Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The first thing to point out is that an employer is obliged under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 to inform an employee of the legal name and address of the employer. This is provided for in law. Turning to the individual amendments, on the first one about ordinary residence, the advice I have received is that it is not appropriate or necessary as the issue of the address at which an employer or respondent is deemed ordinarily resident is dealt with comprehensively in the Bill by means of a standard provision in legislation which has stood the test of time. In respect of amendment No. 15, the Senators' proposed new subsection (3) refers to matters that are currently already provided for in sections 3 and 18 of the Registration of Business Names Act 1963 and is therefore unnecessary. This is the offence section.

In respect of amendment No. 16, I am advised that for reasons of legal certainty it would not be possible to accept the proposed amendment. To do so would be to attempt to provide that a document may be served on an entity that does not legally exist. A court or a tribunal cannot make a determination or an award against an entity that does not legally exist. Any attempt to do so would be thrown out of court and would be a waste of the court's time and any taxpayers' money expended pursuing the case on such a basis. Any determination made on the basis suggested in the amendment would be unenforceable. There is a very strong alternative legal view available to us than the one provided by the company referred to earlier. The fundamental point is that an employer has an obligation to provide the necessary name and address to the employee. Therefore I cannot accept the amendments.