Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 30: To ask the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the reason for his decision to revamp the State's employment rights system and review labour legislation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18238/05]

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Since the setting up of the Labour Court almost 60 years ago, structures and systems have evolved in an ad hoc manner to the extent that there are now seven bodies and 25 Acts operating in the employment rights and industrial relations area. The evolution of a large body of employment rights legislation has led to the current system, which can be complex and costly, with duplication of functions as well as divergences in procedures and remedies.

Arising out of a commitment in the programme for Government 2002-07, a review group on the functions of the employment rights bodies was established. This was the first ever review of the role and relationships of the employment rights bodies and their adjudication and enforcement frameworks. On 24 May I announced that the Government had agreed a programme of action in response to the report and recommendations of the review group and my subsequent consultations with the various interested parties. I am confident the programme of action will improve considerably the levels of customer service that the various employment rights bodies can offer to those using the dispute resolution services. It will also facilitate the simplification and modernisation of procedures, providing greater transparency and ease of access.

The consolidation of the large corpus of legislation in this area, when coupled with the legislative proposals emerging from the work of the employment rights group which is to be established, will enhance the coherence and user-friendliness of the employment rights adjudication and enforcement system and be of benefit to all.

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Why has the Minister decided to proceed with the review at this juncture, and from where did the initial suggestion come? What was the original source of the suggestion that this review was necessary, notwithstanding that it was in the programme for Government 2002-07? There is not universal approval from all practitioners in the field, nor is there full agreement on the process by which the Minister is proceeding. What is the precise problem?

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

None of us would expect to get full approval. When I was appointed seven or eight months ago one of the first documents I received concerned the recommendation arising from the review group. I held consultations with representatives of the various bodies concerned and with the social partners. There was not complete support for the proposals and there was concern about the next phase, the proposed setting up of an implementation group. In view of that I sought to have an independent assessment of the initial reports carried out. This was done by the former Secretary General of the Department, Mr. Kevin Bonner, who also carried out consultations with the bodies involved and made some changes to the initial recommendations.

At this stage, they command a considerable level of support. The initial reason for establishing the review group was the strong belief that considerable difficulty is experienced by people who have to access the system due to the fact that there are seven bodies and 25 pieces of legislation. Complications arise from that position, including cost factors.

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

One of the bodies charged with implementing the legislation is the Employment Appeals Tribunal. I have received correspondence from the chairman of that tribunal, Ms Kate T. O'Mahony, stating: "The proposed change, if implemented, would have far reaching effects, would downgrade the rights of dismissed employees, and relegate Ireland to the lower echelons among the European member states in terms of its protection of its employment rights." How does the Minister of State reconcile those comments from the chairman of the Employment Appeals Tribunal with what he is proposing to do?

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am aware of the concerns expressed by Deputy Hogan and I am also aware that there are many divergent views on this matter. Nevertheless, the overarching concern of Government must be to ensure that the system is fair and accessible to everybody at reasonable cost. The proposals arising from the review by Mr. Bonner are considerably more acceptable to many of the bodies than had been the case with the original proposals.

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Some time ago there was a recommendation to abolish the Employment Appeals Tribunal and deal directly with such cases through a rights commissioner at the Labour Court. Does the Minister of State agree, however, that a one-stop-shop mechanism might be more appropriate to deal with all these issues, rather than the half-way house recommended in Mr. Bonner's report? If the Minister of State is so concerned about rationalisation of the Act and the procedure, why is he retaining all the various existing layers, including the rights commissioner, the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the Labour Court?

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are two elements to the proposal, one of which is consolidation of the legislation. It is an important job, which, I understand, will take 18 months to two years. It is worth doing in any event. The original proposal was for the amalgamation of the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the Labour Court, but it did not find a lot of favour. Following Mr. Bonner's review, it was felt that a more appropriate mechanism would be to refer cases in the first instance to a rights commissioner and, subsequently, on appeal, to the Employment Appeals Tribunal, as appropriate. That system serves the function of which Deputy Hogan extols the value, effectively providing a one-stop-shop for the person initiating a claim. It brings considerably more clarity to the entire system.