Emer Currie (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I support the Bill. It includes necessary procedural amendments to ensure the WRC adjudication service will continue in its role to protect the rights of employees and employers. I commend the Minister of State on his swiftness in dealing with the matter and the cross-party support it has garnered.

The Bill amends the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 in response to the judgment of the Supreme Court. We have extensive employment and equality rights. It is essential that the WRC functions in line with the Constitution and that its work is not compromised.

On 6 April 2021, the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Zalewski v.An Adjudication Officer, WRC and Others, upheld the constitutional validity of the WRC and ruled that the WRC process was a constitutional administration of justice in the State within the meaning of article 37 of the Constitution, but declared that certain aspects of the WRC procedures under the Workplace Relations Act 2015 were incompatible with the Constitution. While the WRC was ruled as being constitutionally valid, certain aspects of its procedures were not. That is being rectified through the Bill.

The implications of the decision mean that the holding of all hearings in private, as provided under section 41(13), is not an acceptable feature of the administration of justice. Hearings must now be held in public except in certain circumstances. Up until the decision was taken, all hearings were conducted in private, no evidence was given under oath and names were usually anonymised. Second, the decision means that the absence of the provision for the administration of an oath, or any possibility of punishment for giving false evidence, is also inconsistent with the Constitution. The adjudication officer should be able to require that certain evidence must be given on oath.These amendments seek to bring the Workplace Relations Commission in line with the administration of justice permissible under the Constitution. Proceedings were far less formal than they will be now. While the pros and cons of this have been discussed to a certain degree and, I imagine, will be discussed more today, overall I believe the change is positive. The integrity of the judicial process is the most important factor. Organisations mindful of corporate reputations will be sensitive to having dirty laundry aired in public and being open to scrutiny by media. Employees will be wary of their professional reputations. It might set a standard for cases that go to the level of adjudication. We might see an increase in mediation and that could be positive, although both parties have to agree to mediation. Some of the articles I have read said that resources will have to be monitored by the WRC in that regard.

There will always be employees who are wary about escalating workplace relations cases. I have seen myself how they do not want publicity or attention. They do not want compensation. They simply want issues to be resolved. We will have to ensure we have space for them and that we respond to their needs.

The change in respect of oaths can only bring more integrity to the process. Again, that is a positive move.

In general, we need to bring the work of the WRC in line with the Constitution as part of the judicial process. I support the Bill and I look forward to hearing the views of my colleagues.