Mr. Billy Wall:

I thank the committee for the opportunity to appear and to respond to the questions posed by members. On the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, one may take one's case to the scope section of the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection but it is a very long-winded process and a person's rights will not be vindicated. However, if one brings a case to the WRC in regard to bogus self-employment, the case will be heard because that is where workers' rights are heard. The rights of workers will be dealt with as well as the issue of classification and a decision will be issued. We have been very successful in recent cases taken to the WRC.

Senator Higgins mentioned procurement. One of our cases regarded the bogus self-employment of six plasterers on a procured site involving the construction of a school by Carillion. The plasterers had no contracts or holiday pay, the sectoral employment order was not being enforced and there were a couple of other issues. It amounted to a loss of €20,000 between the six workers. The decisions were issued and not appealed. They went to the Ministers for Finance and Employment Affairs and Social Protection but we have not heard anything back from either Department. We note that the company is now in liquidation. The decisions have been forwarded to the liquidator. We hope that the Social Insurance Fund will cover the awards. The State will have to pay twice or possibly three times.

Another recent case involved a plastering contractor who decided to designate a plasterer as self employed and registered him every week with the Revenue Commissioners. That is supposed to raise a red flag with the Revenue Commissioners but on this occasion it did not. Each week, this worker was paid through the electronic relevant contracts tax, eRCT, system but a flag was not raised. We took a case to the WRC and an award of €4,300 was made. It has not been appealed and we have received the cheque. However, there are outstanding issues for the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection and the Revenue Commissioners in regard to the employer's PRSI and the fact that the worker was classified as self-employed with a 0% tax rate. There are three tax rates under the eRCT system: 0%, 20% and 35%. The State is at a loss in regard to tax forgone. I do not know whether that will be recouped. That is a decision for the Revenue Commissioners.

Senator Nash asked about the skills gap. There is a significant skills gap in three disciplines, namely, plastering, painting and bricklaying. Those are three of the main house-building trades and have been around for centuries. Young people are not going into those trades for several reasons, the main one being their parents' influence. When a student is filling out a CAO form or deciding on an apprenticeship, his or her parents will raise horror stories regarding people in the construction industry not being paid or being designated as self-employed with no rights and point out that they do not want their child to serve time as an apprentice plasterer in order to receive a national craft certificate which is not recognised anywhere because the only qualification needed to get onto a building site in Ireland is a SafePass. One gets a SafePass by spending on day in a classroom. Parents do not want their child to go through four years of apprenticeship and be left in that situation, so encourage the child to see what arts or other degree is available.

We managed to get positions for a 20 year old and an 18 year old as apprentice plasterers with the subcontractor on a procured site in Tallaght. I will not identify the builder. He treated them abominably. He did not register them with SOLAS and they were being paid €50 per day, supposedly after tax. We referred the matter to the WRC, at which two awards were made, amounting to approximately €8,500 between the two workers. That took place on a procured site on which everything must be done right. The contractor signs a contract from the Office of Government Procurement, OGP, containing a clause stipulating that sectoral employment orders must be adhered to. The contractor signs a declaration on every interim payment that the correct rates of pay and pension contributions have been paid, that a death in service benefit is in place and sick pay as required under the SEOs is in place. None of it was in place. The culture on the site was such that there were no checks and balances.

We recently had two meetings with two city councils at which we identified issues regarding the outsourcing of voids to contractors. There is a framework involving several contractors who sign model form 15 under the short-term or term refurbishment contract from the OGP and are supposed to do several things such as pay pension contributions, comply with the SEO and observe all employment law, including provisions regarding holidays, redundancy, unfair dismissals and employees receiving a statement of the main terms and conditions of employment. We discovered that on one of those sites the contractor who got the job subcontracted it to another contractor, who in turn subcontracted it to another contractor. We visited the site yesterday morning for the second time and have discovered that the contractor carrying out the work has two people working for him who are both nominally self-employed but work from 8 a.m. until 4.30 p.m. and are paid a pre-determined wage every day. There is no entrepreneurial skill involved in that. One cannot introduce better management structures or subcontract the job in order to make more money. That is what is happening on procured sites. There are no checks and balances on them. We have raised the issue with two city councils.

I have stated that the scope section of the Department does not vindicate rights of workers but, rather, only decides on whether they should be designated as self-employed.

As Ms King stated, the building industry is a casual industry. If one puts one's head above the parapet, one is marked. If one continues to seek to vindicate one's rights, problems will arise. That has been the experience of some of our members. Workers are very slow to act when their rights are explained to them, particularly in a casual industry. I am sure my colleague, Mr. Dooley, will outline that his members encounter similar treatment. Workers are very slow to vindicate their rights. However, the WRC is the only avenue that should be pursued for the reasons I have outlined. In addition, a referral to the WRC will be heard and a decision issued within approximately two months. An unsuccessful respondent has 42 days to appeal that decision to the Labour Court. If the appeal is unsuccessful, a further appeal is only possible to the High Court on a point of law. In the seminal Irish case on this area, the Denny case, Ms Mahon began her case with the scope section and it was appealed repeatedly. It went to the High Court and then the Supreme Court. Workers will not wait around until the Supreme Court makes up its mind. In our view, the only way to deal with these issues is through the WRC.