David Cullinane (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Does the Minister believe that existing legislation sufficiently protects workers from exploitation or victimisation? He would not find a single trade union representative anywhere in the world who would agree with him after reading the legislation.There is a weight of evidence from those who take cases, from the volume of cases and from the nature of cases to a number of high profile situations where workers were clearly victimised. I gave the example of where workers are not allowed to wear their trade union pins on their collars. We could give a number of examples without having to name names. If the Minister wants me to, I can send him as much information as he needs, but he does not need it. I assume he knows there are many cases where employers victimised their employees because they took a case.

The Minister is missing the point entirely or is being disingenuous by saying this is not a consolidation Bill. We are not saying it is one, nor is this amendment designed to do that. The Minister is bringing forward legislation which streamlines five existing employment rights bodies into one workplace relations commission to make it more effective for people to take a complaint. I accept that and fully understand what this legislation is designed to do. However, none of it is worth anything if a person who takes a case is then victimised and potentially sacked from his or her job for doing so.

The Minister cannot sit there with any sincerity and point to parent law or other legislation which he says protects workers. It does not work. We do not have enough protections or law in terms of compliance and enforcement. That is the big problem in the first instance, that is, compliance and enforcement of existing labour law. We certainly do not have anything like strong and robust anti-victimisation protections for workers.

The Minister mentioned the fact there is no penalty attached. We purposely did not insert any penalty because we wanted the Minister to accept that this issue needs to be dealt with. If he cannot do it in this legislation and with this amendment, could he answer the following question? Does he believe existing legislation and protections are in place? If so, are they robust enough to protect workers against the victimisation? I do not believe it nor will one find any trade union leader who does. If the Minister agrees with that, then the logic is that we must deal with it somewhere else. Where is that somewhere else? What is the Minister going to do about it? It is his responsibility to ensure workers are not victimised because they take a case.

This is about setting up a new structure which allows people to take a case where there is conflict in the workplace but it can only be effective if there is proper compliance and enforcement and if a worker who takes a case is not victimised. This goes to the heart of this Bill in terms of what it is designed to do. Will the Minister reflect on that? If he is able to answer those questions and if he believes, as I and all those trade union activists, officials and people who work in the sector do, that the laws are not robust enough at this point in time, what will he do about it and when will he address this issue if he is not minded to accept this amendment?