Mr. John Douglas:

I thank the committee for the opportunity to appear before it to outline our views on this very important issue. I compliment Mr. O'Sullivan on having the tenacity to continue his fight for justice in respect of his award. We have a number of members who were employed by Connolly Shoes in Dún Laoghaire, who had over 100 years' collective service between them and who have been on the streets since 2010 trying to obtain justice against all the odds. We will continue to pursue their case in the strongest possible manner.

As members are aware, Mandate is a union which organises workers in the retail and bar sectors. The type of problem under discussion is not unfamiliar to us, particularly in view of the myriad small businesses and limited companies which operate in both sectors. Members will also be aware that the Unfair Dismissals Acts offer a system of redress for workers against unfair dismissal, that the Employment Appeals Tribunal - on finding a dismissal unfair - may award reinstatement, re-engagement and/or compensation to the employee, group of employees or a combination of both. Hearings are quite formal, with all evidence taken under oath, and parties are permitted to cross-examine each other's witnesses. While the tribunal was originally set up as a quick and informal route for workers to process claims relating to alleged unfair dismissals, it is clear that in recent years it has become increasingly legal in nature, with parties - particularly employers - often represented by senior counsel and solicitors. This makes hearings of the tribunal altogether more daunting for workers, particularly those without union or legal representation. We understand that the relevant Minister is in the process of introducing measures to simplify the process and that these will lead to the Labour Court taking over the function of the tribunal. Nonetheless, serious concerns remain in respect of a number of matters covered by the legislation.

Mr. O'Sullivan referred to delays in the processing of claims. It is not unusual for workers to wait 12 months or more for their claims to be heard. This results in extended economic hardship on workers and their families, particularly at a time when the level of unemployment is high and when there is little alternative employment is available. As Mr. O'Sullivan pointed out, these delays also impact on the employability of the claimants in that many employers will not hire a worker who has a claim in progress or in the system. We hold, therefore, that serious claims such as those relating to unfair dismissals must be heard within a reasonable period in order that claimants will not be penalised twice. The workers at Connolly Shoes to whom I refer were unfairly dismissed in March 2010. They receive a favourable award against their employer in December 2011 and they have still not received one cent of this money. Over €100,000 is due to these four workers who, collectively, gave over 100 years' service to the same employer. They continue to chase said employer, who has established and closed myriad companies in the interim and changed the names and places of business of these on an almost monthly basis. He has done all of this in a effort to avoid his responsibilities. He is protected under the limited liability status relating to directors but our members have been forced onto the dole.

The enforeability of awards is a serious issue. On the making of an award by the tribunal, parties have six weeks to decide whether to appeal the decision to the Circuit Court. Should either party exercise their right of appeal, the matter will then be referred to the Circuit Court. Again, this will involve further delays and costs. In the case of Connolly Shoes, the matter was not appealed and we were obliged, on behalf of our members, to seek an enforcement order in the Circuit Court. If an employer refuses to pay or ignores an award of the tribunal, the claimant or claimants must go to the Circuit Court to seek such an order and bear the resultant costs that arise. The order is then given to the sheriff to enforce, either by securing the award or by ceasing goods to the value of the award. If an award is reinstatement, it is extremely difficult to cease goods to the value thereof. However, this is what the law dictates at present. The real problem arises in cases where the employer is a limited company, either in dormant status - that is, it is not filing returns to the Companies Registration Office - or has no assets. Named directors are protected by limited status and this allows them to place their assets beyond the reach of workers. This means that the rights of workers whose claims have been adjudicated upon by a tribunal of this State cannot be vindicated.

In such cases the sheriff acting on behalf of the worker will have nothing to cease and no recourse against the directors.

The case of Connolly Shoes in Dún Laoghaire is a typical example of such a case, where four workers with more than 100 years' service who were unfairly dismissed were awarded over €100,000 in compensation against their employer - MACOW Limited, which later changed to MACOW & Associates Limited, neither of which companies have any assets whatsoever, but the company still continues to file returns to the Companies Registration Office. The sheriff attended at the trading address of Connolly Shoes in Dún Laoghaire, only to be informed that MACOW Limited does not own the stock on the shelves nor the premises, which is held by a separate company.

The situation becomes even more stark in cases of dormant limited companies which are abandoned by their directors and it is not possible to enforce orders against them. In many cases these companies are struck off by the Companies Registration Office for failing to make returns. It is impossible to enforce an Employment Appeals Tribunal, EAT, award against a company that is struck off as it no longer legally exists. That means workers who have been adjudged as having their rights infringed by a tribunal of the State are tunnelled down a cul-de-sac with no prospect of achieving the redress awarded.

The final option left to such workers is to petition the High Court to have the said company wound up. Those costs, on top of the costs of the tribunal and the Circuit Court are in the vast majority of cases prohibitive, as by definition the works are now unemployed and in many cases unemployable. In the unlikely event of the workers having the means to seek a High Court petition and eventually succeed in winding up the limited company, the awards of the original tribunal can be met by the insolvency fund. The time and the expense of this process are prohibitive in the vast majority of cases. Therefore, it would appear from the current enforcement regime that workers who have been either unfairly dismissed or had other labour rights abused have no recourse to enforcement. Delinquent employers who have infringed the most basic rights of a workers, namely, to earn a living, can hide behind the veil of limited company status. In the hierarchy of things, a director's rights to the protection of his or her personal assets are put ahead of the worker's rights against unfair and unjust treatment. The State has clearly taken the side of business over workers.

The situation is most serious and it has become a growing problem across the service sector with which we deal. Currently, a total of 2,521 companies are tagged for strike-off. Behind each of those tags lie thousands of workers who will not be able to process their rights and the awards that have been made by a State tribunal. The matter requires immediate attention.