Mick Barry (Cork North Central, Solidarity) | Oireachtas source

We are fine with amendment No. 3, which deals with the drafting error. However, we are not fine with the deletion called for in amendment No. 4. This is an interesting proposal to delete an amendment tabled by the Minister. The amendment proposes to delete the burden of proof on an employer that a worker's complaint is not justified. Where would it place that burden of proof? In reality it would be on the shoulders of the worker in question. It is implicit that complaints of a broadly spurious character would be made.

Every Deputy knows of a pretty big lobbying campaign by employer organisations on aspects of the Bill. We all received correspondence this day last week from IBEC asking for changes in the Bill, watering it down and placing less responsibility on employers. The Minister indicated in the House recently that she met IBEC representatives to discuss their concerns. Did her proposal to delete or amend her own proposal come before or after the discussion with the IBEC representatives? Is this an indication of successful lobbying by IBEC? Is it an example of Fine Gael bending the knee to IBEC? Is it an example of the Minister giving to IBEC that which IBEC seeks? Certainly the Minister's proposal to delete would not find approval among Dunnes Stores workers, other retail workers or other workers faced with this type of employment, who, I can assure the Minister, are not prone to making spurious complaints and will not welcome that the employer is somewhat out the gap if the Minister's amendment is passed.

I would like to know more about the process that led up to the Minister's decision to amend the Bill and to delete her own section of the Bill, an amendment which is not good news for workers and which will please the employers and their representative organisations.

See this speech in context