Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Perhaps the Tánaiste could explain the situation. The intention behind the Bill is to ensure people do not have their tips robbed from them. I get that. It is why we are all here. We accept it is a problem that needs to be dealt with. Not every case that comes before the WRC has a paper trail or includes absolute proof. Sometimes a union official will only have the evidence that his or her own members can bring and that is enough. One might not be able to put a hand on a receipt or some kind of electronic trail but there may be evidence from workers. One will hear that from workers. The Tánaiste has met with workers so he will know that. How would it work in that case? Would such a case be precluded from access to the WRC even if there is some evidence? I understand the issue around evidence and the fact that we cannot legislate for situations in which there is no evidence. If there were sufficient evidence to sustain an industrial relations case, which I acknowledge is not the same threshold of proof that would apply in a court, would the Tánaiste envisage access to the WRC being possible under the terms of this legislation? If that is precluded completely, there is a problem. There is not going to be a paper trail when a cash tip is left, but how would it work in a case where a number of workers are capable of saying that tip theft happens every evening, every second night or whatever? Those staff should somehow come under the jurisdiction of this legislation. If they are left out, all cases are going to be left out. As I said, cases before the WRC, the Labour Court or wherever else do not always include a paper trail. Sometimes the evidence of the people who are experiencing the issue is sufficient.

See this speech in context