Ms Rhona Murphy:

I will address the point relating to frivolous and vexatious claims, which has been raised on a number of occasions. This is an acknowledged problem and it is referenced in pretty much all employment legislation dating back to the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. More recently, the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation referred to it in its Blueprint to Deliver A World-Class Workplace Relations Service. In this document, the Department acknowledges that there are cases which are brought where, for whatever reason, the claimant chooses not to show up and prosecute the claim. The employer is generally not on notice of this and shows up ready to defend the claim with witnesses in tow and he or she may also have retained legal representation at some expense. In most cases there is no redress for them. There are also instances where proceedings are brought and where the claimant shows up but where the actual claim is frivolous and vexatious. I refer, for example, to a claim for a written statement of terms and conditions of employment where such a statement has already been provided. Anecdotally, I can inform the committee that I have had that experience on a number of occasions. That to which I refer does happen. However, I would not state that it happens in the majority of cases but it does happen in a significant minority of them. It happens often enough that it causes a problem for employers and needs to be addressed. The point we made in our submission is that if employers are going to be forced to pay bonds prior to going before the EAT or some other forum, this could potentially lock them into an unenviable and invidious financial situation in respect of claims which ultimately will not even proceed.