Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The vote I left the meeting to attend was turfing me out of the committee. It was like turkeys voting for Christmas.
Deputy Charles Flanagan: I, too, commend the courage and tenacity of Mr. O'Sullivan. We will only do him a service if we conclude the hearing, if not today, or on a future occasion by seeing what progress we can make within the frame of the seven points as raised by Mr. O'Sullivan.

I wish to bring the debate back to discussing remedies that the committee might pursue or provide for him. I missed the start of Deputy Boyd Barrett's contribution and he may have raised the following matter. It is essential that we examine statistics.

I listened to the exchange between Ms Murphy and Mr. Douglas on frivolous claims, no-shows and non-compliance. Surely the Department has a list of all of the cases and is in a position to say how many of them have been frivolous. I do not mean those that are lodged with a frivolous objective. I mean cases that have been ruled frivolous by a commissioner or a hearing conducted by the employment appeals tribunal. We should also know the percentage of no-shows. Are there no-shows on the part of the employer? Are there no-shows on the part of the employee? I am surprised that people have speculated about them and adopted positions. We should know whether it was the employer or the employee. These are matters of fact so lets have the details.

I wish to comment briefly on the difficult matter of costs. I am anxious to see how the Department handles costs under the new regime. It seems to me, in spite of what Ms Murphy has said, an employee may go to a hearing and be met by a senior counsel with tomes of law books and case law so he or she just does not stand a chance. In the district court one does not have a senior counsel so it seems bizarre for senior counsel to appear at an employment appeals tribunal. Does it happen? I would say not. However, the delegation is engaged in such appeals and has told me that it does happen. It is a pretty poor show, in terms of justice, that somebody with no representation is pitted again senior counsel. That is so unfair. It would get an appeal off to a bad start and deters people lodging an appeal in the first instance.

I wish to make a brief point on bonds. I have not been convinced by the argument made by the Minister that a bond is either ridiculous or introduces a lack of parity to the system. I am not so sure that there is parity in the system ab initio. What about a motor care situation? The driver of the motor car is obliged to have insurance, the vehicle is obliged under law to be covered but that does not mean that the passenger needs insurance. I remain unconvinced by the Minister's argument for the bond and Mr. O'Sullivan has made a good case. The committee should follow up the matter. The arguments put forward by the Minister are not watertight.

With regard to lifting the veil on incorporation and limited liability, Mr. Padraig Dooley mentioned an exemption. Has the Department plans to expand and develop it further in the context of the company law review group? I am sure the matter was referred to in terms of corporate responsibility as distinct from individual responsibility. This is a huge issue because it strikes at the heart of the corporate entity. If there is a way in which the Department feels it might be reasonable, in the circumstances, to expand and develop it regarding employee's rights and entitlement then we should examine the matter.

It is good to see that a number of Mr. O'Sullivan's grievances have been dealt with under the new legislation. For example, the appointment of the liquidators, the timing of the hearing in terms of the delay and the standard formula of awards. It would be difficult to put the latter in standard form but I am sure that reference will be made, in the context of the legislation, to how the awards are formed in terms of the hearing.

I wish to make a final point. The issue here is not justice but the evasion of justice. The law and the new legislation is based on justice. It goes without saying that the law should be just, fair and reasonable. What happens when one of the parties decides to opt out? What sanctions will be applied? How can we, as legislators, be assured that parties will play within the system at all times?

The evasion of justice is the issue here and what this new Bill does to ensure that justice will not be evaded on a widescale basis.

I again thank Mr. O'Sullivan who has done a service not only to himself and his fellow employees but has done some service to the system, having regard to the fact that his petition has been brought to us just as the new legislation is between Second Stage and Committee Stage. This committee might keep an eye on it. The legislation will not come before this committee but Committee Stage will be dealt with in an adjoining room. I thank the Chairman for facilitating this fine debate.