Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I understand that the thrust of the amendment, if accepted, would appear to undermine in some way the protection of employees from penalisation as it would remove the requirement on the employer to prove that they did not penalise or threaten an employee against their assertion or the reliance upon the rights that are being outlined in the Bill. Deputy Bríd Smith is correct about the presumption in the Unfair Dismissals Act which deals with this because a presumption is something that is rebuttable. Having a presumption means that the other side can actually come in with facts to rebut it at a tribunal. That might be a way of trying to deal with it.

I have to listen to what the Minister said. If the Labour Court and the WRC are saying that it is not workable or that there is a lacuna and they do not know what particular section can be relied upon, it creates a difficulty. We already have legislation going through the House that was described as a dog's dinner. Somebody said it is an insult to the dogs to even talk about giving them a dinner like that.

See this speech in context