Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

There are a number of difficulties with the amendment which I hope the Deputy will consider in his approach to it as I go through them. The first issue that arises with the amendment is proportionality, something about which the committee might think. This concerns the very important entitlement to paternity leave, but the Deputy is suggesting the imposition of a €10,000 fine to resolve a dispute between an employee and an employer. The provisions included in the Bill allow the Workplace Relations Commission in cases of dispute to order the granting of leave, the payment of compensation of up to two weeks pay or both.

That is what is actually in the Bill. It is one issue I wish to raise in respect of Deputy O'Brien's amendment. We have a mechanism in place to deal with any disputes that might arise, namely, the Workplace Relations Commission.

The second issue with the amendment is that we would be taking disputes about penalisation away from the Workplace Relations Commission, which handles all employment and industrial relations disputes, and in to the area of criminal law. I am unsure whether it is Deputy O'Brien's intention that complaints around penalisation of employer-employee disputes would be taken into criminal law and put before the courts, away from the Workplace Relations Commission. I do not think that is what Deputy O'Brien was intending, but it seems to us that is the implication.

The third reason I have some concerns about the amendment is that I do not believe it achieves the objective if the objective is to allow for an employer to be fined. The amendment creates a fine without creating an offence or the power to prosecute for that offence or assigning the responsibility to a particular court to hear such cases. The Deputy should note that a decision by the Workplace Relations Commission cannot be a finding for the purposes of criminal law. It could be confusing because only the courts can try cases and make convictions or impose fines.

There is another serious issue. The amendment could be taken as imposing a maximum payment in cases of penalisation involving unfair dismissal. The Workplace Relations Commission already has the power and should continue to have the power to order higher amounts of compensation in unfair dismissal cases. As it stands, the maximum compensation that can be awarded by the Workplace Relations Commission is two years' remuneration, which is far more than €10,000. This amendment could be seen as imposing another maximum on the Workplace Relations Commission. Let us suppose there was a complaint between an employer and an employee about paternity leave and the man in question was dismissed. Under current law, the man could go to the Workplace Relations Commission and the commission could make an order for two years. If we accepted this amendment, it could be taken as imposing a maximum payment in cases of penalisation.

I can see that Deputy O'Brien is keen to give a message to employers to the effect that it is serious to do anything that would appear to be abusive or in some way fail to implement the legislation. However, this amendment would confuse labour law and criminal law and I imagine that is not what Deputy O'Brien intended. I suggest that Deputy O'Brien might consider withdrawing it on the basis of the information I have given to the committee.