"If I had put my mind to it I could have earned up to £1,000 a week from the CIMA (Construction Industry Monitoring Agency)," Mr Paul Hansard says. "In fact, on one occasion an official handed me a cheque for £233 and told me it was my payment for two cases I had reported. The possibility was there to earn a lot of money if I wished."
The temptation must have been strong because, at the time, Mr Hansard was unemployed and spending most of his time trying to recruit building workers into SIPTU. Huge amounts of commission are received by building unions on a regular basis for identifying firms whose employees are not in the Construction Federation Operatives Pension Scheme. Each "capture", as it is known in the trade, nets £350.
This is paid by the CIMA to the construction group within the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. This, in turn, passes the amount back to the union whose nominated CIMA officers made the "capture", to be shared out as the union sees fit.
In a period from July 1998 to April 1999 £235,100 was paid out to building trade unions, and only £85,188.43p was received back in income generated by the newly recruited firms and their employees, according to figures seen by The Irish Times. CIMA has refused to disclose its records but accepts there has been no fundamental change in the loss-making trend. Its chairman, Mr Aidan Bunyan, accepts that, as presently constituted, it is providing poor value for money.
Mr Hansard says it is the Dublin Alliance of General Construction Operatives (DAGCO), a rank-and-file building workers' movement of which he is a member which set the campaign for reform in motion. When he was elected chairman of the Dublin construction branch of SIPTU, he says, the motion was a natural extension of that campaign. "The CIMA board itself was saying it was not giving value for money.
"We are not against the principle of the scheme, but we feel that over the years bad practices have developed. It needs to be investigated and cleaned up to the satisfaction of members.
"At the moment union officers are carrying out CIMA activities on site and when they go on site they can't carry out any investigation into how the site is run, health and safety issues, welfare, working conditions or pay of our members. We have officers being paid by the union to represent our members and they have been taken away from this activity and redirected to basically working for the CIMA.
"Some people say they are bringing in revenue to the union, but we wonder if the revenue is covering all the expenses. Does it cover their pay and expenses when they are down the country for three or four days while they carry out the CIMA?
"Is this how we want CIMA to operate? Is this how we want to represent our people in a very dangerous industry where, since the Celtic Tiger has taken off, 100 have died? Who is going to police those conditions if people are going out doing CIMA activity?
"While officers are doing the CIMA in the biggest building boom ever there are thousands of agency workers and subcontractor workers wondering if they will get a shift next week."
Mr Hansard says there are about 10,000 SIPTU members paying 25p a week into the CIMA, or £130,000 a year. Yet the union receives only £80,000 a year in revenue from CIMA bounties. He believes the money would be better spent employing union activists as full-time organisers, recruiting new members and campaigning against the black economy.
Asked how the "bounty" system operates, Mr Hansard says: "I do have some knowledge of that end of it. Basically I was involved with the union as a lay officer for a number of years. As part of my remit I would go out on site and check people's conditions of employment.
"Without even having to try I would come across cases of non-compliance with the CIMA. I would routinely pass details of people to the branch. I reported dozens of cases. It was quite possible to come across 10 cases a week.
"On numerous occasions I was told there was a living for me in the CIMA. My name came up in conversation between officials as being put on the CIMA, but one official objected on the basis that I would earn more than he did."
Despite this, Mr Hansard says, he continued to receive offers. One trade union official (not a member of Mr Hansard's own union branch) "said he would bring me round the sites in his car and show me what to do. He said cheques could be sent to my home and the branch need never know."
Mr Hansard admits accepting one payment of £233 in 1996, when times were hard, but says he has never accepted a "bounty" payment since. He currently works as a general operative on a Dublin site.