We have the unfair dismissals and redundancy tribunals and these have been reasonably successful. It has not happened that, irrespective of the merits of the case, in unfair dismissal cases the employer representative has consistently sided with the employer and the worker representative consistently sided with the worker, leaving the decision to the chairperson. It has worked reasonably well with both tribunals. I hope that we will get a chairperson with commonsense because, let me repeat what I said on Second Stage, I do not believe that a person from the High Court or Supreme Court with his legal experience — which is extremely limited, in fact it is non-existent as far as industrial relations are concerned — will be suitable. Anyone will tell you that a chairperson dealing with an industrial relations problem must have a completely trained outlook different from that of someone who is chairing, say, the Special Criminal Court or has a casting vote in the Supreme Court or something like that.
I oppose amendment No. 7 put down in the name of Deputy O'Keeffe. The provisions of this Bill will make it possible for the tribunal to have clear-cut evidence in all cases referred to them with very few grey areas in it. Decisions of the tribunal would not necessarily be two for the applicant and two against, lined up on the basis that the two employer representatives would vote against and the two worker representatives would vote for, irrespective of the merits of the case, and a decision taken by the chairperson. If we are to have that kind of tribunal we should forget about it now.
I would like the Minister to spell out in greater detail what he has in mind about the chairman, because that is not mentioned in the Bill. The Bill makes provision for the nomination and appointment of the other four members, but where the chairperson is to come from remains a mystery as far as the Bill is concerned.