Ms Esther Lynch:

In the context of the points raised by Deputy Boyd Barrett, I am of the view that there is not one single solution. This is because the problem has different characteristics at different stages when an employee takes his or her complaint forward. The petitioner is absolutely correct: there are 101 ways in which an employer can frustrate an employee in the context of his or her seeking justice. In particular, an employer can make navigating the process such a stressful, expensive and difficult experience that the person involved will give up. Even worse, the experience of such an individual can act as a warning to all other employees of what they will be obliged to face should they come forward to vindicate their employment rights.

In the context of the expense involved, if a person is not a member of a trade union then he or she will be obliged to retain a legal representative. The petitioner is again correct in this regard. An ordinary person facing questions from a senior counsel sometimes 18 months to two years after the event can quite easily be tripped up and can lose his or her case on a technicality. Provision must be made in order that people who are not represented by trade unions can obtain justice. Where we differ from the petitioner is that the solution is not to offer costs against the losing party. If the petitioner had lost his case, he would have been obliged to pay not only €2,000 to his solicitor but also all of the costs incurred by the employer. Imagine the chilling effect this could have on people, particularly if their dispute relates to one day's non-payment of force majeure leave. While we would differ in terms of the solution, I am of the view that the petitioner is absolutely right in that the worst that will happen to an employer is that he, she or it will be obliged to do what should have been done in the first instance. He was also right to state that compensation should be paid to the person taking the case in respect of the amount of stress he or she endured in pursing the matter. The latter should be capable of being taken into account.

The petitioner's idea with regard to a bond is a good one. This goes to the second part of the problem, namely, the ease-of-doing-business regime which obtains in Ireland. There are many benefits to this because it makes it really easy to establish companies. However, the drawback is that it makes it very easy to establish companies. Under the regime to which I refer, I could own a small shop on a street in some small town but I might be operating four different companies out of the premises. These would be completely invisible to the naked eye. A worker might be of the view that the person for whom he or she is working is his or her employer but this would not actually be the case because that individual is operating four separate companies.

There are already bond regimes in place, for example, for holiday firms. If one is bringing people away on holiday one must have a bond should one not be able to bring them home. Similarly, if one is a company employing people, one is holding onto a month's unpaid wages, so that surely a bond similar to that type is not unreasonable if the company has no assets. If a firm chooses not to have any assets to substantiate its liabilities against its employees I suggest it is not a ridiculous idea that a bond would be in place similar to the system that exists for holiday companies where people are at risk of having to fund themselves to return home. A month’s unpaid wages could result in someone losing his or her home. There is a lot in the petitioner’s suggestion to look at in terms of the bond.

I will not say much about insolvency because my two colleagues have covered it very well, only to say that the committee could make a suggestion to the Minister for Social Protection to introduce the changes in budget 2014. She can already do it by means of changing the rules governing access to the fund. Not allowing access to the fund is contrary to our responsibilities under the relevant EU directive. I have provided a written note on the matter.

I agree with the petitioner that it is not a fair system that allows an employer to undertake all of this in order to cause frustration over a long period when the only thing they have to do is what they should have done two years previously.