Mr. Kieran Mulvey:

Gabhaim buíochas leis Teachta as na ceisteanna a chuir sé. On the issue of delays, in the context of the conciliation service, the Labour Relations Commission operates a just-in-time service. As soon as the parties involved are willing and able to engage with us, we arrange conciliation conferences. Not only are we proactive in the sense that we do not wait for them, we contact both sides and offer our services almost on an immediate-day basis. Our view is that it is better to avoid threatened disputes actually turning into strikes.

In regard to the Rights Commissioner Service, we are up to date. Effectively, when we receive a complaint in the Rights Commissioner Service - we receive over 10,000 a year - we can offer a rights commissioner hearing quickly. For example, in the case of the complaints we received in September, hearings are being scheduled for January. There is a high degree of productivity and case work in that regard, although, unfortunately, in the case of the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the Equality Tribunal, it is an entirely different story. That is one of the reasons we have decided on a single adjudication service under the new workplace relations Bill. I am hopeful that, given the powers and processes being put in place, there is a reasonable expectation that if somebody makes a complaint, he or she will have it scheduled for hearing and a decision made in three to six months, depending on the nature of the case.

A considerable number of cases in the Rights Commissioner Service revolve around the payment of wages, holiday pay, and terms and conditions of employment. These are the bread and butter issues for any worker who is being made redundant or in the context of unfair dismissal or, alternatively, who is in work. What we have managed to do in recent years, despite the volume of cases, is avoid the situation the Deputy addressed where justice delayed is justice denied. I am very conscious of this issue. However, we still have an uphill struggle to change the culture, milieu and operational arrangements for the Equality Tribunal and the Employment Appeals Tribunal, in fact, the Employment Appeals Tribunal will be abolished under the new arrangements and there will be a single adjudication process. However, it is very clear from our point of view that there will be a customer focus and delivery. I am very conscious that it is a resource issue, but, certainly, we believe this issue must be addressed within the system because, in some cases, the delays are unconscionable. I accept the point the Deputy made in that regard.

On the issue of competition, to which Senator Feargal Quinn referred in a question to the Minister, I hold the view that it largely revolves around quality of service, quality of product, quality of delivery and quality of staff, which is why I made the points on labour costs. One of the issues from which we must protect good employers is that of fly-by-night competition from people who operate systems that are not amenable to and do not observe the floor of employment rights established in domestic and European legislation.

This creates the most unfair competition.

The issues that must be addressed in the context of good employment are pay; terms and conditions of employment; and pensions where they apply and are appropriate. That is why we have codes of practice and why, time and again, we issue strategy documents and statements. The issue in the modern economy is quality of competition, product, service and the interface with employee and customer. That is why it is important to place emphasis on it. Registered employment agreements have the capacity to eliminate the labour cost orientation and force employers around the business of what I have suggested. This happens in the retail market and should be happening in the hospitality sector in product delivery. It is about learning and skills development.

Compliance is vitally important. Because of the reorganisation, I am acting director of the National Employment Rights Authority, NERA. Compliance is one of the issues we must address in the Workplace Relations Bill. Moving from the concept of an inspector to a compliance officer is very important. It is more proactive and about regulation, both inspection and enforcement. It will be important in the new Bill that the enforcement processes are faster and clearer. Once the Labour Court has heard a case, we do not want people to have to go through a complex system of enforcement orders, going through the District Court or the Circuit Court, but to have fast enforcement. People who have had decisions made in their favour by the dispute resolution bodies should actually get the money they are due before the employers involved go into liquidation or use some other device to avoid liability. Although this is the first time I have been involved in the inspectorate and the issue of compliance, I am very conscious of this through the Labour Relations Commission in the past and the Rights Commissioner Service. Having gone through the system, with its delays, people should not find that they cannot get the money they have been awarded because the employer has disappeared, gone into liquidation or will fight the payment all the way. This will be very important in the context of what we are trying to do.

Subcontracting has been the bane of the construction industry, with questions such as who is a subcontractor, who is an employer and what is their social welfare or Revenue status. This has been an issue for as long as we have been around and we must set very clear regulations for it. In the new Bill there will be a process whereby we will be allowed to share data with Revenue, the Garda, the fraud office and other bodies and this will assist us considerably in enforcement and ensuring compliance. The dispute the Deputy mentioned is with the LRC conciliation service. We had a conciliation conference which did not succeed in resolving it, but we are available to the parties involved.