Hildegarde Naughton (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. A ramshackle maze of laws and procedures built up over decades in a totally ad hoc, spin the bottle and pick one's procedure manner is one legal practitioner's description of the practice of employment law in this jurisdiction. In answer to that, the Bill is the most comprehensive and innovative reform since the introduction of equality legislation by the former Labour Party Minister, Mervyn Taylor. It is welcome because when enacted it will obviate the necessity for a complainant to have to navigate multiple complaint mechanisms.

One of the principal attractions of the legislation is the reduction in forum shopping. As the Minister previously said, if a Minister and civil servants had a blank sheet and were sitting down today to design an employment disputes resolution mechanism we would be in a very different place. No one would have constructed the overly elaborate, expensive, time consuming and overly litigious system we have. I do not say that as an attack on previous Governments. The system was built up organically over the years as different priorities came to the fore. The nature of EU employment has also changed and the system tried to adapt.

The current system has been of enormous service to the State and has made a huge contribution in terms of fostering equality and advancing employment rights and industrial relations. That, however, is not an excuse to let matters stay as they are. We must constantly review every mechanism of State to ensure that it is fit for purpose. The problems in this area are manifest. There are myriad methods by which cases can be processed. A single set of circumstances can give rise to a number of claims which must be processed through different avenues of redress. There are approximately 30 different forums involved and an overlap of functions between the bodies, resulting in forum shopping. Claims are often referred to the wrong forum or under the wrong legislation. A wide range of different practices, procedures and often inconsistent time limits apply in the various fora. There are different appeal avenues for elements of the same case involving the same employee. There is an absence in many instances of any intervention whether mediation, arbitration or simple case progression, which if in place would make the process much more effective. The systems have become overly legalistic with many employers and employees incurring legal costs and delays that are excessive. There is also a lack of consistent procedure for enforcement of decisions of the various employment rights.

On this Bill’s enactment, four workplace relations bodies, namely, the Labour Relations Commission, including the Rights Commissioner Service, the National Employment Rights Authority, the Equality Tribunal and the Employment Appeals Tribunal will be abolished and their functions will be subsumed into two bodies, a new workplace relations commission, WRC, and a Labour Court with expanded powers. The current system is a mishmash of various bodies, locations and procedures. It was ripe for reform and the Minister is to be commended for grasping the nettle. The intention is that the new streamlined process will reduce costs, increase efficiencies and simplify the process. The Bill will also give powers to workplace inspectors and introduce two new services to assist employers and employees to resolve and settle disputes themselves without third party intervention, which is vital.

Among the amalgamated functions of the two new bodies, one very important aspect is that the WRC will be tasked with deciding or facilitating the resolution of all employment disputes in the first instance, obviating the need to take multiple claims to multiple bodies. Strides should be taken to have claims of any sort decided informally though impartially.

A series of articles appeared in The Irish Timesrecently about the cost of family law proceedings, in particular divorce, in this jurisdiction. The costs involved in such actions or any legal action are enormous. Additional to that, the insurance industry has voiced serious concern about the mounting cost of litigation, in particular in personal injury actions. While discussion of that specific matter is not appropriate in this context, perhaps it is something the Seanad could usefully debate in the future.

The cost of doing business in this country includes the cost of doing legal business. I am delighted in this instance that the Minister has taken particular note of that and has made strides to have matters addressed informally before the legal route is approached. Of course every citizen has a constitutional right to access the courts and such informal resolution cannot be imposed. The solution is to make such an informal resolution fair, impartial, cost effective and speedy. The legislation appears to do just that.

I would, however, make one point in relation to the practice and procedures of the new bodies. Would the Minister commit to having one common restatement of the procedure and process of claims through the various stages? The existing rules could then be repealed. This would make the process much easier to navigate for the practitioner and speed matters up. Section 42(13) would seem to allow for that. I presume the Minister intends, by regulation, to make the practice uniform.

I also have a query on section 42(9). This is at the heart of the legislation as it deals with the presentation of complaints and the referral of disputes by adjudication officers. Section 9 holds that these hearings shall be held in private. There is also provision that only the decisions shall be published and in such manner as decided by the officer but not identifying parties involved in the dispute. Perhaps the Minister could explain the reasoning behind that. It might be that a provision is warranted in cases where intimate personal details might be disclosed but otherwise it seems a backwards step.

The process is quasi judicial, with rights of appeal to higher bodies, including the High Court. Hearings should be held in public if for no other reason than to give the public confidence that it is working fairly. For years, the Refugee Appeals Tribunal sat in private, and only recently published any decision at all. It has been rightly criticised for being a secretive process and one in which little public or academic confidence resides. The Government, for this and many other reasons, is now moving to introduce new legislation in the refugee area.

Fitness to practice hearings are now held in public, with the nursing council recently joining other professional supervisory bodies in so doing. The family law courts in recent years have followed the path of openness by allowing reporting of cases while protecting the intimate family details of people appearing before it. I cannot see any reason these cases should not be held in public other than if intimate personal details were to be disclosed. I ask the Minister of State if could explain the reasoning behind the measure. I warmly welcome this legislation. It has great potential to be transformational. I urge the Minister of State to consider my comments which are made in a thoroughly constructive manner.