Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this Bill. Some speakers outlined that they welcome the streamlining of the complaints procedures for workers and workplace relations from five bodies down to two but I am not entirely convinced this is necessary. I note the argument in favour is that there will be a simple procedure for an employee who wants to make a complaint and there is a single body and single point of contact for that. I doubt very much that rationalising the structure to two bodies will speed up the process or reduce the length of time workers have to wait to have their cases heard before a two-body Workplace Relations Commission or the five-body Employment Appeals Tribunal, Equality Tribunal and the other bodies.

On the Minister's commitment to ensuring the new Workplace Relations Commission has the resources to move swiftly through the caseload of work to ensure cases are heard within a reasonable timeframe, we will only see if that proves to be the case as the commission starts to do its work.

It is difficult to move beyond focusing on the reason for the introduction of this Bill.

One of the driving forces behind the Bill is to save money and meet this Government's requirements to cut costs, at all costs, and to ensure that funds can be saved although bodies might be working reasonably well and satisfactorily.

I am unusual in that I have experience of the EAT and rights commissioners from both sides of the argument. I have represented workers there and have also appeared before them as an employer. Therefore, I have some experience of going through the procedures and I find the system very fair and good to deal with. Coming out on the right side of the decisions makes it easier. It works, and my only concern is about the time it takes to come before a tribunal or body.

Section 41 provides that the hearings should be held other than in public session. This should not be included in the Act. All the adjudications should take place in public. The current system is quasi-judicial and takes place in public, and it should continue to do so. In my experience in the regional areas, particularly in Donegal, there is no interest in the hearings. While the proceedings are open to the public, nobody attends and the media does not turn up. It is probably easier for a complainant whose hearing is held in Dublin to get media attention, given the concentration of media there. The possibility of embarrassing an employer seems to be the rationale for seeking media coverage, but there is no great interest by the public in proceedings. However, holding hearings in public is a reassurance for everybody involved and the principle should be retained.

Although subsuming NERA into the WRC might have some benefits regarding compliance notices and fixed-charge notices, I have doubts about the enforcement of compliance notices. The Minister mentioned a fixed-charge notice fee of €150. This is not enough for employers found in breach of workplace legislation. I wonder whether there will be any follow up on compliance notices. In one case in Donegal, a NERA inspection found an employer had underpaid staff by substantial sums running into thousands of euros, but there was no follow up. The employer simply refused to pay the employees the sums that were specified and it went on for a couple of years with no action taken. Any body that is established must ensure that there is follow up on compliance notices and employers are forced to comply.

The relationship between an employer and an employee is unequal and employees need access to bodies such as the WRC and EAT in order to have their rights protected. Given that very few employees are covered by unions, they act alone in looking after their interests and dealing with their employers. While most employers attempt to comply with the legal requirements, many do not. I know many hundreds of employees who do not have contracts, do not receive payslips and do not receive the minimum wage. Employees need to be able to access these services easily. Many employees do not have the benefit of having somebody to represent them when they try to assert their rights. The system must be made easy for employees.

While it is not intended, there is a possibility that a system of charging could be introduced for the WRCs, which would be a very worrying step because it would restrict employees' access to the remedies. It should not be implemented. I am worried because some form of charging is provided for in the Bill and, ultimately, in a year or two, it will probably come in, justified by the workload, the number of complaints and the need to streamline the process and recover costs.

Another item that worries me slightly is the provision that an adjudication officer can decide that a complaint is vexatious or frivolous. While I have no problem with such a decision in principle, it is open to the complainant to appeal the decision to the Labour Court. If the Labour Court decides that the original decision of the adjudication officer was wrong, the case is referred back to the same adjudication officer. It should be referred to a different adjudication officer. It would be natural to the human condition that if one decided a case was vexatious or frivolous and struck it down, and it returned to one's plate, one would be prejudiced against it.

Much remains to be seen regarding how the Bill will work in practice. The Minister should give serious consideration to ensuring the hearings are held in public. The decision to hold them in private is a retrograde step. He should examine some of the other changes. The Bill requires a commitment by the Government to ensure the WRC has the resources to carry out its work. This means getting away from the mindset of saving money. An initial investment may be required to get it up and running and clear a backlog of cases. As a result of the recession, many cases have come before the tribunals, over and above the usual numbers. After the first few years, when the backlog has been cleared and it is running smoothly, efficiencies may be brought in. However, there must be a commitment from the start to ensure the WRC can hit the ground running, do the job and deliver for employees and employers.

Under the existing system, many employers take a strategic decision to settle cases rather than fight them at the EAT because they perceive that the tribunal is biased in favour of employees. I do not think it is the case, but that employers take a decision based on costs not to fight a case and to pay the employee off and make it go away. The EAT can benefit employers and if they are proactive and fight cases, and have systems in place to ensure cases do not come before the WRC in the first place, it would benefit everybody.

See this speech in context