Fiona O'Loughlin (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State is welcome to the House. The Bill is important and urgent, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court of April last regarding the Zalewski case. It is important that when a constitutional question mark is placed over the State's system for resolving workplace disputes, it has to be resolved.

The Bill will give clarity to our legal system for dealing with workplace disputes. Above all in law, we need clarity and consistency, as well as transparency. The remedies provided for in the Bill relate to the necessity to ensure that administration of justice is capable of being conducted in public, which is very important. This requirement to administer justice in public addresses the transparency issue but will also have an impact on other legislation. We need a constitutionally robust and fair procedure, and the Supreme Court found that the current provision was lacking in fairness. Accordingly, while we have to reflect, respect and protect workers' rights, it is important that there be a provision, which has been included as a remedy, to ensure an employer's right to be notified and heard. That is the key element of this legislation.

As a party, we will support the Bill to ensure that the proceedings or the investigations before the adjudication officers of the Workplace Relations Commission will comply with the constitutional requirements associated with the administration of justice, and that hearings before adjudication officers can resume in full. There is an urgent necessity to address certain matters, as was highlighted in the Supreme Court decision in April. The Bill adheres strictly to the areas expressly identified by the Supreme Court in that we are falling short of the proper administration of permissible justice.

At the moment, all matters before the adjudication service are held entirely in private, and this has been found to be inconsistent with what is known as the administration of justice. While the Supreme Court did not suggest that everything and anything must be done in public, some consideration must be given to those matters. The second issue, namely, that adjudication cannot continue or be effectively concluded until this provision has been introduced in law, stemmed from the fact that the Supreme Court was critical of the lack of provision in the statutory framework for the adjudication service, which provides for the administration of an oath or affirmation and an associated penalty who may wilfully give false evidence or mislead an adjudication officer.