Tom Parlon (Laois-Offaly, Progressive Democrats)

As I stated, we have learnt from the court judgment, subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled that, under section 16 of the current Act, the Department may not remove from the payroll staff who are physically present in the workplace, even if they are not performing their duties. This is an unsatisfactory position. As Deputies will recall, the case in question involved individuals in the Department of Agriculture and Food whose duties were to issue payments to farmers. While they may have carried out other duties and been present in the workplace every day, they did not issue cheques. They knew their action would produce a reaction and ministerial involvement to resolve the issue. The outcome of this court case is the reason the wording included in the amendment specifically covers the requirement on individuals to fulfil their duties.

On the issue of appeal mechanisms, while persons removed from the payroll have no right to appeal at the point of removal, thereafter they have the right to make representations to the appropriate authority, whether a trade union or staff. They may also raise matters at special meetings of the conciliation and arbitration scheme. The Bill, therefore, affords a right of appeal and provides two different avenues to seek redress. I am sure any ongoing industrial dispute will be taken into account when decisions are taken on the actions of individuals. It is important that the appropriate Departments should be entitled to remove people from the payroll to provide sanction on them if they are not carrying out their full duties.

See this speech in context