Frank Crowley
Question:16 Mr. Crowley asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment his views on the need to reform the Employment Appeals Tribunal; and if he has any plans to achieve such a reform.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Employment Appeals Tribunal.
Mary Flaherty
Question:63 Miss Flaherty asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment his views on the need to reform the Employment Appeals Tribunal; and if he has any plans to achieve such a reform.
Alan Shatter
Question:71 Mr. Shatter asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment his views on the need to reform the Employment Appeals Tribunal; and if he has any plans to achieve such a reform.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 16, 63 and 71 together.
Since its establishment under the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, the jurisdiction of the Redundancy Appeals Tribunal, known since 1977 as the Employment Appeals Tribunal, has been widened over the years to cater for the coming on stream of the various measures of new legislation. The tribunal now adjudicates in disputes arising under the following Acts: Redundancy Payments, since 1967; Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment, since 1973; Unfair Dismissals, since 1977; Maternity Protection of Employees, since 1981; Protection of Employees (Employers Insolvency), since 1984; Worker Protection (Regular Part-Time Employees, since 1991, and Payment of Wages, since 1992.
However, concerns have been expressed by interested parties regarding the tribunal in respect of perceived excessive legalism in hearings and undue delays in obtaining such hearings. I have had discussions with IBEC, ICTU and the chairman of the tribunal with a view to responding and resolving the concerns raised.
Does the Minister hope to bring forward substantial proposals for reform in the near future?
We are not talking about the structures of the Employment Appeals Tribunal, as these are very satisfactory, but the operation of it. Complaints have centred on two matters. First, there is the perceived legalism, the undue reliance on legal representation. This was allowed for under the Act but it was not envisaged that it would be used on such a wide scale and that people should think that if they have not legal representation they will somehow be at a disadvantage. I am very anxious to dispel these perceptions because they are not in keeping with the spirit of the Employment Appeals Tribunal. The second matter was the delay in hearings. I have met all the parties involved and the chairman will report to me with ideas on how these shortcomings can be resolved.
I accept that the Employment Appeals Tribunal was set up to provide for an informal speedy means of settling disputes. However, it will be extremely difficult to turn back the tide of legalism as people want legal representation on issues that are of major concern to them? I understand the Minister believes the procedures rather than the structures need to be reformed. As the Employment Appeals Tribunal now consists of a chairman, and 11 or more vice chairmen each of whom appoints two assessors, all employed on a part-time basis, is it time to consider employing permanent personnel in order to maintain the consistency and standards people have come to expect from it?
The concerns the Deputy has articulated have been among those expressed to me by bodies availing of the tribunal. I have had meetings with IBEC, ICTU and the chairman of the tribunal, who proposes to report to me with his ideas. It is proposed that all the bodies connected with the tribunal will come together in early September in an effort to resolve the difficulties.
Does the Minister agree that the ideal place to bring forward proposals for these reforms is during the debate on the Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Bill, which is before the House? Would she consider, even at this stage, taking on board amendments that would provide for the improvements she is talking about? I invite her to outline her well considered opinions — which I had the privilege of hearing on a previous occasion — on the fact that the Employment Appeals Tribunal is now the preserve, almost exclusively, of lawyers. I had the privilege of representing a constituent yesterday——
So I heard.
——and was opposed by an eminent senior counsel and solicitor for four and a half hours. The case will resume on 4 October 1993.
I hope the Deputy will get the same fees.
I have no financial interest in the matter. Can the Minister do anything because the tribunal has taken on a life of its own which was not envisaged at the time of the enactment of the legislation? I am not trying to impoverish Deputy McDowell's colleagues.
I am sure the Deputy is not — this is far from his mind. The Deputy asked whether the Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Bill, which we will deal with today is the vehicle to reform the Employment Appeals Tribunal. I have started the process of talking with the constituent bodies of the Employment Appeals Tribunal and I would prefer to continue on that path. I hope to reach fruitful conclusions.
During the Second Stage debate on the Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Bill I expressed my unhappiness both here and in the Seanad at the ever-increasing use of legal advocates by employers and employees at the Employment Appeals Tribunal. While the original legislation in 1977 allowed for such representation it was never envisaged that it would be used with ever-increasing frequency. The spirit of that legislation was that complaints could be heard in an informal but correct atmosphere. As the Deputy said, that has practically stopped and there is a growing perception that unless one is represented by the legal profession — and this costs a great deal — one will not get one's due redress. This was not the spirit of the Act. I am trying to resolve this, but I am not clear on how to achieve this. I intend to continue the talks with all of the bodies and I hope we will reach a fruitful conclusion.
Is the Minister satisfied with the level of resources committed to the Employment Appeals Tribunal in view of the fact that on the very infrequent occasions I have been before it, I had the same experience as Deputy Rabbitte and been told that the next sitting will be several months away. Is it any surprise that an employee will think that he is better off if he has legal representation when he is told that the second part of his case will be heard in five months time? That seems to be an outrageous way to treat people.
Obviously, the question of resources is always under review in various Government Departments. It has been put to me — I hope the Deputy will not take my comments as being applicable to his good self — that the cases that are adjourned for a period of two or three months are very frequently cases where the persons have had legal representation.
Will the Minister accept that the work might be speeded up immensely if instead of calling witnesses at great length both sides exchanged a document in which they stated their case?
In my original response to Deputy Flaherty I said that the operational systems are all under review.
The form tells you nothing about the matter?
The ever-increasing use of legal advocates at the tribunal will come under that review.