Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour) | Oireachtas source

We have had a very interesting and informative debate on what can sometimes be quite a complex area. This is not about changing anyone's rights or entitlements. It is about ensuring we have a streamlined system. It in no way impacts on the suite of employment legislation that we have or on any of the hard-won rights garnered through that process over the years in this sphere or the equality sphere. I hope I have made this clear in my earlier contribution. I appreciate that Senator Bacik understands and accepts this. She has a particular interest in this area.

I am looking forward to working with Members of the Seanad on Committee Stage. We can have a very good engagement then. In my initial remarks, I made it clear what amendments we will be suggesting and moving in the House. It is not in anyone's interest to take the scenic route around this. This legislation is a priority. A significant amount of work has been done at official level in the Department and in the LRC and the Labour Court, which are some of the institutions that will migrate to the new workplace relations commission. I sincerely thank the Members for their very helpful and well informed comments and observations on this legislation. Before I do my best to respond to individual remarks made earlier on in the proceedings, I will take the opportunity to revisit the purpose of the Bill, because we should restate it.

The primary purpose of the Bill is to give legislative effect to root and branch reforms which are currently being implemented in the State's existing workplace relations structures. These structures have, by and large, served us well, but there are issues with them. Promoting and supporting harmonious relationships in the workplace is a very important element in achieving lasting economic growth and creating and sustaining jobs. Senator White referred to this. Our continued economic recovery very much depends on having robust institutions that everyone can trust and in which everyone can have confidence. To support this objective, we must have efficient, robust and efficacious mechanisms that citizens depend on and that economic growth and success also depend on. Where disputes arise, the parties must be encouraged to resolve them, in the first instance, as informally as possible. Where this is not possible, State intervention is often necessary to ensure we can resolve issues which can threaten industrial peace, erode people's working conditions and pay and have a negative effect on the economy and our reputation.

The Government and I remain committed to a fundamental reform of the workplace relations framework and structures. We want to deliver a world-class workplace relations service, providing what I have referred to as an integrated industrial relations adjudication and enforcement service which, critically, is simple to use, independent, effective, impartial and cost-effective and provides for workable means of redress and enforcement within a reasonable period of time.

It is worth saying that the decisions we will make on this legislation will probably outlive all of us. We want these particular provisions to be in place for a long time. We need to be mindful of this when we are legislating for something so important. We need to design it to the highest possible standards, and I think we have managed to achieve this. The resources we have will be put to their optimum use. We will maximise our use of them. We want them to be efficient and we want the process to be less complicated than is the case at the moment. Senator Naughton spoke very eloquently of the problems that users - whether trade union officials, lawyers, employer representatives or individual complainants themselves - have in navigating what is a very complex system. I know that Senator Craughwell and others have had experience of this over the years. We are trying to turn this into a first-class system which is effective and responsive. We have made considerable progress on this. We want it to benefit everyone in our society. We want to have an effective system that people can trust, that works from day one and that prevents the type of forum shopping that has characterised the system to date. Through the fault of no one, the system developed in a very organic way over decades and is imperfect. We have acknowledged this in terms of our commitment to legislate and to develop a better system. I wish to recognise the work of the previous Government in kicking off this process.

I will turn, if I may, to a number of the individual points made. I do not intend to respond to all of them. We can have a more detailed discussion on Committee Stage and I look forward to that. I will deal with the speakers in chronological order. Senator O'Brien referred to the fees to access the workplace relations commission in section 72. As a citizen, apart from anything else, I believe it is important that we ensure all citizens feel they can use this service and system. It is for them. It is to promote harmonious industrial relations and harmonious relations between employers and employees. The fees issue is an important one. However, I make no apologies for our proposal in legislating for this. Where an appeal is made to the court and someone has not shown up to the original hearing, then the €300 fee will be applied. I do not think anyone will have a difficulty with this in principle.

Senator O'Brien made some important remarks on providing an opportunity for deferred pensioners, for example, to have their voice heard with regard to their pension situation. This is a very current debate and I made reference to this on Report Stage when considering this legislation in the Dáil. It is something we need to return to, as a Parliament, over the next period of time. I know that there are discussions ongoing within the system at the moment as to how we can best meet the requirements of that cohort of people who feel they do not have a voice in terms of what happens to their pension. Often, it is a very difficult situation. I speak specifically with respect to deferred pensioners.

Senator Craughwell referenced issues to do with representation of trade unions at mediation. The current practice of mediators in the Equality Tribunal does not restrict who can accompany a party at mediation. I contend, to be frank, that there is no need to make specific provision for this at this point. The practice of the Equality Tribunal will be continued. This is an important point to make. Senator Craughwell also referred to remarks I made about the vexatious or frivolous nature of some cases. This is a legal term; it is not a pejorative term. Of course, a decision by an adjudicator that a case is frivolous or vexatious can be appealed to the Labour Court. Senator Craughwell also spoke about - he might correct me if I am wrong - the potentially never-ending process of appeals which can often take place. It is my understanding of this legislation that decisions can be appealed to the Labour Court, but ultimately this is the final appellate court as such. The only means of further appeal is to appeal to the High Court, and this is on a legal point alone. I hope this addresses the issue raised by the Senator.

I appreciate the general remarks of Senator Naughton. She referred to forum shopping and the complexity of the institutional arrangements that we have at the moment. As I stated earlier, they tend to confuse even the most experienced of trade union officials sometimes, particularly when parallel cases are ongoing and it is often not very clear which forum might best resolve an issue.

The Senator also questioned whether hearings should be in public or in private.

The Bill provides that hearings, in the first instance, would be held in private and appeals to the Labour Court would be held in public except in exceptional circumstances, and I outlined those circumstances earlier. Only in the context of the Employment Appeals Tribunal are hearings held in public, and for good reason. That has been the case for a long period. There has not been any demand from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions or from IBEC for public hearings at the first instance. We held an extensive consultation period around these institutional reforms with the key stakeholders - to the best of my recollection, two consultation processes - and did not detect any demand for hearings to be held in public at the first instance. The holding of appeals in public meets the State's requirements in terms of the administration of justice in public and our obligations under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Senator Ivana Bacik has a very clear view in regard to the title of the institution and I have some sympathy for her in that regard. It is an issue we will have to discuss again in the next period of time. The proposal has a degree of merit and I understand and appreciate that. It is possible that the Senator is right. Perhaps the WRC description does not necessarily capture the full reach of the institution but I can assure her that in terms of its emphasis and the work it will undertake, there will be very much a focus on the equality agenda and ensuring that equality is respected and that we uphold the strong and robust anti-discrimination and equality laws, hard won achievements that we are not prepared to dilute in any way. In terms of adjudicators, I expect that everybody will be trained to a very high standard in the National College of Ireland and there will be an emphasis on the equality side. I will insist on that and it is very important.

The Senator referred to Schultz-Hoff. Recently we have had some engagement with the social partners about how to best address those requirements under the Schultz-Hoff case. We are doing that to address the requirements to the satisfaction of the social partners. I went into more detail on that issue on Report Stage in the Dáil but it is an issue we can discuss on Committee Stage. I think all the stakeholders are satisfied that we will legislate for this and fulfil our obligations in terms of amendments to the Organisation of Working Time Act as it arises in terms of the Schultz-Hoff ruling.

I am glad the Senator raised zero hour, low hour contracts because that is an area of interest for me and many others in society. What we do not want is a economic recovery, which we are undoubtedly having, that is characterised by a race to the bottom. That is in nobody's interest. We have certain protections here that are not in place in the UK in terms of how we apply the Organisation of Working Time Act and other important legislation supporting people who are working in vulnerable situations and ensuring they are not exploited. As the House will be aware, I have commissioned a major study on the extent and prevalence of zero and low hour contracts and expect to have a report in the next few months. I have asked the group undertaking this research for the Government to make recommendations on legislation that may need to be amended or regulations that may need to be changed to ensure we do not have a race to the bottom. We always support and encourage good, strong and sustainable employment. Sometimes low hour contracts suit people in certain circumstances but under no circumstances should they become the norm. All of those issues will be addressed in the next period of time. This is the first piece of research the State has undertaken on zero and low hour contracts. That has been a deficiency in the past. There are 32,000 zero hour contracts in Northern Ireland. We are aware of this from significant research undertaken by the CIPD in the UK and Northern Ireland. That is very valuable because it informs public policy making and I want to have the evidence before I and my Cabinet colleagues make any decisions on what to do to protect the vulnerable and those who are working on zero and low hour contracts. We have got much anecdotal information through our constituency clinics, our own experiences and our own networks about the prevalence of such contracts, but we will address that issue in time.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Senator Bacik referred to the consolidation of employment rights legislation. That is something that has been on the radar of successive Governments. The logic of developing a new institutional framework would follow on to a situation where we would, in time, have a complete consolidation of the myriad pieces of employment rights legislation that can often be confusing and complex. It is critical that citizens understand their rights and entitlements and that employers understand their responsibilities and obligations. It is certainly on the agenda. It is an enormous task and a huge piece of work and is something the system will respond to in time. If the Senator is asking if this will be done this week or next week, I can categorically say "No". I have addressed the fees issue which the Senator raised.

Senator David Norris raised the issue of increasing fines for employers who are not compliant with the National Minimum Wage Act. I implore the Senator to work with us on the establishment of the low pay commission and support our efforts to have that whole area reviewed before we start talking about the issues of fines and so on. We are setting up the low pay commission, a very important public policy initiative and something which will be an important innovation on the landscape. We will be progressing that in the near future and expect to have the first meeting of the new low pay commission in a matter of weeks.

Senator Jillian van Turnhout reflected on the new institutional framework from an SME perspective. As employees and workers often find it confusing and challenging to navigate the existing system, similarly SMEs who are constantly struggling for survival often cannot afford the expert advice needed to navigate these structures. I see this system as working for the benefit of business and workers. We want it to be citizen friendly and we do not want a situation where, in the first instance, people are expected to walk into a process with an army of experts, lawyers, barristers or experienced trade union officials. I can assure those who raised this issue that I have personally spoken in recent days to some trade unions who are concerned about some elements of the package. They have worked well with my Department as has IBEC and other interests on this potentially transformational set of reforms. Where there are concerns, the Government and I have an open mind and will work to address those as best we can. Of course, we may not accept everything that is proposed, but we certainly have an open mind.

I thank Senators for their contributions and look forward to working with them to ensure this necessary legislation is enacted as soon as possible to enable the workplace relations commission to do the job we have asked it to and a job that our economy and society needs it to do.