Gerard Craughwell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will not need five minutes. This is my first time to address the Minister of State, Deputy Nash, in the House. I am delighted to meet him.

As a trade unionist, I welcome the Bill. Anything that would streamline the process for employees who find themselves in difficulty with their employers has got to be welcomed. With the Irish Congress of Trade Unions I have a number of areas I would like the Minister of State to consider. While I will not go into them in detail today I would like him to examine section 42(11) and allow for trade union representation at mediation. I realise there is almost a contradiction in that request, as when one talks about mediation it is usually one on one. Sometimes an employee would need someone there to support him or her, not necessarily as an advocate, when facing a very strong employer.

I will have more to say on section 43 on Committee Stage. I would have serious difficulty, as would the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, with the notion that an adjudication officer could dismiss a claim based on the fact that it might be vexatious or frivolous. The application of such a criterion would operate to undermine the ability of unions to have individual cases heard that are referred under the Industrial Relations Act. The unintended consequence is likely to be an increase in the collective action as a vital dispute resolution avenue to be removed. Other complications might arise in the context of the requirement to exhaust all procedures. Congress is therefore seeking an amendment to clarify the referrals of individual disputes under the Industrial Relations Act and that they cannot be refused on the basis that they may be vexatious or frivolous.

In terms of section 72, I understand the need to penalise somebody for failing to turn up without good reason. However, there is sufficiently strong evidence in the UK that shows where a fee of any sort is introduced, it prices justice out of the hands of workers so I will table an amendment to this section.

I wish to raise another issue of concern. I have been involved for a number of years in bringing cases to the Labour Court through the Rights Commissioner Service and various other tribunals. Therefore, I am aware of the propensity of employers to arrive, armed with HR experts, members of organisations such as IBEC and legal reputation, to contest a case against a single employee, which makes it a harrowing experience for the latter. It was my understanding that this Bill would simplify and reduce the onerous task of bringing an employment related issue before any of the agencies that are being amalgamated into the new group. From that point of view, I hope the legislation would state that if an employee is coming on his or her own unrepresented, then the employer should surely come on his or her own unrepresented.

I wish to make another comment on this area. Typically, I have been involved in cases that were funded by the State or by State agencies where entire teams of legal representatives attended and where cases were lost but appealed all along the way. One goes through an adjudication and when one wins, the employer says, "No, I am not going to have that". Then one goes to what used to be called the Rights Commissioner Service which makes an award. One wins the case and is awarded compensation, but the employer again says, "No, I am not going to have that". Next the case goes to the Labour Court, there is the same outcome and again the employer says, "No, I am not going to have that" so one finishes up going to the courts. Clearly, such behaviour by an employer must qualify as frivolous and vexatious. I do not want to take away the right of somebody to appeal - by all means, an appeals mechanism must be available to all of us - but if an employer appeals all the way through the system and loses at each stage, then something must be terribly wrong with the system.

I welcome the Bill which is a fantastic piece of work. I have some technical issues with it and I will bring forward a few amendments to sections 42, 43 and 72. I will leave it at that and thank the Minister of State for his time.