Mr. Tom Hayes:

We also need to keep in mind that there are two ways we can have a dispute.

We can have a difference of interpretation. We might think that something in an agreement means this, and the other side thinks it means that. We must be careful that genuine differences of interpretation do not carry penalties. That is not helpful to anybody. We have to distinguish, therefore, between genuine differences of opinion about what an agreement means. I do not believe those disagreements of opinion should carry heavy penalties. We should separate that out from wilful refusal to meet obligations. Let us say we are advising a European work council, EWC, on either side of the fence. If, for example, I disagree with Mr. Sheridan because I think it means this, and Mr. Sheridan thinks it means that, I do not believe there should be an enormous financial penalty around something like that. We should get a resolution by way of a recommendation from the Labour Court. If a company says "We know that we should do something and we are not going to do it", then there should be significant penalties. We need to make that differentiation between disputes about interpretation and disputes around wilful refusal to implement the legislation. I make no defence whatsoever of companies who wilfully refuse to engage with the legislation. Most of the disputes I have been involved with have been around interpretation such as "You say one thing and I say another", but we have not refused to engage. That distinction needs to be made.