Mr. Pat Keane:

In terms of some of the main changes being put through under the heads of the Bill, one of them is the extension of the personal scope, whereby we are building beyond ordinary employees into other categories of people who also have a working relationship with an organisation, including volunteers, board members and trainees, for example.

In regard to the operation of the legislation itself, obviously, a clear change is the requirement on the private sector to have formal, published channels and procedures setting out how people can make reports and setting out what other channels of reporting are available to them if they are dissatisfied with how the internal process has gone. Of course, as was said in earlier responses, those procedures will at a minimum require acknowledgement of the protected disclosure, diligent follow-up of the protected disclosure and that feedback be given to the person.

There is certainly a lot of reassurance there because one of the common complaints we get from whistleblowers is that they make their report and it disappears into a black hole. This cannot happen.

The other factor, which is something we already have in legislation but which is worth reflecting on, because it is in the directive as well, is the stepped disclosure regime. In other words, if you start out at one level, such as a report to your employer, and if he or she fails to co-operate, you have the option of then going to a prescribed person who is subject to the same requirements that I just set out as regards acknowledgement, follow-up and feedback. If that fails, then there is the more significant option of going public and seeing how that works. There are plenty of options if a failure in the process along the way occurs. You would hope that in most cases everything would be dealt with at the first stage but the legislation anticipates what might happen when things go wrong and what the options are for people around that.

It is also worth reflecting on the fact that we are extending the interim relief provisions. Currently, you have an entitlement to interim relief in the event of an unfair dismissal, but now it will apply to other forms of penalisation as well. That is a significant strengthening because it means that when penalisation comes, you can go straight to a court and seek an injunction and you do not have to wait for the WRC or for the court to give you a hearing, which can be a lengthy process at times. That is an important one.

Another one relates to the reversal of the burden of proof. It is going to fall to the employer to prove that the person suffered a penalisation, and not because he or she made a protected disclosure. It no longer means the employee has to prove that connection, and that is going to be a big factor in terms of cases, because that is often a determining factor in the way the WRC deals with those cases.

I would like to deal with another issue as we are talking about the WRC and the question of enforcement of awards made by it or by the Labour Court. We obviously cannot talk about the specific case with regard to what appeared a fortnight ago but we should say that under current legislation, if an employer fails to carry out a decision of the WRC or the Labour Court, the worker affected or his or her trade union, if he or she is in one, can apply to the District Court for an order directing the employer or the respondent to comply with that decision. This can be done 56 days after the WRC makes an adjudication, or 42 days after the Labour Court makes an adjudication. In addition, a worker or his or her trade union can apply to the WRC for assistance in enforcement of decisions to the District Court. If it accepts such a request, the WRC will make the application to the court on behalf of the complainant and will bear the legal costs involved, so if a person is in a position where he or she cannot hire a solicitor to enforce the WRC's decision, the WRC will actually act on his or her behalf.