Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank all the Deputies who contributed. I welcome the broad support for the Bill, including from Deputy Troy representing Fianna Fáil and Deputy Mac Lochlainn representing Sinn Féin. We have put a lot of thought into how we structure this and we believe we have done it in the best way.

There has been a lot of work done, to answer Deputy Troy's point, in integrating the bodies and the staff within them. A lot of preparatory work has been done on that. Where we will be bringing in new adjudication officers, they will have to go through a training process to ensure that we get the quality needed. To take up Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan's point, they will be from diverse bacgrounds. We are not confining it to legal persons. We want to have a diverse range of staff because common sense is important in many cases.

What many adjudicators, namely, the rights commissioners and equality officers, have accumulated over a long period is a lot of common sense and understanding of the matters in hand.

The Deputy asked from where the savings will be derived. They will come from the ability to have shared services, to process complaints more quickly and to have a single registration process and single forms. It is all about streamlining the process. We believe that will give rise to an effective process.

A number of speakers raised questions about the term “frivolous and vexatious” and the implication that if one did not like the cut of one’s jib, one might decide to call a complaint frivolous or vexatious. However, they are legal terms; they are not pejorative in any sense. It is merely a question of saying that as far as the complainant is concerned, if he or she has no reasonable chance of succeeding, the law says it is frivolous to bring the case. Similarly, it is a hardship on the defendants to have to take steps to defend something which cannot succeed, and the law calls that vexatious.

The current regime operated by the director of the Equality Tribunal provides a very good example of the effective filtering of complaints on receipt. The tribunal has the power to dismiss a complaint at any stage if in its opinion the complaint has been made in bad faith or is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or relates to a trivial matter. It is entirely logical that we would have a similar system as prevails in the equality area.

Other issues were also raised, such as whether we should have multiple persons at the hearing and if the hearings should be in private or in public. The approach we sought to take is to make the process as simple and easy to use as possible. We have long experience with rights commissioners and equality officers sitting on their own and giving out very reasonable decisions. Holding the hearings in private is not in any way a breach of the obligations under the European Court of Human Rights because there is a right of appeal, and the appeal will be to a three-person body and will be held in public. The Labour Court has immense experience and its judgments are looked to as major precedent. The court has a very high reputation, not only in terms of fairness but in the legal argumentation behind its judgments, which means appeals are in very good hands.

Many speakers raised issues relating to individual disputes and, for example, the use of contractors which effectively put employees in the position of contractors, but they are not really germane to this legislation. Some of those matters are for the Revenue Commissioners, but in all cases where NERA is called upon, it makes advice available to the individuals concerned and points them in the right direction. Those roles will continue to be the case.

The issue of fees was raised on a number of occasions and this can be discussed on Committee Stage. We have taken the view that fees should not be put in place. Some argued for fees and others argued against them. We took the view that we would not introduce fees except in the case where the first court of appeal was not used. We believed that was a fair process and there ought to be a charge if a person refused to attend at the first port of call and then decided to appeal. Otherwise we have not introduced a charge. We are not closing out the possibility that there could be a role for fees. It is prudent to leave the option in, but we have taken the view that we do not see the need for them, and if the system runs as we hope it will, the issue will not arise.

Deputy Mac Lochlainn raised the manner in which equal status cases will be dealt with under the new structures. I assure him there will be no substantive changes in the Equal Status Acts under the new structures. The Bill provides that complaints under the Equal Status Acts will transfer at first instance to the adjudication service of the WRC with appeals remaining in the Circuit Court.

A number of speakers raised employment rights issues. The Bill does not seek to change the substantive law on employment rights. Those are issues that are broader than the purpose of this legislation, which is to try to ensure the architecture is efficient.

Issues were raised that relate to fixed payment notices. The fixed payment notice must be set in regulations. It is not true that is €150, as some Deputies suggested. The amount will be set in regulations and can go significantly higher than that.

Deputy Wallace suggested it was unfair that there would not be an appeal for a fixed payment notice. One is not obliged to pay the fixed payment notice but one is given a suspension of any prosecution during the period of 42 days. While one has the option of making the payment of the fixed payment notice, if one does not, the case goes through the normal prosecution and is heard in the court and that position does not change. To be fair to Deputy Wallace, he acknowledged that we do not want a highly legalistic process. The Labour Court has a very strong record and is legally robust. Deputy Wallace is entering the Chamber as I deal with his point. He argued that there should be a further avenue of appeal to a court, following an initial case being brought to an adjudication officer and then on appeal to the Labour Court. We are not anxious to go down the road of having appeals to the court. We believe the Labour Court has a very high reputation in terms of the quality of its judgments. It sets precedent and has expertise in dealing with labour law. It will be the place in which the interpretation of the existing law applies. If there is a dispute about a point of law, that can go to court, but such cases are not common appeals and do not relate to the cases cited by Deputy Wallace of which he has had personal experience.

If there is an unfair appliance of procedure, judicial review remains open to the court. We are trying to create a self-contained, world-class, quality system that does not have recourse to the courts unless in exceptional circumstances such as where the system has broken down and people are not treated in the way they ought to be or where there is a point of law that needs to be tested outside of the box, so to speak.

Deputy Boyd Barrett raised the difficulties experienced in the enforcement of awards in employment cases. I acknowledge the existence of such difficulties. One of the main planks of the reform is to establish a new and robust enforcement regime which will provide successful complainants with an accessible and inexpensive means whereby recalcitrant respondents can be compelled to honour the award of the WRC adjudication service or of the Labour Court, as the case may be. That is a matter for further discussion between ourselves and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, OPC, and the Attorney General. I hope to be able to table amendments at a later stage in those areas.

Deputy Finian McGrath made the case for more social dialogue.

5 o’clock

Social partnership does not exist as it did in the past but social dialogue is very active and there has been much dialogue on this Bill and the action plan for jobs. We are open to the views of all bodies on issues of policy in the Department and we try to ensure all voices are heard.

Deputy Seán Kyne made the point that there has been improvement and this is not the time to lower our interest in reform. I agree with that point.

Deputy Noel Harrington raised issues on time targets for early resolution and we can examine this but early resolution, by its nature, offers a narrow window during which resolution can be sought. I do not know whether statutory time limits can be set on this because it is essentially a voluntary process that people enter and can withdraw from at any stage. The Deputy referred to an Oireachtas liaison officer but I do not know whether the level of queries is sufficient to justify such a measure under the WRC - we will consider it. The Deputy also raised the poor recovery rates associated with NERA and we aim to raise these. I will not be drawn into a discussion of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP while debating the Workplace Relations Bill, though it would be interesting.

We will continue to deal with issues on Committee Stage. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan referred to the issue of a non-executive board but the role has not been downgraded and members will deal with strategy - their independence will not be undermined should the WRC deal with a public body. There are many non-executive boards and the key point in this case is the difference between an office of the Department and an agency of the Department. The Office of Corporate Enforcement and NERA are offices of the Department but they are independent bodies - the fact that they are offices under a Minister does not mean the Minister supervises the decision-making process.

Deputy Anthony Lawlor asked when the WRC will be established and the other agencies dissolved and this depends on the passage through the legislative process. We are in the hands of the Oireachtas but are keen to move as quickly as possible, subject to allowing Members enough time to fully consider the proposals.

Deputies Catherine Murphy and Pringle wanted to be assured that two agencies will be better than five. It is not simply a matter of numbers - there will no longer be multiple applications relating to the same complaint to a number of different bodies as this was wasteful in the use of resources, contributed to a lack of clarity and led to inconsistencies in how issues were treated. There were long delays too. This is not simply a case of reducing the number of entities from five to two - it is a case of having a first instance body and an appellate body. We aim to make the process simple and easy to understand. Many people spoke of the need for a compliance culture and this legislation will encourage that. Deputy Anthony Lawlor asked whether an inspection should seek to encourage compliance or be a case of going in all guns blazing. Clearly, we want to encourage compliance and this is why there will be compliance notices and the like to give people an opportunity to mend their hands. We will not be soft on those who are determined not to honour their obligations - a balance must be struck. The earlier a case is resolved, the better - ideally, some cases will not arise at all thanks to this legislation.

I have addressed the main issues that were raised. I thank the Members for their detailed consideration and thoughtful contributions came from all sides.

See this speech in context