Mr. John O'Sullivan:

I thank the committee for giving me this opportunity to address it. I have been there, done that. I was so disappointed in the whole process that it took me four years to get a resolution. Some people say that I have been lucky it only took that long. I have seven headings in my submission. I am nervous because this is my first opportunity to address such a gathering.

My first point is about the length of time it takes for a hearing to be heard. It took 16 months to get to an appointment with the Employment Appeals Tribunal. As a result, I was under severe stress. It was nearly impossible to apply for a job or to get a job during that period because if I was asked at an interview to talk about my situation I would have to say I was waiting for a hearing with the Employment Appeals Tribunal. I know how people react when they hear this and that was the reaction I got. This created further stress. All efforts should be made to reduce the waiting time for a hearing.

My second point is about costs. The system says that it is an informal, efficient and inexpensive means of getting a resolution to one's situation. The people I had to fight against were in a position to employ HR people and big legal advisers. I felt that if I was to go into the ring with these people with my hands hanging I would not have a hope of making my case. The system says that every effort and assistance will be given by the Employment Appeals Tribunal people to assist a person but, unfortunately, it is very difficult for an ordinary layperson to understand legal jargon and rules and regulations. As a result, I had to employ legal people to defend me. The cost in my situation was just short of €2,000, which was just slightly less than half the award I received. So far as I am concerned, winners in particular are usually awarded costs in all court and tribunal cases. I think that reasonable costs should be allocated to the claimant in cases before the Employment Appeals Tribunal and in particular to the winner of the claim.

My next heading is costs to the State. If a person loses his or her job, their first action is to go the social welfare office. If one makes a claim while waiting for an appointment for an Employment Appeals Tribunal - which could be 12 months or 16 months - this will cost the State approximately €18,000 for a married man. In my view if the claimant wins the case the employer should be responsible for that loss to the State and it should be included in the award against the employer.

My next heading is the standard formula for awards. It appears there is no set standard formula for making an award as it is at the discretion of the panel to decide the amount of the award. I suggest that a standard set of calculations for awards should be implemented. For example, if a claimant is out of work for 12 months and his previous earnings were €650 per week, the calculation should be 48 weeks at €650, which is just short of €32,000. Less the social welfare payment of €18,000, the award would be €14,000 or €13,500 to the claimant, plus, at the discretion of the panel, a payment for stress, hardship or other expenses.

If a person is unfairly dismissed - as happened in my case - the employer should be held responsible for the payments the State was obliged to make in the interim. That is my opinion and I believe consideration should be given to it.

The next issue is power of enforcement. I have studied this matter and I am aware that when the award was made, the employer was given six weeks to appeal. When those six weeks had elapsed, we spent a further two trying to track him down. When we located him, he stated that he would be appealing the case. We were then obliged to return to the Department to discover if an appeal had been lodged. It emerged that one had not been lodged. When I eventually tracked down the employer again, he had closed up shop, started up business in a different shed and walked away from his responsibilities. The tribunal has no powers of enforcement and neither it nor anyone else is in a position to obtain payment from the employer in question. I am of the view that the legislation should make provision for some power of enforcement which will allow for people to be held responsible if awards are made against them and which will ensure that they will be obliged to pay up within a short period.

In order that problems such as that to which I refer might be overcome, I suggest that employers who wish to contest claims relating to unfair dismissal, redundancy or whatever should be obliged to lodge bonds. The use of bonds would mean that if an employer acts the cowboy and runs away, there will be something in place against which claims could be made. These bonds would not require the lodgement of thousands of euro, rather they would take the same form as bail or court bonds. Essentially, one or two people could guarantee that in the event of a claim being made against a particular employer the bond could be brought into force. Another option would be for companies to put in place insurance policies to protect themselves and employees against claims of this nature. It is possible for insurance companies to offer such policies in order that employees and the companies for which they work can be protected. Again, I believe some form of provision should be made in this regard.

The final matter to which I wish to refer is the appointment of liquidators. During the course of my pursuit of my claim, I discovered that when the company was liquidated the person appointed as liquidator possessed no qualifications or affiliations. That person was extremely difficult to contact but I eventually tracked him down by picketing his premises and making life awkward for him by making telephone calls to him and some of his associates. I obtained the information I required from the Office of Corporate Enforcement and discovered what was happening as a result. Ultimately, I obtained by reward through the insolvency fund. However, I felt that this was wrong because the director of the company involved was more or less going around and giving people the fingers. He walked away from his responsibilities and there was no one there to force him to face up to them. He continues to be a director of companies and to operate the same type of business in a different building. What he has basically done is to give the fingers to the Employment Appeals Tribunal. He went through the entire process and he messed me, my family and everyone else involved around. I spent four years trying to have my claim honoured.

In the end, I was not concerned with obtaining money but rather with getting justice. That is why I wanted to express my opinions to the committee. I have been there and done that and I hate to see what I endured happening to other people. I know that some individuals would not have perseverance and tenacity to track down and persecute someone such as the employer for whom I worked. Again, I felt it was wrong that the State was obliged to pay my claim from the insolvency fund, that the directors in question walked away scot free and continue to serve as the directors of big companies and that they have not been held responsible. If a situation such as mine arose in the future, these people would do the same thing again. For that reason, I am of the view that the Employment Appeals Tribunal should be given powers of enforcement.