Ms Joan Gordon:

On test cases and what changed, I wish to be clear that I will speak on my understanding. I cannot speak for the Department. I have only gleaned these documents in the past two or three weeks. I do not know what happened in 1993 and 1994 on the test cases. It may have been done in consultation with trade union representatives but I cannot be certain about that as I was not there then.

From the letter that the Secretary General wrote to the Committee on Public Accounts, it seems that the outcome of the later discussions some time between 1995 and 2000 was the establishment of the employment status group under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, PPF, and that the product of that was the code. It reflects the three very small factors that were highlighted. If one reads the code it has more factors and indicators. These would feature in the code in some way or another. I am open to correction, but from what I can see, the change was the establishment of the group in 2001, which itself drew up the code on a tripartite basis. It was originally drawn up in 2001 under PPF. I cannot be any clearer than that as I do not know.

On groups, there is no specific provision in the legislation that says one cannot. I would not propose it but I was asked, not in the area of contract law or contract for services, where there were some 40 workers involved. It was the exact same issue. The only issue that was to be determined on appeal was the same in all cases. The approach was that is would be something of a waste of time to hear all 40 when it related to that issue. I would only do that with the agreement of the workers and the companies concerned. If, however, any person or worker said that they did not want their appeal to be done in that way and that he or she wanted his or her appeal to be done separately, he or she would certainly have the appeal determined individually.

The case that the Senator referred to was a 2016 case involving 16 workers. When it is the exact same appeal contention across 20 or 30 people, it can be an efficient way of dealing with the issue. I must stress, however, that each individual is entitled to an individual decision and can still invoke all the other provisions in the Act in terms of review under section 317 in light of new facts or evidence or review by me under section 318 in error of fact or law. The other avenues of redress are not closed to the person.