Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 17, line 4, to delete “under Part 4 of the Act of 2015” and substitute “under section 22”.

Section 19 of the Bill provides for anti-penalisation measures to protect a worker who invokes any right conferred on him or her by the Act or takes other specified actions under the Act. An amendment introduced on Committee Stage provided that, if penalisation of a worker under section 19 constitutes a dismissal under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, the worker may not seek relief under both Acts.

However, an incorrect reference to Part 4 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 was included in the amendment and the correct reference should have been to section 22, which deals with the relevant redress provisions by an adjudication officer for contraventions of provisions of this Bill. I highlighted this error on Committee Stage and indicated that I would address it on Report Stage.

On a related point, Deputy Tóibín raised a question as to whether an employee could be required to travel long distances in the context of making an application to the Circuit Court under section 34 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 where such an application must be made in the circuit where the employer carries on his or her business. I have taken advice on this and I am informed that this is a standard provision and is interpreted as having a meaning as being where the employee habitually is based in terms of working for that employer. This phrase will be familiar to anybody dealing with various ranges of legislation, whether in regard to the Department of Social Protection or any other Department. It is where the employee habitually is based in terms of working for that employer.

See this speech in context