they had experience of. Most re­ spondents had less than five campaigns across all types of outcomes(77 percent – 82 percent). Very few respondents had more than 20 campaigns(two percent – four percent) (Fig. 11). The percentage of respondents with 6 to 10 cam­ paigns is highest for procedural agreements(16 percent) and recognition following legislative / third party interven­ tion(14 percent). The percentage of respondents with 10 to 20 campaigns is relatively low across all types, with a slight increase for union recognition following legislative / third party intervention(five percent). Figure 11 Outcomes of union organising campaigns 90 81 82 80 80 77 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Less than 5 No union recognition 13 16 10 14 6 to 10 62 45 10 to 20 Procedural agreements but not collective bargaining or recognition Union recognition without legislative/ third party involvement Union recognition following legislative/ third party involvement 4 24 2 Greater than 20 In regard to the effectiveness of approaches to achieving union recognition, two thirds of respondents indicated that the most effective approach was through organising activity, with industrial action being the second most ef­ fective approach(Fig. 12). These approaches, while demon­ strating union strength and solidarity, can be labour intensive for unions. The findings revealed that existing legislative approaches were viewed as only somewhat ef­ fective or were ineffective. – Similar levels of officials in collective bargaining and organising roles found organising activity to be effective. – Higher proportions of those in organising roles viewed organising to be ›very effective‹. – Higher proportions of those in organising roles considered legislative routes as ineffective compared to those in collective bargaining roles. 18

SURVEY DESIGN AND RESULTS Figure 12 Effectiveness of approaches in achieving recognition 70 66 60 50 40 31 30 47 39 46 37 20 10 3 6 8 0 Organising Industrial Action(up to Strike Action activity but not including strike) 37 40 14 IR Act 1969 39 38 15 IR Acts 2001-2015 Note: The percentages above do not to 100 percent as the‘non-applicable’ responses have been excluded. Ineffective Somewhat effective Very effective Some qualitative comments provided insight into union of­ ficials’ views on existing legislative provisions: »Industrial Relations(Amendment) Act 2015 did not deliver the desired effect« »Labour Court Section 20(1) recommendations for employers to recognise trade unions not worth the paper that they are written on. 2015 Act a complete failure of legislation«. »The 2015 act in particular has proven to be particularly toothless. It is evident in the lack of cases and successful outcomes. Overall people want to join but in the sector I represent they do not want to ›cause trouble‹. I personally represent a number of sections where I inherited Labour Court recommendations taken under section 20(1) and the members were too reluctant to have a dispute to vindicate the recommendation. It leads to a ridiculous situation where members are in limbo.« One respondent noted their anticipation of the transposition of the AMW Directive as providing an opportunity to address problems with the existing legislative provisions. Figure 13 Cases of De-Recognition 70 63 60 50 40 36 30 20 10 11 0 0 1 to 5 6 to 10 11 and over reaching out to workers or them reaching out to us. After many years working in this job it is apparent that the only way we will build density is with the support of proper legislation which clearly provides workers with the right to collective bargaining and clearly states that the only excepted body is a trade union«. 4.6 EMPLOYER ACTIONS TOWARDS UNION OFFICIALS »In my experience when limited union recognition I rely on the outdated but sometimes effective statutory implements in place but they can only get you so far. So the EU directive when implemented will be a game changer I believe«. There were also officials who commented that positive ex­ pectations of previous legislation had not been met: »We have had many false dawns with the 2001 and 2004 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS(MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT and the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2015 that legislation was going to provide the opportunity for unions to organise. This wasn’t to be and we continued to organise by Respondents were asked to indicate if they had personally experienced hostile employer actions(Fig. 14). – The most commonly experienced action against union officials themselves was having rumours spread about them. There were broadly similar proportions of officials who had experienced employer intimidation, surveillance, and being removed from organisations either sometimes or often. – The majority(58 percent) had never experienced fear as part of their role but the remainder experienced fear at some stage. – There were some differences in experiences between officials in different roles.  higher percentage of those in organising roles 19

FRIEDRICH-EBERT-STIFTUNG – UNION ACCESS TO WORKERS Figure 14 Employer Actions Experienced by Union Officials 70 60 50 40 37 31 30 25 20 10 7 0 Been intimidated by the employer 37 32 24 41 25 26 7 7 Rumours/ untruths spread about you Movements surveilled/ monitored 58 25 11 6 Experienced fear Never Rarely 43 29 25 3 Been removed from organisations Sometimes Often (54 percent) reported having been intimidated by an employer than those in collective bargaining roles(28 percent).  higher percentage of officials in organising roles had experienced fear(21 percent) than those in collective bargaining roles(15 percent).  higher proportion of officials in collective bar­ gaining roles(47 percent) said they had rumours spread about them than those in organising roles (33 percent). – Some differences in experiences were reported by male and female officials.  percentages of female officials reported having their movements monitored(45 percent vs 29 percent of male officials); being intimidated by an employer(41 percent vs 28 percent of male officials) and experiencing fear(24 percent vs 13 percent of male officials). In terms of the impact the above actions had on union offi­ cials, a substantial minority reported the behaviours had curtailed their organising activity and negatively impacted their health and wellbeing(Fig. 15). There was little difference between male and female officials in relation to the impact of employer actions on their organising activity and personal wellbeing. Figure 15 Impact of employer actions on union officials 70 60 50 40 30 21 20 16 10 0 Curtailed my organising activity Negatively impacted my health and wellbeing 4.7 VIEWS ON THE AMW DIRECTIVE – When asked about the impact of the AMW Directive, the highest level of agreement expressed among union officials was that it would facilitate increased access to collective bargaining(78 percent)(Fig. 16). – Similar proportions of respondents indicated that the Directive would facilitate increased membership for unions; would bring about greater access to the workplace for unions; would facilitate increased union recognition and; would positively impact workplace relations. In qualitative comments, respondents noted that the po­ tential of the Directive is dependent on the nature of its transposition: »Access on site in workplaces is essential to organising. Without it the forthcoming directive will only have a limited impact in my view. Union’s should be able to access sites where they have sufficient density regardless of recognition in order to help members«. »As we know from past experiences in particular the 2004 Act, it will depend on the transposition of the directive into National legislation that will have the greatest impact on the successfulness of the right to collective bargain and increased trade union members, having direct access to workers in the workplace will provide better opportunity for density building for example we need to curb the ability of non union workers benefitting from union activity, increases etc«. Several other comments related to the nature of collective bargaining that may occur as a result the Directive, noting that it must be a form that represents the needs of workers rather than a compromised approach compatible with em­ ployers’ expectations: »Unfair practices by Employers need to have punitive consequences with fines and Courts being able to 20

SURVEY DESIGN AND RESULTS Figure 16 Potential Impact of the AMW Directive 70 60 50 42 40 30 27 20 17 10 2 8 4 0 The directive will facilitate increased union membership 59 13 6 1 19 3 The directive will facilitate increased access to collective bargaining 40 22 10 2 19 7 The directive will facilitate greater access to workplaces for unions 41 29 16 34 6 The directive will positively impact workplace relations at workplace level 44 23 7 3 19 4 The directive will facilitate increased union recognition Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree Don't know declare automatic recognition if unfair practices are established. The litmus test should not be is collective bargaining compatible with management but if effective bargaining possible«. The issue of non-union bodies was raised: »The requirement for laws to allow for unrestricted collective bargaining with all enterprises is a necessity. However, I would be wary of any legislation which allowed for employers to circumvent Trade Union collective bargaining by way of ›Accepted Bodies‹ or ›Employee representative committee’s‹ as employers can more easily influence the constituent members and or decision-making process.« Respondents recommended that organisations which access public funds should conform to regulations on collective bargaining: »Making it mandatory that employers who access public money in any format allow collective bargaining and union recognition. Making it mandatory that firms over a certain employee number have to afford workers the right to collectively bargain and be allowed professional advice from unions if they so decide but they cannot be confined to internal councils or committees only.« »A strong transposition of the AMW Directive represents the best opportunity to legislate for the kind of protections and penalties required to support union organising which will grow collective bargaining. Ireland is an outlier in Europe and this is a chance to rectify that. The government has said it supports collective bargaining but needs to put these sentiments into action, for example it could stipulate that all public / state contracts have union recognition and collective bargaining as a condition of the contract. It could also ensure that where staff in collective redundancies want union support that the employer cannot prevent that«. A number of comments also referred to the wider industrial relations context, the role of various industrial relations actors and the power of industrial relations machinery of the state: »More legislative power to the WRC and Labour Court re enforcement«. »Aside from giving the ability of unions to effectively engage with workers through meaningful access, what could be more reasoned than giving workers the ability to sit across from employers and bargain on their collective issues, serious thought needs to be given to the institutional framework in which the Labour Market resides, there should be greater scope for Sectoral Bargaining arrangements and TU’s should be given greater representation& say within / on state institutions / bodies relating to the Labour Market«. Finally, while much of the commentary around actions cen­ tred on legislation, it was noted that legislation should not be viewed as an end in itself but as a conduit towards the achievement of true industrial democracy. »No law can make an employer ›want‹ to recognise the Union. Collective strength can make an employer ›need‹ to recognise a union«. 21

FRIEDRICH-EBERT-STIFTUNG – UNION ACCESS TO WORKERS 5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The findings from the survey can be summarised as follows: – Union recognition has become more difficult to secure for all union types but especially for private sector industry unions. – Organising activity and industrial action were considered by officials as more effective in achieving recognition than using legislative routes. – The three most common anti-union tactics officials encountered(at least occasionally) were the employer stonewalling / delaying responding to the union, victimisation of union members / activists, and line managers briefing employees against unions. Fear and apathy amongst workers featured strongly in qualitative comments as barriers to union officials’ representing roles. – The most common anti-union employer action experi­ enced by officials themselves was spreading rumours /  untruths about them. Of the five hostile employer actions towards officials presented in the survey, female officials encountered three of them to a greater extent than male officials. – A fifth of officials have curtailed their organising activity and almost one in six had been personally negatively impacted by employer behaviours towards them. – The most common employer facilitators for union work were employers allowing unions physical access to workplaces and employers offering facilities for union meetings. Quite a high percentage of union officials had never experienced employers providing an employee list or contact details. – In terms of policy preferences to support officials’ work, there are some differences in views between categories of officials but the two measures which featured in the top three choices of each group were stronger legislative routes such as a statutory route to union recognition and penalties for employers who victimise union representatives. Stronger legislative routes was the top choice of officials in collective bargaining roles while measures to support organising and mobilisation was the top choice of officials in organising roles. – In relation to measures which might support ease of access of workers to unions, the preferred choices of union officials were a right to enter workplaces for the purposes of meeting workers and better facilities for union representatives to carry out their functions. – Officials were positive about the potential role of the AMW Directive in supporting collective bargaining, but they are cognisant that its effectiveness depends on its transposition. 22

RECOMMENDATIONS 6 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the survey findings, the following are recommen­ dations which can be considered by unions. 6.1 POLICY MEASURES Union recognition, collective bargaining and workers’ ease of access to union representation OPTION 1 UNION DEFAULT PILOT Given the challenges identified in this report as regards work­ er access to union representation, unions could advocate for the introduction of union default pilot amid transposition of the AMW Directive on the basis that such an initiative supports the development of processes which facilitate a roadmap to increased bargaining coverage and strength­ ening the role of trade unions. Unions, employers and the state in Ireland have illustrated a capacity to demonstrate progressiveness in piloting innovative workplace and labour market interventions that have received international at­ tention. For example, the four-day week concept and the Basic Income Scheme for artists were successfully tested in Ireland on a pilot basis. In the same vein, a union default could be piloted in a segment of the labour market including in union-friendly workplaces. For example, semi-state bodies which already have a high percentage of unionised workers or an entity which received significant state funding might provide interesting cases in which to pilot a union default. The government could financially support unions in offering free membership for a time(e. g., one year) to determine what effects there might be on membership levels(Har­ court et al., 2024). A union default pilot would support the achievement of Article 9 of the Directive which calls on Member States to consider criteria that guarantee basic trade union rights and compliance with collective bargain­ ing standards when awarding public contracts and conces­ sions; Article 3(3) which explicitly confirms that collective bargaining is the prerogative of trade unions and not of ›workers‹ organisations’ and Article 4(1) which guarantees the right to collective bargaining on wage-setting and pro­ tects workers and their representatives who participate(or wish to participate) in collective bargaining from discrimi­ nation(Mueller et al., 2024). In addition, a union default model would arguably negate the need for most other types of legislative protections for unions and their members. OPTION 2 STATUTORY RIGHTS Unions could advocate for statutory rights to union recogni­ tion, collective bargaining, and ease of access to workplaces akin to those in country examples noted earlier(Romania and Sweden are the strongest of the four countries). For any statutory rights that are introduced, penalties for noncompliance should be substantial. There is no research to our knowledge that has examined and calculated an ap­ propriate level of penalties for violations of union busting rights and protections. Breaches of GDPR regulations are indexed to financial turnover of organisations, such is the importance attached to ensuring penalties act as a deter­ rent to breach of citizens’ rights. Meanwhile, research on breaches of wage laws in the USA concluded that»damag­ es would need to exceed 24 times the unpaid wages owed in order for the cost-benefit analysis come out in favour of compliance«(Hallett, 2018). There are additional policy measures that could be consid­ ered. For example, some have argued in favour of a solidarity fee where non-union members who are covered by a collective agreement pay a fee supporting union incomes(De Spiege­ laere, 2024). While this measure could partly address the problem of free riders, it would not tackle employer hostility to unions. There are also practical considerations, for ex­ ample, the level of the fee charged to non-members may influence their decision to join unions or not(Danişman and Göksel, 2015). Finally, the capacity for unions to exercise secondary action as an instrument of industrial power is an aspect which may also be considered worthy of review in the Irish context. Notably cases in the Scandinavian and Nordic contexts have demonstrated the power of secondary action in moving non-union employers towards the estab­ lishment of collective agreements. Unions could engage with the Data Protection Commission to create guidelines for unions and employers on the ap­ propriate interpretation and application of GDPR in a workplace representation context. GDPR may inhibit efforts for both unions and employers to facilitate access to work­ ers. Unions could consider accompanying guidance on any legislative changes pertaining to the AMW Directive on how to facilitate digital access to workers in such a way as to comply with GDPR. 23

FRIEDRICH-EBERT-STIFTUNG – UNION ACCESS TO WORKERS Victimisation of union representatives and union officials EMPLOYEE VOICE AS A HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUE Unions could consider presenting the denial of union rights not only as a labour law / collective issue but also as a health and safety / individual issue under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005. Furthermore, unions could ad­ vocate that national agencies with responsibility for the implementation of workplace health and safety should include in their records whether breaches of existing work­ place health and safety are from organisations with a union recognition agreement in place. Unions have a significant role to play in addressing psychosocial risks in the work­ place. Indeed, the ETUI(2023) has pointed to the pressing need for a strong EU response to tackle psychosocial risks in the form a new directive. Existing research shows that increased psychosocial risks is more common among three groups of workers: the young, women / feminised work, and the less educated and these groups can also be concen­ trated in sectors with low levels of unionisation. Therefore, restriction of workplace representation and voice can be viewed as predisposing individuals to increased psycho-social risk and indeed may constitute a psychosocial risk in itself or act as a precursor to exposure to risk since capacity for worker voice is limited. STRENGTHENING VICTIMISATION MEASURES According to the ILO’s Committee of Experts on the Appli­ cation of Conventions and Recommendations(CEACR) and Committee on Freedom of Association,»anti-union discrim­ ination is one of the most serious violations of freedom of association, as it may jeopardize the very existence of trade unions«(ILO, 2018: 201) but employee victimisation is only partially considered in existing legislation in Ireland. The Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015 prohibit the dismissal of workers based on their union membership but does not apply to victimisation in other forms. In addition, the Acts do not prevent the dismissal from occurring. The Code of Practice on Victimisation(S.I. No. 463 of 2015) recognises the victimisation of employees while Section 8 of the Indus­ trial Relations(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004 prohibits victimisation of employees on account of their membership and activities of unions / excepted bodies. Complaints under the 2004 IR Act on victimisation are specific to conditions – where it is not the practice of the employer to engage in collective bargaining negotiations and the internal dispute resolution procedures(if any) normally used by the parties concerned have failed to resolve the dispute. In addition, while the Code of Practice deals explicitly with the kind of activities termed evil or fear stuff, it is unclear how it can be applied where organisations engage in a sophisticated suite of tactics including for example the withdrawal of workplace benefits which are not legally protected such as working from home arrangements or flexible working hours. Unions could consider pursuing statutory rights to protect employee representatives from victimisation and to strengthen union access to workers given that the Code of Practice on Duties and Responsibilities of Employee Representatives has not prevented the victimisation of representatives, according to the survey results. In other countries, anti-discrimination protections are codified through employment relations or employment equality legislation and can extend to union membership, non-membership, and union activities(Kilcom­ mins et al., 2004; ILO, 2022). Over 20 years ago, the lack of protection in Ireland for workers against»lesser forms of detriment than dismissal based on trade union member­ ship« was criticised by the European Committee of Social Rights(Kilcommins et al., 2004: xiv). New protections should be expansive enough to encompass the various types of discrimination identified in this report, for example, by incorporating digital communication and ensuring that communications with union officials are secure and not subject to monitoring or surveillance. Statutory protections could also broaden the dismissal protections afforded to worker representatives. For example, in Germany employers are prohibited from dismissing works council members while in Finland, the termination of employment of an employee representative in many instances requires the majority con­ sent of other workers and in the event a dismissal is found to be unlawful, the maximum redress available to represent­ atives is higher than for dismissals of other workers(ILO, 2022; ILO, n.d.; Waas, 2012; Sigeman, 2002). Unions could examine strengthening aspects like the Code of Practice on the Right to Request Flexible and Remote Working such that these arrangements cannot be used co­ ercively. Anti-victimisation measures typically tend to focus on the use of coercion or force. However, there needs to be an understanding of the impact of tactics which commonly fall within the domain of ›sweet tactics‹, and the extent to which these hamper workers’ ability to organise, for example, organisations who make short-term changes or address ›low hanging fruit‹ issues to divert attention from organising in the immediate future. The ways in which workers can be victimised can change. Qualitative data from this survey indicates that the withdrawal of non-contractual arrange­ ments such as remote working or flexible working time ar­ rangements can be victimisation practices. Arguably sweet tactics based on an absence of rights makes such tactics potentially more impactful. Unions could advocate for legislation which recognises and prohibits employer mistreatment towards union officials. To date, codes of practice and legislation recognise the victi­ misation of employees but not hostile employer treatment of union officials who attempt to engage with workers in the course of their work. While many pieces of employment legislation require an employer-employee relationship for individuals to access employment rights, there are examples of laws where employers have responsibilities towards non-employees such as in regard to health and safety. UNION-BUSTING MEASURES Specific anti-union busting policy measures would mean the introduction of sanctions that go beyond those prohib­ iting the use of victimisation measures. Protecting the 24

Right to Organize(PRO) Act in the US contains some of the most significant changes to labour law in decades. Reform is also needed in the Irish context to reflect contemporary changes in ways of working and in digitalisation which impact the capacity for employers to exercise control over work­ ers’ organising abilities. Evidence from other countries indicates how supportive legal and institutional measures can facilitate collective bargaining and employee representation but a cautionary note is that supportive measures can also be diluted or removed by governments. Referring to the Romanian experience during the global financial crisis, Trif and Paolucci(2019) com­ mented that the reliance of the social partners on statutory provisions to support collective bargaining left unions ex­ posed once the support was rescinded so they had to rely on internal power resources. 6.2 INTERNAL UNION PRACTICES UNION SUPPORTS Unions could consider how they currently train and support organisers given our findings that organisers can experience adverse wellbeing due to employer actions. Ensuring that unions’ own structures support positive wellbeing for or­ ganisers is critical, but this does not negate the need to address employer hostility towards union officials and its effects on them. INFORMATION SHARING Information sharing across unions which allows for mapping of employers engaging in anti-union tactics and the nature of union busting tactics in different sectors and workplaces is important. Data could also track if instances of employee victimisation are pursued as complaints under existing leg­ islation. REFERENCES 25

FRIEDRICH-EBERT-STIFTUNG – UNION ACCESS TO WORKERS 7 CONCLUSION While the Directive has the potential to deliver a significant increase in collective bargaining coverage, its benefit to workers is dependent on its transposition, and unions ex­ perience in the past is that EU laws have been introduced in Ireland in a conservative fashion(Reidy, 2023). There has already been concern about the statements of officials from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to the Seanad Select Committee on EU scrutiny that no legislative change is required to transpose the Directive (O’Riordáin, 2024). This is reminiscent of the approach taken to the 2005 EU Directive on Information and Consultation, the transposition of which ensured that its impact on the ground remained extremely limited(Geary and Roche, 2005; Dundon et al., 2006). A stronger approach to the transposition of the AMW Directive, this time aligning with the spirit of the directive, could support more robust voice and employee involvement arrangements, and bring Ireland into line with international guidelines such as the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 26

APPENDIX APPENDIX Table 1 Barriers to organising, bargaining and representation(Percentage and Response Count) Barriers Never Occasionally Regularly Total Employer prevented organisers / officials from entering the workplace Employer refused to facilitate digital access for the union to contact employees Employer restricted opportunities for employees to interact with union representatives in public spaces e.g. car parks, transport Employer distributed anti-union literature Employer monitoring of employee communications Victimisation of union members / activists Line managers briefing workers against the union Management consultants used for union avoidance purposes Employer established alternatives to a union e.g. employee representation committee Employer improved pay& conditions to reduce demand for union Employer resolved grievances to reduce demand for the union Employer threatened closure or relocation Employer delayed / stonewalled responding to union Other, please state(e.g. worker apathy or fear of reprisals etc.) 19 % 32 33 % 51 38 % 60 50 % 81 24 % 36 8 % 14 12 % 20 18 % 28 23 % 37 18 % 28 18 % 29 38 % 58 5 % 8 6 % 5 48 % 80 37 % 57 44 % 70 44 % 72 52 % 79 62 % 104 53 % 88 53 % 83 54 % 88 48 % 74 54 % 86 47 % 72 29 % 47 33 % 27 33 % 56 168 30 % 47 155 18 % 28 158 6 % 10 163 25 % 38 153 30 % 51 169 35 % 58 166 29 % 46 157 24 % 39 164 34 % 52 154 28 % 45 160 16 % 24 154 66 % 109 164 61 % 51 83 Table 2 Facilitators to Organising, bargaining and representation Facilitators Never Occasionally Employer provided union with employee list& contact details Employer allowed organisers physical access to workplace Employer facilitated digital access to employees Employer permitted union presence at induction Employer offered facilities for union meetings Closed shop arrangement in place Employer encouraged employees to join 58 % 100 4 % 6 29 % 50 21 % 36 5 % 9 31 % 53 36 % 61 27 % 47 37 % 64 38 % 64 54 % 92 54 % 92 41 % 69 53 % 89 Regularly 11 % 18 Not applicable 4 % 6 Total 171 56 % 96 3 % 5 171 27 % 22 % 40 % 14 % 10 % 46 6 % 37 4 % 69 1 % 23 15 % 17 1 % 10 170 6 171 1 171 25 170 2 169 27

FRIEDRICH-EBERT-STIFTUNG – UNION ACCESS TO WORKERS Table 3 Level of change in securing union recognition since working for the union Level of change No change Recognition is more difficult to secure Recognition is much more difficult to secure Recognition is easier to secure Recognition is much easier to secure Total Percentage 33 % 31 % 29 % 5 % 1 % 100 % Count 45 42 40 7 2 136 Table 4 Attainment of Union Recognition in campaigns under taken Outcome Less than 5 6 to 10 10 to 20 Greater than 20 Total No union recognition 76.79 % 86 12.50 % 14 6.25 % 7 4.46 % 5 112 Procedural agreements but not 80.53 % collective bargaining or recognition 91 15.93 % 18 1.77 % 2 1.77 % 2 113 Union recognition without 82.30 % legislative / third party involvement 93 9.73 % 11 3.54 % 4 4.42 % 5 113 Union recognition following 80.00 % legislative / third party involvement 88 13.64 % 15 4.55 % 5 1.82 % 2 110 Table 5 Effective ness of different approaches to attaining union recognition Approach Organising activity Industrial Action (up to but not including strike) Strike Action IR Act 1969 Ineffective 3 % 4 6 % 8 8 % 10 37 % 50 Somewhat effective 31 % 41 39 % 53 Very effective 66 % 89 47 % 64 37 % 49 46 % 61 40 % 53 14 % 19 IR Acts 2001-2015 39 % 51 38 % 50 15 % 20 Not applicable 0 % 0 7 % 10 Total 134 135 10 % 9 % 8 % 13 133 12 134 11 132 Table 6 Impact on of employer action on union officials Impact Curtailed my organising activity Negatively impacted my health and wellbeing No impact on my organising activity No impact on my health and wellbeing Total 28 Percentage 21 % 16 % 42 % 21 % 100 % Count 37 28 74 37 176

REFERENCES REFERENCES Baccaro, L.& Howell, C.(2011) A common neoliberal trajectory: The transformation of industrial relations in advanced capitalism. Politics& Society, 39(4), 521-563. Bank for International Settlements(2019) Annual Economic Report 2019. Available at: https://www.bis.org/publ/arpdf/ar2019e.pdf. Berg, J.(ed.)(2015) Labour Markets, Institutions and Inequality. Building Just Societies for the 21 st Century. Geneva: ILO. Budd, J. W.,& Lamare, J. R.(2021) The importance of political Systems for Trade Union Membership, coverage and influence: theory and com­ parative evidence. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 59(3), 757-787. Citizens Assembly(2021) Report of the Citizens’ Assembly on Gender Equality. Available at: https://citizensassembly.ie/wp-content/up­ loads/2023/02/report-of-the-citizens-assembly-on-gender-equality.pdf. Cotton, E., Martinez Lucio, M.(2022) Trade Unions, Work and Resil­ ience. In: Goulart, P., Ramos, R., Ferrittu, G.(eds) Global Labour in Distress, Volume I: Globalization, Technology and Labour Resilience. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 555-561. Danişman, H. Tolga and Göksel, B.(2015) What is a solidarity fee and why do unions not like it? Available at: https://www.lexology.com/ library/detail.aspx?g=13d6cd17-c53d-44c5-b53a-f7e39b4fd322. D’Art, D.(2020) Freedom of association and statutory union recognition: A constitutional impossibility. Irish Jurist, 63, pp. 82-112. D’Art, D.& Turner, T.(2008) Workers and the demand for trade unions in Europe: Still a relevant social force. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 29(2), 165-191. –(2007) Trade unions and political participation in the European Union: Still providing a democratic dividend? British Journal of Industrial Relations, 45(1), 103-126. –(2005) Union recognition and partnership at work: A new legitimacy for Irish trade union. Industrial Relations Journal, 36(2), 121-139. –(2003) Union recognition in Ireland: one step forward or two steps back?. Industrial Relations Journal, 34(3), 226-240. De Spiegelaere, S.(2024a) Time for Action. How Policy can Strengthen (Multi-Employer) Collective Bargaining in Europe. Brussels: UNI Europa. –(2024b) Europe’s citizens want a more Social Europe – sectoral bargaining is key to helping us achieve it. Available at: https://www.equal­ times.org/europe-s-citizens-want-a-more?lang=en. Doellgast, V.& Benassi, C.(2020) Collective bargaining. In Wilkinson, A., Donaghey, J., Dundon, T. and Freeman, R.B.(eds.) Handbook of Research On Employee Voice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 239-258. Dobbins, T.(2010) The case for ›beneficial constraints‹: Why permissive voluntarism impedes workplace cooperation in Ireland. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 31(4), 497-519. Doherty, M.(2013) When You Ain’t Got Nothin’, You Got Nothin’to Lose…. Union Recognition Laws, Voluntarism and the Anglo Model. Industrial Law Journal, 42(4), 369-397. Dorigatti, L.& Pedersini, R.(2021) Industrial relations and inequality: the many conditions of a crucial relationship. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 27(1), 11-27. Duffy, K.(2019) Trade unions and the collective bargaining conun­ drum. Where to next?. Industrial Relations News, 18, 16 th May. Dundon, T.(2002) Employer opposition and union avoidance in the UK. Industrial Relations Journal, 33(3), 234-245. Dundon, T., Curran, D., Ryan, P.,& Maloney, M.(2006) Conceptual­ ising the dynamics of employee information and consultation: evidence from the Republic of Ireland. I ndustrial Relations Journal, 37(5), 492-512. Dundon, T., Dobbins, T., Cullinane, N., Hickland, E.,& Donaghey, J. (2014) Employer occupation of regulatory space of the Employee Infor­ mation and Consultation(I&C) Directive in liberal market economies. Work, Employment and Society, 28(1), 21-39. ETUC(2020) GDPR being misused by employers to hinder trade unions. Available at: https://www.etuc.org/en/pressrelease/gdpr-being-mis­ used-employers-hinder-trade-unions#:~:text=ETUC%20Deputy%20 General%20Secretary%20Esther%20Lynch%20said%3A&tex­ t=%E2%80%9CAccess%20to%20the%20workplace%20is,fair%20 wages%20and%20working%20conditions. ETUI(2016) Inspection and Unions. Available at: https://www.etui. org/topics/health-safety-working-conditions/hesamag/labour-in­ spection-a-public-service-in-crisis/inspection-and-unions-conver­ gence-and-maybe-more. –(2014) Workplace Representation. Available at: https://worker-partici­ pation.eu/ National- Industrial-Relations /Across- Europe/ Workplace-Rep­ resentation2. European Commission(2023) Report Expert Group Transposition of Directive(EU) 2022 / 2041 on adequate minimum wages in the European Union. Brussels: European Commission. –(2020) Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on adequate minimum wages in the European Union. Brussels: European Commission. Eustace, A.(2024) Dancing at the crossroads: Lessons from Ireland on collective labour law reform. Industrial Relations Journal, 1–23. https:// doi.org/10.1111/irj.12430. Eustace, A. and Kenny, D.(2023) Collective Bargaining and The Irish Constitution – Barrier or Facilitator? Research Report for the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission. Dublin: IHREC. Eustace, A.(2021) Collective Benefit: Harnessing the power of representation for economic and social progress, Report for Fórsa. Dublin: Fórsa. Ewing, K. D.(2005) The function of trade unions. Industrial Law Journal, 34(1), 1-22. Fair Work Ombudsman(2024) Right of Entry. Available at: https:// www.fairwork.gov.au/employment-conditions/right-of-entry. Fiorito, J.,& Padavic, I.(2022) What do workers and the public want? Unions’ social value. ILR Review, 75(2), 295-320. Freeman R., Boxall P., Haynes P.(2007) What Workers Say: Employee Voice in the Anglo-American Workplace. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press. Freeman, R. B.,& Medoff, J. L.(1984) What do unions do. Indus.& Lab. Rel. Rev., 38, 244. Gall, G.(2004) British employer resistance to trade union recognition. Human Resource Management Journal, 14(2), 36-53. Gall, G.,& Harcourt, M.(2019) The union default solution to declining union membership. Capital& Class, 43(3), 407-415. García Calavia, M. Á.,& Rigby, M.(2020) The extension of collective agreements in France, Portugal and Spain. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 26(4), 399-414. Geary, J.& Belizon, M.(2022) Union voice in Ireland first findings from the UCD working in Ireland survey 2021. Dublin: University College Dublin. Geary, J. F.(2022) Securing collective representation in non‐union European multinational companies: The case of Ryanair pilots’(partial) success. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 60(3), 635-661. Geary, J. and Gamwell, S.(2019) An American solution to an Irish prob­ lem: a consideration of the material conditions that shape the architecture of union organizing. Work, Employment and Society, 33(2), 191-207. 29

FRIEDRICH-EBERT-STIFTUNG – UNION ACCESS TO WORKERS Geary, J. and Roche, W.K.(2005) The future of employee information and consultation in Ireland. In: J Storey(eds.) Adding Value through Information and Consultation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Harcourt, M., Gall, G., Vimal Kumar, R. and Croucher, R.(2019) A union default: A policy to raise union membership, promote the freedom to associate, protect the freedom not to associate, and progress union representation. Industrial Law Journal, 48(1), 66–97. Harcourt, M., Gall, G., Novell, N.,& Wilson, M.(2021) Boosting un­ ion membership: Reconciling liberal and social democratic conceptions of freedom of association via a union default. Industrial Law Journal, 50(3), 375-404. Harcourt, M., Gall, G.,& Wilson, M.(2023) The union default: Effects and implications of regulated opting‐out. Industrial Relations Journal, 54(2), 132-149. Hassel, A.(2022) Round Table. Mission impossible? How to increase collective bargaining coverage in Germany and the EU. T ransfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 28(4), 491-497. Hayter, S.(2015) Unions and collective bargaining. In Berg, J.(ed.) Labour Markets, Institutions and Inequality. Building Just Societies for the 21 st Century. Geneva: ILO, pp. 95-122. Hird, A.(2023) Why French trade unions wield political clout despite low. Available at: https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20230511-why-frenchtrade-unions-wield-political-clout-despite-low-membership. Houses of the Oireachtas(2024) Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment debate, 24 th January. Available at: https://www. oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/joint_committee_on_enterprise_ trade_and_employment/2024-01-24/2/. ILO(2018) Freedom of Association. Compilation of Decisions of the Committee of Freedom of Association, sixth edition. Geneva: ILO. –(2022) Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination: Evidence from the updated IRLex database. Available at: https://www.ilo.org/ publications/protection-against-acts-anti-union-discrimination-evi­ dence-updated-irlex#:~:text=Factsheet-,Protection%20against%20 acts%20of%20anti%2Dunion%20discrimination%3A%20Evi­ dence%20from%20the,very%20existence%20of%20trade%20unions. –(n.d.) EPLex: Workers enjoying special protection against dismissal. Available at: https://eplex.ilo.org/en/workers-enjoying-special-protec­ tion-against-dismissal. Jaumotte, F.,& Osorio-Buitron, C.(2015) Inequality and labor market institutions. IMF Staff Discussion Note. Washington: IMF. Kilcommins, S., McClean, E., McDonagh, M., Mullally, S.& Whelan, D.(2004) Extending the Scope of Employment Equality Legislation: Comparative Perspectives on the Prohibited grounds of Discrimination. Report commissioned by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Dublin: Stationery Office. Kinstellar(2023) The relaunch of social dialogue in Romania and its impact on employers. Available at: https://www.kinstellar.com/newsand-insights/detail/2068/the-relaunch-of-social-dialogue-in-romaniaand-its-impact-on-employers. LEEF(2022) Final Report of the LEEF High Level Working Group on Collective Bargaining, October 2022. Available at: https://enterprise.gov. ie/en/publications/publication-files/final-report-of-the-leef-high-levelworking-group-on-collective-bargaining.pdf. Maccarrone, V.,& Erne, R.(2023) Ireland: Trade unions recovering after being tipped off balance by the Great Recession? Waddington J., Müller T., Vandaele K.(eds.) Trade Unions in the European Union: Picking up the pieces from the neoliberal challenge. Brussels: Peter Lang, pp. 585-624. MacDermott, T.(1997). Industrial legislation in 1996: The reform agenda. Journal of Industrial Relations, 39(1), 52-76. McDonnell, T.(2024). Economic Security Series. Part 3: Collective Bargaining. Dublin: NERI. McFarlane, K.(2023). Danger, keep out! Trade union rights of entry during the COVID-19 pandemic. Labour and Industry, 33(1), 86-101. Müller T., Vandaele K. and Zwysen W.(2024) Wages and collec­ tive bargaining: the Adequate Minimum Wages Directive as a game changer. In Piasna A. and Theodoropoulou S.(eds.) Benchmarking Working Europe 2024: Brussels: ETUI and ETUC, pp. 89-113. Müller, T. and Schulten, T.(2019) Germany: parallel universes of col­ lective bargaining. In Müller, T., Vandaele, K. and Waddington, J.(eds.). Collective Bargaining in Europe: towards an endgame. Brussels: ETUI, pp. 239-265. Murphy, C.(2016) Fear and leadership in union organizing campaigns: An examination of workplace activist behavior. Journal of Workplace Rights / SAGE Open, 6(1), 1-16. Murphy, C.,& Turner, T.(2020) Tipping the scales for labour in Ireland? Collective bargaining and the industrial relations(Amendment) Act 2015. Industrial Law Journal, 49(1), 113-134. Natili, M.,& Ronchi, S.(2024) The politics of the European minimum wage: Overcoming ideological, territorial and institutional conflicts in the EU multi‐level arena. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 62(3), 725-743. Nyström, B.(2020) Freedom of association and trade union activity at the workplace in Sweden. Italian Labour Law e-Journal, 13(2), 51-66. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)(2018) OECD Employment Outlook 2018. Paris: OECD Publishing. O’Riordáin, A(2024) FF/FG/GP attitude to EU Workers’ Right law is laid bare by»do minimum« attitude Available at: https://labour.ie/ news/2024/05/26/ff-fg-gp-attitude-to-eu-workers-right-law-is-laidbare-by-do-minimum-attitude/. Paolucci, V., Roche, W. K.,& Gormley, T.(2023) Decentralised Collective Bargaining in Ireland-National Report. Available at: https://mural. maynoothuniversity.ie/17119/1/DECENTRALISEDCOLLECTIVEBARGAIN­ INGINIRELAND.pdf. Pasquier, T.(2021) Proposal for a directive on adequate minimum wages in the European Union: a look at French law. Italian Labour Law e-Journal, 14(1), 77-89. Prendergast, A.(2022) Three-quarters of non-union companies do not want to bargain with unions. Industrial Relations News, 36, 6 th October. –(2024) Ibec tackles ›employment paradox‹ at annual law conference. Industrial Relations News, 16, 25 th April. Teague, P.(2009) Path dependency and comparative industrial rela­ tions: the case of conflict resolution systems in Ireland and Sweden. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 47(3), 499-520. Pierson, P.(2004) Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Popescu, A.(2022) Romania: New regulations regarding social di­ alogue. Available at https://www.noerr.com/en/insights/roma­ nia-new-regulations-regarding-social-dialogue. Raftos, J.(2022) Don’t come around here no more: union right of entry under the Fair Work Act 2009(Cth). The first 10 years(Doctoral disser­ tation, Murdoch University). Roy, D.(1980) Fear stuff, sweet stuff and evil stuff: management’s de­ fenses against unionization in the South. In Nicols, T.(ed.) Capital and Labour: Studies in the Capitalist Labour Process. London: Athlone Press. Schulten, T. and WSI Collective Agreement Archive(2022) Collective Bargaining in Germany 2021. Düsseldorf: Institute of Economic and Social Research. Schulten, T. and Muller, T.(2021) A paradigm shift towards Social Europe? The proposed Directive on adequate minimum wages in the European Union. Italian Labour Law e-Journal, 14(1), 1-19. 30

Schulten, T. and Bispinck, R.(2018) Varieties of decentralisation in German collective bargaining. In Leonardi, S. and Perdersini, R.(eds.). Multi-employer bargaining under pressure: decentralisation trends in five European countries. Brussels: ETUI, pp. 105-149. Sigeman, T.(2002) Employment protection in Scandinavian law. Scandinavian Studies in Law, 43, 257-275. Toubøl J. and Jensen C.S.(2014) Why do people join trade unions? The impact of workplace union density on union recruitment. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 20(1), 135– 154. Trif, A.(2013) Romania: collective bargaining institutions under at­ tack. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 19(2), 227-237. Trif, A. and Paolucci, V.(2019) Romania: from legal support to frontal assault. In Müller, T., Vandaele, K., and Waddington, J.(eds). Collective bargaining in Europe: towards an endgame. Brussels: ETUI. Trif, A. and Stochita, R.(2024) Romania. In De Spiegelaere, S.(ed.) Time for Action. How Policy can Strengthen(Multi-Employer) Collective Bargaining in Europe. Brussels: UNI Europa, pp. 73-77. Turner, T., Ryan, L. and O’Sullivan, M.(2020)»Does union member­ ship matter? Political participation, attachment to democracy and genera­ tional change«. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 26(3): 279-295. Wallace, J. and McDonnell, C.(2000) Perception and Reality: The Irish Industrial Relations Act 1990. Croners Employment Relations Review, Iss. 12. Waas, B.(2012) Employee Representation at the Enterprise in Ger­ many. Systems of employee representation at the enterprise: A comparative study. Bulletin of Comparative Labour Relations, 81, 15-31. Wooden, M.(2006) Implications of Work Choices Legislation. Agenda: A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, 99-116. Workplace Law(2023) Court Rules On Union’s Right To Consult With Workers In Private, 18 th September. Available at: https://www.work­ placelaw.com.au/posts/court-rules-on-unions-right-to-consult-withworkers-in-private. REFERENCES 31

FRIEDRICH-EBERT-STIFTUNG – UNION ACCESS TO WORKERS 32

IMPRINT ABOUT THE AUTHORS IMPRINT Dr. Michelle O’Sullivan is Associate Professor of Industrial Relations at the University of Limerick. Her research interests include trade unions, precarious work, employment law, employee voice, migrant workers, and workplace bullying. She is co-author of Industrial Relations in Ireland(2020), and co-editor of Zero Hours and On-call Work in AngloSaxon Countries(2019) and Are Trade Unions Still Relevant? Union Recognition 100 Years On(2013). Michelle is Chair of the Irish Association for Industrial Relations and is a mem­ ber of the Scientific Council of the Foundation for European Progressive Studies. Dr. Caroline Murphy is Associate Professor of Employment Relations at the University of Limerick, and Associate Re­ search Fellow at the Digital Futures at Work Research Centre (DIGIT, UK). Her research interests include precarious employ­ ment, trade union organising / representation, female labour market participation, care work, and employee representation at work. Her work has received funding from the European Commission. She has published in Economic and Industrial Democracy, Industrial Law Journal, Industrial Relations Journal, Journal of Industrial Relations, and Employee Relations. She is a former Irish Research Council and Industrial Relations Research Trust scholar and current secretary of the Irish Association for Industrial Relations. Published by: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Ireland 31 / 32 Parnell Square Dublin D01 X682 Ireland Responsible: Michèle Auga| Director Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Ireland& UK Phone:+44 207 612 1900 To order publications: info.dublin@fes.de Design: Stefanie Brendle The views expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. Commercial use of media published by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung(FES) is not permitted without the written consent of the FES. Publications by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung may not be used for electioneering purposes. ISBN 978-1-7392572-7-9 © 2024 www.fes.de/bibliothek/fes-publikationen 33

UNION ACCESS TO WORKERS Barriers faced by representatives in Ireland within a comparative European context The findings show that union recogni­ tion has become increasingly difficult, especially in the private sector. Current legislative routes are seen by union officials as inferior to organizing activity and industrial action for achieving union recognition. Employer hostility and anti-union sentiment are significant problems. Common anti-union tactics include stonewalling / delaying respons­ es, victimization of union members, and line managers briefing against unions. The most common anti-union action experienced by officials was spreading rumours about them. Female officials faced three out of five hostile employer actions more often than male officials. Stronger legislative routes like a statuto­ ry path to union recognition and penal­ ties for employers who victimize union representatives were the common pref­ erences across union roles for support­ ing their work. These were particularly notable among officials in collective bargaining roles. Conversely, measures to support organizing and mobilization were favoured by officials in organizing roles, highlighting that organizing is seen as an effective route to union recognition. Preferred measures to sup­ port union access included the right to enter workplaces to meet workers and better facilities for union represent­ atives. Recommendations include two key policy measures. First, addressing union recognition and collective bargaining through a union default pilot or statu­ tory rights with significant penalties for non-compliance. Second, tackling victimization of union representatives by presenting denial of union rights not only as a labour law issue but also as a health and safety issue. This includes strengthening the Code of Practice on the Right to Request Flexible and Re­ mote Working to address ›sweet tactics‹ and advocating for stronger legislation on victimization based on union mem­ bership or prohibiting mistreatment of union officials. Internal union practices recommended include information sharing and enhanced training. Further information on the topic can be found here: ireland.fes.de