May Day Reflections, the 1990 Act Deflection and ICTU

Introduction

As May Day passes on by, we reflect on what was said by a variety of people who spoke and were interviewed. Some speakers called for co-ordinated days of action and strikes, while others continued to repeat the old line that the 1990 industrial relations act is the primary barrier to trade union radicalism in the 26 counties.This piece will countenance that with and provide a concrete and workable framework for that can be acted upon now and does not require the repealing of any legislation. The Independent Workers’ Union is nearing 10 separate strike actions (with the next one taking place on May the 6th) and at no stage was the 1990 industrial relations act a barrier to our members taking strike action.  The people on the left who continue to use the 1990 act lack the depth of knowledge regarding industrial relations and strike action ( many who lecture on the intricacies of the 1990 act have never organised a dispute or had any involvement from an organisational level in one ) while others are simply lazy and use the “lets abolish the 1990 act” line as a means of avoiding any attempt to organise in incredibly difficult conditions.

The 1990 Act

The legislation is a consolidation of previous loose strands that were covered only via case law developed by the judiciary. It standardised different processes, gave general definition to why workers can take action and where and also formalised the immunities workers enjoyed from being sued for conspiracy/tort and breach of contract if they followed the steps presented in the act ( secret ballot, NEC approval, service of notice, peaceful picketing, etc ). The act also specifically made provisions for things like sympathy strikes e.g. a group of workers can’t strike in solidarity with another group of workers and political strikes e.g. a group of workers must have a valid trade dispute to go on strike - a political cause unrelated to the trade dispute would not suffice.

These were and remain obstacles, but that does not mean they cannot be worked around. For example trade disputes about changes to your contract and looking for provisions of non-handling Israeli goods allows for workers to have a dispute about non-handling of Israeli goods. Sympathy strikes can be organised if notices are served for the same day by workplaces in dispute and a general strike can be organised by an even larger co-ordination of notices being served for the same day (let’s hypothetically say 1st May 2027) thereby bringing multiple workplaces out at the same time on strike.

Since the implementation of the 1990 Industrial Relations Act, here is a non-exhaustive list of strikes that have taken place:

●     1992 RTE strike that shut down production on all television for 4 weeks

●     1994 Dublin pub strikes (RTE Archives)

●     1995 saw 130,000 days lost to industrial action (Irish Times) primarily from a 3 week Dunnes Stores strike

●     1995 saw a one day national teachers strike

●     1999 national nurses strike of almost 30,000 nurses (RTE Archives) 

●     2005 - Irish Ferries Dispute

●     2005 - Gama Construction Strike

●     2005 - Quarry and Construction Strike

●     2006 - Dublin bus went on a 48 hour strike

●     2006 - Tesco on strike

●     2007 - Musgrave strike led by Polish workers

●     2015 Dunnes workers go on strike

●     2018 Llyods Pharmacy workers go on strike for union recognition

●     2018 Tesco Workers strike in Carrick on Shannon

The 1990 Act therefore can safely be said to not be the primary barrier to going on strike because there have been hundreds of thousands of days lost to strike action and many strikes have taken place and continue to take place. The collapse in density is a by-product in the loss of member ownership of several trade unions. The over-professionalisation of trade unionism, the usage of consultants and the emphasis of a “officials know best” approach to resolving disputes has fundamentally changed the culture within trade unions.  Criticism is often portrayed as bullying and hurty feelings politics prevails to avoid dealing with the substantive and elaborate problems of the specific union workers.

Bad deals are stopping strikes

Fórsa and SIPTU the primary drivers of negotiations for a public pay agreement, have had officials selling public pay agreements with no strike clauses for over a decade, see here from the ‘Building Momentum: A New Public Sector Agreement FAQ’

Perhaps the gravity of this is often lost on members and they do not really realise what they are being balloted on - or perhaps it is often presented as a fait accompli e.g. “This is the best deal we can get, so let’s take it and fight for more later”.  The net result of this is ‘industrial peace’ for the biggest employer, the state and below inflation wage increases.

In private companies, SIPTU sign up to elaborate dispute resolution mechanisms that require referral to conciliation, the labour court and have cooling off periods. None of this is demanded by the 1990 industrial relations act but for some reason SIPTU advanced dispute resolution mechanisms that can drag out for 2 years and bind their own members to them. Instead of being able to go on dispute and serve 7 days notice for strike action, SIPTU gives its members the run around for years on end. This exact process is currently happening among Section 39 Healthcare Assistants in Dublin who were excluded from a pay deal in 2025 and have now been stuck in the balloting/negotiating process for over 6 months.  Yet again - this is not demanded for by the 1990 industrial relations act.

Social partnership predates the 1990 Act

Social partnership is the term used to describe the tripartite approach between trade unions, employers and governments in negotiating consensus on pay, terms of employment, social policy and other issues. In the industrial sphere it has translated into the above mentioned no strike agreements.  The first ‘modern’ inroad into social partnership and the dilution of workers power and trade unions was the 1970 National Wage Agreement which had a stated aim of containing wage demands by workers after a turbulent previous decade of consistent and repetitive industrial disputes. Taoiseach Jack Lynch laid this strategy out at the 1969 Fianna Fail Ard Fheis by stating that the parties primary strategy was “attainment and maintenance of industrial harmony”. 

This also reflects the commitment to free market capitalism and neoliberalism of the two main parties (FF-FG) who through their attack on trade unionism framed economic problems as products of wage growth rather than capital regulation and state led development in the public interest.

For the ruling class, for foreign direct investment, for employers and for the state, industrial peace meant no strikes and no strikes for workers meant declining density, declining class unity on bread and butter issues and of course continued co-option into the machinery of the state. Industrial unrest is like a muscle, if workers exercise it less and less, the culture around it changes and its strength deteriorates and degrades. This is precisely what industrial peace has brought upon the trade union movement and as outlined above, has been the ruling class strategy since 1970, long predating the 1990 act.

Fast forward to 1987 when the concept of national wage agreements is reframed as ‘social partnership’ and consultant speak portrays trade union participation in this process as the responsible approach to managing relations. Only in 1990 does the industrial relations act come into play and it consolidates decades of existing and drive to harmony.

Yellow trade unionism, the labour aristocracy and bad analysis

There is no doubt that there is a layer of workers themselves on superior terms and conditions and trade union officials who have materially benefited from buying into industrial peace and industrial peace. They have used their role to ensure that their co-workers and new workers are unable to fight for the same terms and conditions. The culture associated with ‘industrial peace’ and ‘industrial harmony’ has also generated and created a lot of lazy, dispassionate and unmotivated officials and members who were not forged in industrial militancy, representation and strike but instead have relied on and benefited from this period. I do not believe they represent a majority of trade unionists in Ireland but I do believe these people disproportionately dominate different levers of the trade union movement and actively obstruct other members from exercising their rights and pursuing legitimate disputes with employers in the public and private sector.  Trade union officials are there to serve the needs of their members, give their advice but ultimately follow what their members guide them to do. They are not there to undermine their members and try to steer trade unionism into a cul de sac. Unfortunately appointments to government board positions and the Workplace Relations Commission for former officials has all but guaranteed that there’s a ratline for class collaboration among officials and the state. Silence and maintenance of industrial peace has a reward and many who have no spine seek to claim it.

Two side effects of the focus on appointments and internal management of trade unions has been the personalisation of disputes and personality clashes. No longer are elections, motions or conferences determined by substantive elements but by the personalities behind them. People's priorities are skewered to care about who delivers a motion rather than on how we can enact (or in some unions cases bury) a substantively good motion.  Depoliticisation or at least a covering of political differences has created an ultra emphasis on personality clashes.

Another side effect is that union officials are influencing appointment panels or even sitting on them and thus a cycle of grooming politically loyal appointees is beginning to take place. If you say the right things, be silent on the issues and don’t criticize too much you can obtain a job. Loyalty is rewarded and this has been seen from Mandate to SIPTU where a slew of appointments to the biggest losers and undeserving individuals has gone unchallenged.

Inversely, political parties, but particularly the Connolly Books Party of Ireland has spent over a decade claiming that the primary struggle should be for the abolition of the 1990 Industrial Relations Act. Some of the primary proponents of this campaign have no experience in trade unionism, some do - while others who had more experience than them weren’t even consulted or considered in this grandiose dead end campaign. Unfortunately many other parties and well intentioned activists who’ve got a limited understanding of trade unionism have fallen foul of this aimless lobbying campaign. 

Conclusion

I hope that in writing this article you will be persuaded by the folliness of this objective and instead conclude like many of us have that the struggle in the trade union movement and in workplaces is not about replacing one set of legislation with another - but in organising workers and rebuilding industrial muscle and trade union culture. That can only be done one way and one way only. There are no shortcuts ( to paraphrase the late and great Jane McAleavey’s book) there is only one road: organising, organising and more organising.

No amount of podcasts, blog posts, meetings about Lenin or any other shite can substitute that. The organising model coupled with member led trade unionism and an orientation around class is the only saving grace for the trade union movement and that has to be done despite all of the obstruction and sabotage that will be thrown at it. The above model will also run into conflict with the desire to reinstate social partnership because it’ll force lazy people to do work but also jeopardize potential future jobs and appointments they may obtain for maintenance of the current order.

The Independent Workers’ Union will play its role in helping rebuild the pride and militancy of the trade union movement, but we cannot and will not achieve this on our own. There are hundreds if not thousands of activists in republican, center-left and socialist organisations who can as members of existing unions or workers in non union jobs make a much more significant contribution towards rebuilding the trade union movement but as far as I can see there is little to no joined up thinking governing formulations of strategy.  If thinking became joined up, then the obstructive nature of anti-democratic trade union members and officials could be overcome.

In concluding this article I would like to present some general over-all points that are agreeable political principles that could govern a turn in the trade union movement. They are as follows:

1. Joined up opposition and canvassing against any no strike clauses and below inflation public sector deals and continuation of social partnership.
2. A general strike is needed and can happen by co-ordinating disputes and serving notice on the same day. Lots of workplaces in Ireland are already in dispute.
3. Education on union rules is needed for union members who do not understand the mechanics of their trade unions;
4. Education on workplace rights is needed across the board but specifically targeted at the private sector
5. Education on grievances, investigations and strikes is needed for trade union and non trade union members with special emphasis on the private sector
6. The idea that officials must serve their members must be re-enforced as both members and officials have forgotten it.
7. Trade unions and worker organisation are cornerstone and essential components of changing Ireland, there is no workaround this objective fact - there will be no 32 county socialist workers republic, there will be no successful overthrow of capitalism, there will be no removal of the British occupation of Ireland, there will be no changing of power and a demonstrable and fundamental improvement in a new Ireland without a powerful and active trade union movement.