asked the Minister for Justice if the terms of section 29 of the Juries Act, 1976, have been forwarded by his Department to all employers affected.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Juries Act.
11.
The answer is "No". The section mentioned, which provides that an employer may not withhold payment from an employee in respect of a period of absence on jury service, potentially affects all employees as well as employers, now and in the future, and it would be quite impracticable for my Department to undertake to forward the terms of the section to each of them.
The Minister said the answer to the question is "no". Surely the answer should be "yes". What is the real difficulty in relation to this request?
The question is as to whether the terms of section 29 have been forwarded by my Department to all employers affected. I said that could not be done because service of an employee potentially affects all employees as well as all employers, now and in the future, and it is quite impracticable for my Department to undertake to forward the terms of the section to each of them. There is the further reason that everyone is presumed to know the law, and this section of the law is well-known by reason of the debate which took place. This aspect of it got a lot of publicity at the time.
Surely in the circumstances the employers, while presumed to know the law, do not necessarily know it. In those circumstances their employees may become the victims of their lack of knowledge in relation to this requirement. Could the Minister say whether the publication of notices at Garda stations and other places of public attendance might take care of the problem? It is an extremely important matter. I know the Minister is aware of that.
It is an important matter but the point of the question was could I notify employers concerned. I am saying it would not be practicable to do that. I will check if the instructions sent out to people who are summoned for jury service contain any reference to this matter and if they do not I will include it in them, but speaking from recollection I think they do. That means that the attention of jurors will be drawn to it and if they are employees they could in turn inform their employers of their obligation.