Mr. John Douglas:

On vexatious cases, it has been my experience that the vast majority of no-shows are on the employers side. Any workers who have ever attended the Employment Appeals Tribunal will be aware that it is a very daunting experience. People do not submit claims lightly. Rather they do so out of pure desperation in order to try to vindicate their rights, which have been abused. There are huge human and social costs for people who lose their jobs as a result of unfair dismissal. In the context of cases brought before the Employment Appeals Tribunal under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, there are very few no-shows from the point of view of employees and, for all sorts of reasons, quite a number on the employers side.

Deputy Boyd Barrett referred to the moral hazard of opening the gates to the insolvency fund. There may very well be a moral hazard in that regard in that bad behaviour on the part of bad employers would be rewarded. Ultimately, however, both employers and employees contribute to the fund. If an employer or an employee fails to appeal an award within six weeks - or whatever period is specified - and it the employer fails to honour the award, we are of the view that the employee should not be disadvantaged or penalised any further and that he or she should have direct access to the social fund. The State should prosecute employers who fail to honour awards. Limited companies give rise to particular problems. I refer not only to companies which are dormant and still on the books but also to those which are not dormant but which just refuse to pay. The State should seek attachment orders in respect of these companies or perhaps it should even consider lifting the veil of limited liability away from their directors and making them personally liable for the payment of awards. The latter might force directors to wind up their affairs in an orderly way. In the case of companies which are insolvent, a carrot-and-stick approach must be used to encourage directors to wind them up in this way.

The books kept by the Companies Registration Office are littered with companies that are dormant. When these companies do not make returns, they are eventually struck off. Essentially, this involves directors failing to wind up their business affairs in an orderly fashion and it can cause ongoing problems for employees in the context of vindicating their rights and obtaining awards. I suggest that when the six-week appeal period has ended and an appeal has not been lodged by an employer and in the event of the employer or the limited company involved not paying the award which has been adjudicated on by the tribunal, the worker should have access to the insolvency fund. The State should then step in on behalf of the worker and the taxpayer and pursue the directors personally in respect of the matter. Such directors should have the veil of limited liability lifted away from them. In such circumstances, directors would think twice about not paying awards or not winding up their business affairs - in the context of liquidations or receiverships - in an orderly manner. I am of the view that what I have outlined would lead to a big improvement.