Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and I also welcome the Bill. Everyone has given it a general welcome. All Senators agree that there is a need to consolidate the current set of procedures to deal with employment rights, workplace relations and so forth. As has been acknowledged, these issues developed in a piecemeal fashion over several years and, therefore, are unduly complex with anomalies, etc. Other Senators have addressed this point, as has the Minister of State.

Senator Kelly is normally the Labour Party spokesperson on this issue. I am grateful to him for allowing me to take his place this evening as I was keen to say a few words on the Bill. I have an interest in employment law and studied, taught and did some practice in this area some years ago. I am also grateful to my colleagues in the Employment Law Association of Ireland, ELAI, for its assistance. I know it has been in contact with the Minister of State and the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation about the Bill and during its passage through the Dáil. Like the association, in general, I welcome the Bill.

As the Minister of State has said, it is important to note that Government amendments will be made on Committee Stage, which is welcome. I know some of the amendments that were accepted in the Dáil came from Opposition Deputies. I am really glad that we have all been able to work constructively on this legislation.

In a general context, I welcome the Government's commitment to collective bargaining legislation and the Minister of State's work on a low pay commission. I see this Bill as part of a package of measures that deal with industrial relations reform.

I have a number of issues with the Bill. First, I am concerned about the Title of the Bill and the title of the new commission. The latter is to be called the workplace relations commission as it is intended to amalgamate the industrial relations functions of the Labour Relations Commission, the equality functions of the Equality Tribunal and equality officers, and employment rights functions under the remit of the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the Rights Commissioner Service. We have seen a distinct set of specialties develop among these areas.

I have a couple of issues with this area but I will deal first with the title issue. I am slightly concerned that the title "workplace relations commission" does not comprehensively capture the different specialties and areas that will be covered. I have spoken to the Minister of State about including the word "equality" in the title. However, I am conscious the acronym for workplace relations and equality commission would not be so good, but what about calling it the labour relations and equality commission? It may be too late to change the title but I have put forward my preferred title. The term "workplace relations" is a move away from the old language we have always used in industrial relations and labour relations. Can we return to the old way? The title is less of a substantive point.

I wish to make a more substantive point about building up the existing specialties and expertise among the new panel of adjudicators to be appointed. I very much welcome, as everyone else does, that persons with existing expertise in these areas will continue to work as adjudicators. As the Minister of State did in his speech, I pay tribute to the great work that has been done.

Section 41 deals with additional adjudicators. Some of them have already been recruited through the Public Appointments Service. The Minister of State has said the adjudicators must have expertise. I agree that is important particularly as the success of the legislation depends on the ability of the individuals involved. He has said, and it has been said to the ELAI, that 70 days of training will be provided by the National College of Ireland. I am concerned that the training covers the three specialties of employment rights, equality rights and industrial relations expertise. Is there a sense that there will be specialisation among adjudicators? Will there be three groups of adjudicators? If so, will the new adjudicators also be broken down into the three areas? Should section 41 also include a requirement for specific expertise? Is a requirement needed in statutory form?

I will return to the issue of equality, but I am glad that the Minister of State has clarified that there will be no dilution of the existing laws on equality and discrimination. There is an issue in terms of venues and equality legislation. Cases involving gender discrimination still have a different choice of venue and may go to the Circuit Court, specifically gender discrimination, while other forms of discrimination do not. We may be required to keep that extra option for gender discrimination due to EU concerns. Can the issue be explored given the spirit in which the Bill is moving towards consolidation generally?

In terms of the public-private venue issue, I am glad that the Minister of State will bring forward an amendment, under section 45, to give the Labour Court the power to hear exceptional cases in private. That is something that has been sought.

As the Minister of State said, section 87 makes provision for an amendment to the Organisation of Working Time Act which will take account of the rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union in terms of sick leave. I know ICTU also shared that concern. Given that we are amending the Act, can we address an issue that is close to the Minister of State's heart? I refer to low hours contracts which has been remarked upon in case law by the Employment Appeals Tribunal in the UK. Let me give the example of an employee who has a contract to work eight hours per week but, on a regular basis, is asked to work a further ten or 15 hours. That means his or her working hours could be as much as 20 or 25 hours per week but the overtime is not counted for other purposes such as employment rights and annual leave. Anecdotally, the Labour Court's recommendations have been favourable to employees found to be in that situation. Should we seek to put that in statutory form? I refer to cases where regular hours are worked that are in fact part of the employee's ongoing contract of employment. Can the hours worked be taken into account when calculating leave entitlements, etc.? As I said, this has been a specific issue in Britain where there is now case law available.

In terms of the package of measures regarding labour relations reform, is there a timeframe to consolidate employment legislation, as referred to by Senator Naughton, that rationalises all the different issues? The legislation could provide that the same powers would exist.

For example, we need to ensure that the same powers exist in an unfair dismissal case or an equality or discrimination claim in order that workplace relations commission, WRC, adjudicators would have powers to compel disclosure. The concern is that if the Labour Court preserves powers to it that are more extensive than those of the WRC adjudicators, the adjudicators would be seen almost as a necessary hurdle to get over before one goes to the Labour Court. That would have all the necessary adverse effects that we are trying to counter with the legislation whereby everyone will end up going on to the Labour Court in any case.

I am conscious that other colleagues have spoken about the suggested amendments put forward by ICTU and the INMO, to whom I am grateful, but I want to comment on the section 72 fees issue. I was glad to hear the Minister of State say he intends to limit fees to the specific instance where there is non-attendance and then an appeal, but will section 72 be amended to reflect that because currently it appears to provide a wider power to a Minister to impose fees?

There is another concern under section 42 that there would be a facility for representation by a union official at mediation as well as at the adjudication stage, and I know amendments have been tabled already to sections 42 and 43. I am sure we will discuss those further on Committee Stage. I look forward to that, and I welcome the Bill.