Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Mr. Vaughan is confident that the systems would be in place to be able to determine that. It is not credible to say that the amendment is not required purely and simply because it might place an administrative burden on someone or might be hard to prove, because the systems can be put in place to determine what has happened. We know, for example, that community transmission is a significant factor, but it would be foolish to pretend that it is only community transmission. There are people who have acquired this infection in their workplace, and I do not think anybody would contradict that. In a scenario whereby they had contracted Covid-19 in the workplace, their employer is currently not obligated to deal with that. We need to place that obligation on the employer.

The purpose of this engagement is to tease out the potential implications of the passage of the legislation and to ensure that we robustly engage with any of the issues identified. I ask Mr. Vaughan to outline his opinion on the notion that somehow the possibility that an administrative burden might be placed upon an employer would be sufficient reason not to proceed with this. I do not accept that. Employers would not necessarily be resistant to an administrative burden if it improved the health and safety of their staff. In my experience, and as a former union official, the vast majority of employers want their workers to be safe. Not only that, they want to be able to loudly proclaim that and have it on the public record.

There is a reason some workplaces have been singled out for special attention during this pandemic, with meat factories, nursing homes and hospitals being the top three. Nobody is suggesting that the reason they were singled out for special attention was they happen to be located in areas where there is a high level of community transmission. In fact, the reason these workplaces have been singled out for specific and special attention is they have become sites of transmission. I contend that where this has happened and infections have been acquired in a workplace, that should be treated as an occupational illness purely and simply because it is an illness a person acquired in the conduct of his or her work.

The point made by Congress is important. That is not an admission of or proof of negligence on behalf of any employer, in the same way that any workplace injury or illness is not negligence. Negligence is not automatically assumed.

I was alarmed to read some of the submissions where the two were linked in that this will automatically mean that negligence is proven. This is not the case as negligence is proven in many forums. In the opinion of our witnesses, it is true to say that Covid-19 is acquired in the workplace? If one does not call it an occupational illness or workplace injury, what would one call it if it is contracted in the course of one's work? I am aware that in the regulations, diseases like contact dermatitis are mentioned. Again, one has to prove that it was contracted in the workplace and it could have been contracted elsewhere. In all likelihood this is probably a good enough definition but I am interested to hear the views of our witnesses on what we should say when someone contracts the disease in the workplace because people do and it has been happening. The proof of that is the fact that we have had several types of work singled out for particular and special attention. Could I have our witnesses views on that point starting, perhaps, with the Health and Safety Authority, the HSE, and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, if that is okay?