Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Táim buíoch go bhfuil seans agam labhairt ar an ábhar seo. Ceapaim go bhfuil sé an-tábhachtach go mbeadh caidreamh san áit oibre go héifeachtach. The test will be whether it is effective and efficient. We all had lives before politics, and no doubt will afterwards, when we were in other workplaces. Given that we all have experience of being an employee or employer, we know the importance of employment rights, for both employee and employer. If the rights of both were respected, it would lead to better work, better work practices and harmony at work. In such cases, there is no need for any labour courts. However, I am being utopian and the reality is different. Although the principles of fairness and justice have almost become a cliché because we use them so much, they should be guiding principles of whatever we do. Given that there will be disputes and disagreements, there is a need for efficient and effective procedures to deal with disputes in a very timely way.

The procedures must be fair to both employers and employees and must not cost a fortune.

It is positive that five existing bodies will be merged into two - the new Workplace Relations Commission and the expanded Labour Court. Where there is an issue of concern in this country, we seem to have a penchant for having not only one organisation, but several, to deal with it. There are plenty of examples of that. The merger is positive. Having five bodies does not make for efficiency. It makes for confusion and lengthy delays and it also leads to resolutions not coming about in a timely fashion.

With new legislation, it is important to look at the view of stakeholders. Most of the stakeholders were positive about the Bill. Generally, they welcomed the broad reform, particularly for the single point of entry and the single route to appeal. What also is positive is support for early intervention because there are too many examples of where a dispute has gone on for years as opposed to being resolved in a timely way. The idea of mediation to try and solve matters at the initial stage before they escalate also has to be positive.

Some of the concerns raised relate to allowing the adjudicator to dismiss a complaint considered "frivolous or vexatious". That is something that is relative because what I might consider frivolous or vexatious could be something that is serious for somebody else. When this is being discussed further, perhaps that will be taken into account. The training for the adjudicator is also vital, as is the idea of transparency around the decision that is made. This aspect is of concern because it does not sit easily that one person will decide that one's complaint is not worthy of a hearing.

A further point relates to where the complainant might have to make a written submission. There are those, some of whom I know well, who have issues around literacy and where English is not their first language. There have been examples in this country of foreign national workers treated appallingly by employers, wages withheld, passports withheld and no breaks during excessive working hours. I would hope that there is provision in the Bill for such workers so that they will be represented and will have an opportunity to convey what is happening to them.

I was struck by the concern expressed by the Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation that a person with a grievance has a right to be heard. As an aside to this, on ease of access for those who have issues, last night I attended a briefing, at which the INMO was also in attendance with others. It was held by Patients First but it was on a similar point. It was for patients with a grievance, that they would have a way that their voices would be heard. It is not only workers who need that facility.

The use of the word "dismiss" is a little offhand. A better word could have been chosen. The word "dismiss" does not suggest that it has been an informed decision-making process where all sides have been heard.

There are differences of opinion around whether the adjudication should be in private or in public. I disagree with my colleague, Deputy Pringle, on this aspect. There is a need at times for a private hearing, particularly where the issue is of a sensitive nature. We have seen examples where the media have latched onto a particular case and their presentation of it has not done the complainant any favours. There must be allowance made for where there is a need for a hearing to be in private. Overall, it is better to hold hearings in public because it enhances transparency.

It is positive that fees are not being introduced. That is also beneficial to those for whom having to pay a fee would be off-putting. There must be a system where those with grievances have access to the system which is there to resolve issues and money and fees should not be a barrier.

Returning to the issue of the adjudicator, I believe there is a need for three-person panels. Such panels would protect those on both sides - those involved in the adjudication and the person whose case is being adjudicated - because there would be concerns around one person having so much say and responsibility. I would hope that the matter would be looked at where the three-person team would be considered more fair.

On the issue of the legally qualified adjudicator, balance is needed. There is a need for legal expertise. One certainly does not want an increasing number of appeals because of the lack of legal expertise in the first place. There are times when legal adjudication is required, but I am all for common sense prevailing. Common sense is not rated highly enough here. Sometimes common sense can be absent from those with degrees and letters after their names. I hope that there will be balance in adjudication teams.

Enforcement is vital. One can see measures on paper and think they are positive but it is only when they must be enforced that one can see sometimes the flaws and pitfalls. In the past few years there have been abuses of workers. At a certain point, for whatever reason, some employees who have given dedicated and loyal service over many years to an institution have become sidelined in their jobs. In spite of that dedicated loyal service, their work has been diminished in such a way that they have been left with no option but to take redundancy. These are persons with families, with mortgages. Usually, the institution is losing all of that experience to employ others on a quarter or one third of the salary of that person. In one case of which I am aware, the current options were not availed of due to what would have been a lengthy and onerous process. I hope that this system the Minister proposes will be successful.

On the concept of decent work, I will move outside of Ireland. We saw what happened in Rana Plaza and in other places in the developing world. One may ask what that has to do with Ireland. There are those in Ireland who are buying goods that are produced in slave-labour conditions and there are shops in Ireland which are also contributing to this. There has been a campaign and certain shops have refused to take goods from such companies. There is a role here of the Minister. We must adopt the concept of decent work, both in Ireland and abroad. The question has come up with the Minister. When he is involved in trade missions, I do not see why the idea of decent work conditions is not part of the discussions. We can lead by example by including that.

As a member of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, I am aware that there is no difficulty in discussing human rights with the ambassadors and officials of countries where human rights have not been top of the agenda, and they take that on board. Dublin Port is involved in a middle management work initiative with ports in African countries. It asked me to speak at the recent launch and I made those points about decent work conditions because they make for much better relationships between employees and employers. There was much support around that. On Friday, 7 November, there will be a conference in Dublin Castle implementing the UN guiding principles on business and human rights. I hope that this Bill will be productive in the human rights of Irish workers but I also hope that the Minister, in looking at trade missions, will consider the human rights of workers in other countries.

What is important in the employer-employee relationship, and where there is a dispute, a conflict or a disagreement, is that there is ease of access to a resolution process, that there is a fair hearing, a prompt resolution, access to appeal and a resolution of that appeal, and that the language used is accessible to all. There is a petition, being circulated by National Adult Literacy Agency, asking that the official business we do here is in language that can be accessed by everybody. I hope the procedures the Minister is setting up will be fair and will be in language that everybody can understand.

See this speech in context