Report compliled by an unnamed Department of Enterprise Trade and Employment official for the Tánaiste Mary Harney in relation to complaints made about Gama construction in 2003.
Gama Construction
I understand from ::::: that you have been approached in relation to the activities of Gama, the Turkish construction company engaged in building houses at Balgaddy. We originally facilitated this company to bring in labour by using the intra-company transfer facility but, since its suspension, we have facilitated requests by way of work permits. While the company is required to seek to fill positions through FÁS, we operate on the basis that important NDP [National Develelopment Plan] infrastructure projects should not be delayed due to lack of suitable labour and we have been granting permits liberally and quickly to ensure that contracts for these projects are delivered on time.
To date the company has met our requirements and we have had no problems with compliance.
Gama is at present establishing its European headquarters in north County Dublin.
Basis on which work permits are granted: Where overseas contractors have been successful in winning significant infrastructure contracts such as those at the power station in Lanesboro, Shannonbridge, the Ballincollig bypass and social housing in Dublin (all Gama), the department has been, and still is, prepared to issue work permits to allow in a specified number of foreign employees to deliver on foot of such contracts, on the following basis:
The number of permits issued is limited in respect of each contract;
Employees are tied to the contractor while in Ireland;
Permits are of specified duration;
Permits allow the employment of employee only on a specified contract site;
Irish employment law applied in each case e.g. the relevant Registered Employment Agreement (REA) must be observed in each case.
The contractors in question, to date mainly Gama (a Turkish company) and a number of Polish companies, are in effect, Contract Service Suppliers. This refers to a situation where a company based outside the State wins a contract with a client company based in Ireland and wishes to bring in non-EEA personnel to work here on the client site as part of the contract. It is normal international practice to provide for the limited entry of employees in such circumstances. This also features in Mode 4 of the emerging WTO/GATS framework. Indeed, the department would be happy to see further interest from overseas contractors in the area of infrastructure.
Labour market considerations
The number of employees allowed into the State, even for Contract Service Suppliers, will continue to depend on conditions in the labour market here. I met the relevant labour unions as far back as in 2001, at the invitation of Ictu, and explained the policy approach to them. All agreed that early delivery of the NDP infrastructure programme was the best guarantee for future full employment for their members.
I made it quite clear that, for so long as the construction sector remained operating at or close to full capacity, we would be very flexible in meeting the labour needs of infrastructure contracts.
To this end, I keep in contact with the relevant unions as I need information as to what is happening on the ground and I do not think that the department should be dependent on views from one, central union source. It should be said that the unions have proved very accommodating and have not sought to place obstacles in the way of policy, nor have they ever sought any form of veto. Their members are still doing very well in a very buoyant construction sector.
Recent allegations
The department is aware that recent queries and allegation in relation to Gama all emanate from one source, Batu, the bricklayers union, and are related to an inter-union dispute, where that union proposed to recruit and represent carpenters now organised and represented by another union (Ucatt) on a site where the Turkish firm has a contract. The Gama workforce is fully unionised, but the firm does not wish to have crafts-persons represented by rival unions, for obvious reason. There are, of course, procedures in place for resolving such disputes. I have in recent days confirmed that neither the plasterers' union, the carpenters' union nor the painters' union have any significant problems with the company in question.
Until the latest correspondence, the department had never received complaints from trade unions about Gama. It may be that Batu have succeeded in pricing themselves out of the market, as anecdotal evidence and some industry sources suggest that brick is being replaced by concrete; aluminium and glass in many new buildings. Furthermore, a feature of the latest letter-writing campaign is a complaint to the effect that local authorities are changing the design specification of the projects to reduce or eliminate the brick content.
When it commenced work on its first contract in Ireland some years ago, at the Huntstown Power Station, this company was the subject of complaints regarding pay levels, from a disappointed Irish rival contractor.
This, too, led to a concerted letter-writing campaign to public representatives and, on investigation by this department the allegations were found to be without substance.
If evidence of breaches of the law or of the relevant REA is provided, the department is certainly prepared to investigate.
However, sweeping allegations from one source, unsupported by evidence, and which were not made until the outbreak of the intra-union dispute, do not, I suggest, provide a sufficient basis for any such investigation.
This has been our approach to handling correspondence in this matter. In answer to a PQ on 9th October and in draft replies to representations from deputies Tommy Broughan, Arthur Morgan and Conor Lenihan we have invited interested parties to provide evidence in support of allegations, if such evidence exists.
I have been informed today that Gama and Batu have now agreed to go to the Labour Relations Commission for a hearing, to be held as soon as possible.
20th October 2003