Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Nov 2014

Vol. 857 No. 4

Workplace Relations Bill 2014: Report Stage

Acting Chairman (Deputy Olivia Mitchell)

As several amendments have been ruled out of order, I will explain why for the information of Members. Some are amendments which do not arise from Committee Stage proceedings. In order to arise from Committee Stage proceedings, an amendment must arise, for example, from actual amendments offered or as a result of undertakings given by the Minister, either to meet some points raised or to table amendments dealing with specific points. Alternatively, the amendment must arise from substantive debate on a particular subject during the course of Committee Stage proceedings. It is not sufficient for a Member merely to state that he or she intends to bring forward amendments on Report Stage.

The following amendments did not arise in Committee Stage proceedings: amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, in the names of Deputies Wallace and Tóibín, amendments Nos. 8 and 9 and 42 in the name of Deputy Wallace, and amendment No. 56 in the names of Deputies Wallace and Tóibín.

Amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, make provision for requirements of respondents or employers for the purposes of the serving of documents under the Act.

Amendments Nos. 8 and 9, in the name of Deputy Wallace, propose to require that a registrar must have a minimum level of practical experience of representing employees in employment cases. These amendments also propose to amend the definitions of "practising barrister" and "practising solicitor" for the purpose of the appointment of a registrar.

Amendment No. 42, in the name of Deputy Wallace, proposes to insert a new subsection in section 42 of the Bill to permit complaints under section 4 of the Data Protection Act 1988 in the case of a failure to provide documentation.

Amendment No. 56, in the names of Deputies Wallace and Tóibín, proposes to insert a new section to provide that premises used for the purposes of a hearing under the Act "shall be suitable for access by persons with a disability".

Amendment No. 4, in the names of Deputies Wallace and Clare Daly, and amendments Nos. 5 and 6, in the name of Deputy Calleary, propose that provisions be made within the Bill to ensure retired employees, or groups of retired employees, have access to the mechanisms for the resolution of disputes that are being restructured and established in the current Bill. The structures of the current Bill do not provide for the adjudication of retired employees' issues, as they are dealt with under separate legislation. These amendments are not relevant to the provisions of the Bill as read a Second Time. Therefore, they must be ruled out of order in accordance with Standing Order 113(1).

Deputy Dara Calleary

May I make a comment on that?

Acting Chairman (Deputy Olivia Mitchell)

It is not in order, but I will allow a brief comment.

Deputy Dara Calleary

Section 79 of this Bill amends the Pensions Act 1990, which means it is directly relevant to pensioners and deferred entitlements. I have proposed amendments Nos. 5 and 6 to instruct the commission being established under this Bill "not later than six months after establishment day [to] issue a report detailing options to introduce a mechanism". I am asking the commission to look at the rights of pensioners, retired employees and deferred pensioners. This legislation seeks "to make provision as respects the resolution, mediation and adjudication of disputes and complaints relating to contraventions of, or entitlements under, certain enactments". Surely pensions and defined benefit schemes are entitlements under any kind of working relationship. Retired employees and people on deferred schemes who paid substantial moneys into schemes on the basis that they would receive certain benefits have had those benefits pulled out from under them subsequent to them retiring from the scheme. This has happened without the people in question having any input. When we raised this matter on Committee Stage, we were informed that we could make amendments under the industrial relations (amendment) Bill, which I absolutely intend to do. Given that section 79 of this legislation amends the Pensions Act 1990, it directly involves pensions legislation. The Title of the Bill, which we will vote on here today, refers to "entitlements under, certain enactments governing the employment relationship between employers and employees". A pension is a very basic entitlement of any kind of employment.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Olivia Mitchell)

I ask Deputy Tóibín to be brief because I want to move on to the amendments that are in order.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

The direction the Chair has given us regarding why our amendments have been deemed to be out of order is not the same as the direction we received from the Chairman of the Select Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation when we considered this Bill on Committee Stage. Indeed, at the start of that debate we were directed to identify any amendments that we intended to propose on Report Stage. We did that outside of the Committee Stage debate itself. When I asked whether we should mention these matters again during the debate itself, I was told there was no need to do so. Amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, are very basic. The Employment Law Association of Ireland made a submission to the committee suggesting that many employees are having difficulty because the names of the companies or businesses for which they work are not necessarily the same as the trading names of those companies. The association pointed out that there is no requirement for those trading names to appear on the documentation of these companies. On occasions, submissions in front of the Labour Relations Commission and the Employment Appeals Tribunal have been thrown out because mistakes were made about companies' names. These amendments were tabled as part of a simple and clear effort to reduce the cost and time burden on the State apparatus and make it easier for employees.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Olivia Mitchell)

I remind the Deputy Tóibín that the amendments in question have been ruled out of order. I cannot change the rules. Notwithstanding what the Deputy might have been told, the amendments are not in order. I am sorry. I will move on.

Deputy Clare Daly

While the complaints being made by Opposition Deputies might be tiresome, there is a real legitimacy to them. Deputy Calleary was on his feet when he got the letter telling him that his amendments were ruled out of order. We all got the same letter. As Deputy Wallace was the representative of the Technical Group on Committee Stage, some of the amendments that were tabled in his name belonged to other people, including me. Deputy Tóibín has accurately observed that at the start of the Committee Stage debate, people flagged the idea that certain amendments would be tabled on Report Stage and the Chairman of the committee said that was completely in order. As we got to our feet this morning, we were told that the amendments are not in order. It is simply not an acceptable method of doing business.

The validity of these amendments is entirely appropriate and relevant to this Bill. We are talking about the functioning of the new workplace relations machinery. As things stand, key groups of workers who are concerned about their pension entitlements will be excluded from that. Ministers from the various relevant Departments have accepted that this is the case. The longer we delay on this issue, the more people will be denied their voice in that machinery. It is criminal that we are not even being allowed to discuss these amendments. As Deputy Calleary said, the aim of these amendments is to ensure the commission we are establishing will introduce a mechanism to give people who clearly have a link with their employments a way of having their grievances dealt with. I think the Minister of State should address the issues raised in the amendments we are being prevented from proposing. I reiterate that the way the Department has been running this legislation as it has moved between the committee and this Chamber is really inappropriate.

Minister of State at the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Gerald Nash)

Even though these amendments have been ruled out of order, I will be satisfied to address the substantive and substantial issues that have been raised by the Deputies. I might be responsible for many things, but I am not responsible for the decision to rule them out of order. While I recognise that amendment No. 3, in the names of Deputies Tóibín and Wallace, is out of order, I accept there is a serious issue regarding the failure of employers to inform employees of the correct full names and addresses of those employers, as required under section 3(1)(a) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. We might be better advised to consider strengthening the enforcement provisions of that Act as a possible means of addressing this problem. I am not convinced that the removal of the obligation on the complainant to identify the correct respondent is necessarily the best remedy. I can commit to considering the matter further with a view to reverting with an appropriate amendment in the Seanad, if that is appropriate and acceptable.

Deputies Clare Daly and Wallace have raised an important point - this is covered in one of Deputy Calleary's amendments - about the pensions situation. While I appreciate that amendments Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, have been ruled out of order, I wish to clarify that I fully appreciate the concerns of retired and deferred members of pension schemes whose schemes are being restructured, particularly where such restructuring may have an impact on existing or potential pension benefits. The question of whether it is appropriate for pensioner groups to have access to the State's industrial relations machinery in pursuing the pension scheme grievances they might have has been raised for consideration, not just in this forum but also elsewhere. Of course, it should be pointed out that the trustees of a particular pension scheme are already required by law to act in the best interests of all the members of that scheme. On that basis, the trustees have to take account of the interests of the deferred and pensioner members in any proposals they make. I have given careful consideration to this matter, in which I have a deep personal interest. In my constituency, I represent many of the members referred to by Deputy Daly in particular. In light of their representations to me, I have given this matter considerable thought in recent times.

The Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation consults the industrial relations bodies under its auspices on issues that arise in the context of the collective representation of retired and deferred members of pension schemes. In this context, it is important to note that this country's industrial relations system is voluntary in nature as regards access to the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court. Active members of pension schemes regularly engage with employers through their trade unions to attempt to reach common positions on changes to pension schemes, whether as a result of a crisis in the scheme or otherwise. In all such cases, the outcome of that engagement can only be a collective agreement which cannot, of itself, involve a change to the pension scheme.

Any proposed change to the scheme is effected by the mechanism set out in the trusts, deeds and rules of the scheme and are at the discretion of the parties designated under same. A collective approach may be most effective within this framework.

For the information of the House I am considering issues that have arisen in the context of access for former employees to the State's industrial relations machinery under the Industrial Relations Acts where they have not referred their claims prior to retirement. Any change in this area would require amendments to the definition of "worker" under section 23 of the 1990 Act and to the definition of "trade dispute" under section 3 of the 1946 Act. I expect the vehicle to address this issue to be the industrial relations Bill, which will deal with the structure of registered employment agreements, REAs, rather than the Bill currently before the House, as Deputy Calleary alluded.

Amendments Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, not moved.

Deputy Mick Wallace

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 21, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:

"(10) The Chairman of the Labour Court may require any representative, of a complainant or respondent, for gain, to comply with any code of practice made by the Commission under subsection (1)(a).

(11) A representative for gain shall include but shall not be limited to counsel, solicitor, trade union or employer representative body with a negotiating licence, a body corporate or unincorporated body or individual including but not limited to any insurance company but shall not include any unincorporated body or incorporated body which does not provide services for any fee or reward, premium or annual or other premium or fee.".

This matter was drawn to my attention by the Employment Law Association of Ireland, ELAI. Many representatives provide services for gain in employment forums. Some are regulated, such as solicitors and counsels, but others are not. Many cases must be adjourned before Rights Commissioners and the Labour Court where relevant documentation or procedures are not complied with despite the fact that parties are advised of what they must bring to hearings. Where a code of practice is put in place, it seems reasonable that the Labour Court should be able to direct and enforce the manner and basis under which individuals or entities providing services for gain act. This would be a cost saving to the State, employers and employees where representatives who are providing services for gain do not comply with a code of practice, as there would be a control element for the court.

Deputy Gerald Nash

The proposed amendment to include additional subsections in section 19 appeared to be based on a misunderstanding of the nature of codes of practice that have developed and been applied in industrial relations employment arenas. They have been developed as general guidance to employers, workers and their representatives. While compliance or non-compliance with such a code is a matter that may be admissible in evidence in proceedings before adjudication officers or the Labour Court, it would not be in keeping with the established character of those codes to make them enforceable at the direction of the Labour Court or any other body. As the Deputy is aware, codes of practice normally refer to best practice in the workplace. It is not the purpose of such codes to regulate the conduct of proceedings in the first instance or on appeal. Therefore, there is no basis for including a provision such as that proposed by Deputy Wallace to give the Labour Court a specific power to direct a party's representative to comply with a code of practice. Accordingly, I will not accept the amendment.

Deputy Mick Wallace

If people are getting paid to represent others, should they not be required to hold certain levels of expertise or standards? This almost creates an unlevel playing field, in that it is okay for some people to be qualified to deal with the issues at hand when others need not be. The State will not create a level playing field.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Olivia Mitchell)

Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are out of order.

Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Olivia Mitchell)

Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 24, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:

"Employer obligation to display notice of employment rights in the workplace

26. Every employer shall display in a prominent position in or at the place of work, being a place to which employees have regular access and in such a position that it may be read easily by employees, a notice or notices in a form, manner, and in an appropriate language or more than one language that is reasonably likely to be understood by the employees concerned containing the following information--

(a) entitlements under employment legislation, either generally or by reference to particular enactments or a particular class or particular classes of enactments or to employees of one or more than one particular class or description, as may be specified in the notice concerned,

(b) complaints procedures concerning entitlements under employment legislation, and

(c) the contact details of the Workplace Relations Service for the purposes of--

(i) making general enquiries regarding entitlements under, and the application and enforcement of, employment legislation, and

(ii) communicating information to the Director pursuant to the Protected Disclosures Act 2014.".

There are three main elements to workers' rights - the right is in law, the worker knows he or she has that right and the Government enforces it. If these elements are not ensured, the process does not work properly. If the Minister of State took a special interest in the J.J. Rhatigan Kishoge site and met the workers in the near future, it might help to resolve the problem.

Many of the workers and trade union representatives whom I meet are not fully au fait with the machinery available to them from Departments to resolve rights issues. We must ensure that all workers have access to that knowledge. Mine is a simple amendment that ICTU has also recommended. It places an obligation to display basic employment and equality rights information notices. If we wanted, we could give the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, in consultation with employers, unions and workers, a function in preparing a statutory notice that employers would be obligated to post in their workplaces to ensure that workers know their rights. It strikes me as a simple and obvious way to proceed.

Turning to amendment No. 11, it is the experience of unions that too many employers do not take their obligation to maintain or produce employment records seriously. This contrasts radically with the level of responsibility that employers have to maintain revenue and taxation records. The latter is important, but it should be no more so than recording the history of employees' experiences within their companies. The Government has a specific incentive and objective to ensure that revenue information is collected and maintained properly, but a progressive Government should have the same level of incentive to ensure that workers' employment experiences are properly recorded and maintained. For this reason, I ask the Minister of State to accept both amendments.

Deputy Dara Calleary

I wish to speak in support of amendment No. 10. Deputy Tóibín is right, in that there is a large corpus of employment rights and responsibilities about which most people are not aware. Nor do they know how to access them until such a time as employment relationships have been terminated or soured to such an extent that people seek out their union officials or solicitors. A basic information sheet should be available and visible in every workplace. Given the multicultural nature of our workforce, consideration should also be given to producing it in a number of languages, including Gaeilge. There is no sense in us giving time for debates on this Bill or the industrial relations (amendment) Bill unless the practical consequences and benefits of the legislation are made available and visible to those they will benefit.

Deputy Gerald Nash

There is an obligation on the WRC to make employees aware of their rights and employers aware of their obligations under employment law. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 would add an unnecessary burden on employers for little practical benefit to employees. Employers could be required to reproduce and somehow display in the workplace the equivalent of the bulk of the material available on, for example, the website of the National Employment Rights Authority, NERA, or even a synopsis of same in plain English and, as Deputy Calleary suggested, other languages. I am not sure that this would be feasible. That said and to the best of my recollection, certain codes of practice are required to be available on site to all staff. Importantly, staff joining an organisation are required to be appraised of those codes so as to ensure that people are in compliance.

The obligations on employers under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act are more appropriate. The Act requires employers to provide each employee with a written statement of his or her terms of employment and to notify the employee of any change in the particulars as given in that statement.

As stated previously, I will consider how best to improve compliance with that Act and I will not accept this amendment.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

Briefly, many employees do not even have a contract of work. Many employees do not have guidelines such as those to which the Minister of State has alluded. In addition, if there is a folder containing all that information within the office of the employer, the very act of an employee demanding this information creates a tension that can mean an employer then starts to consider this person as a suspect employee, because he or she is creating a problem. How different would it be if those rights simply were on the wall of a canteen and were there for all to see? It would create a different context in which those rights were to be understood in that rather than individuals being obliged to step outside their normal behaviour to chase those rights, these rights literally would be the wallpaper to their experience within the workplace.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 24, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:

“Employer obligation to maintain and produce employment records

26. An employer who does not maintain and produce employment records is liable to a penalty of €4,000, and where that employer is a company, the secretary of that company is liable to a separate penalty of €3,000.”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Olivia Mitchell)

Amendments Nos. 13, 17, 20 and 21 are cognate with amendment No. 12 and may be discussed together with it.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 27, line 31, to delete “42 days” and substitute “28 days”.

On amendment No. 12, Sinn Féin has sought to create a reasonable length of time by which an employer must appeal a compliance notice. Originally, I sought a period of two weeks in this regard but this was deemed to be too short. I noted that, recently, the Government gave a four-week space to the survivors of symphysiotomy to make a claim with regard to the new redress scheme starting from 10 November. Only in exceptional circumstances will a person who has suffered the terrible violence of symphysiotomy have an opportunity to seek redress after that four-week period has elapsed. Consequently, it is bewildering that the Minister of State would argue the case for an unscrupulous employer, who already has been found guilty of a breach of employment law, to have a compliance notice timeframe that would be longer than that available to these elderly, infirm women. It shows a lack of consistency in the Government's approach to two significantly different experiences in Irish society. I imagine that personally, like me, the Minister of State will be thinking it is quite shocking that the State would treat these two groups so differently.

Amendment No. 13 is the same and the points I have made with regard to amendment No. 12 also relate to the other amendments.

Deputy Gerald Nash

At the outset, I find it a little peculiar that Deputy Tóibín has decided to conflate the issue of symphysiotomy with this particular issue. There is no lack of consistency here, as this provision is designed to make sure there is consistency right across the board. In respect of amendments Nos. 12 and 13, the period of 42 days within which an employer must initiate an appeal against a compliance notice issued by an inspector and an appeal from the Labour Court to the Circuit Court mirrors the standard appeal period that applies, for example, to the bringing of an appeal to the Labour Court in respect of a decision of an adjudication officer. An important principle underlying the procedural reforms the Bill introduces is in fact that of consistency. The Bill aims to make navigation of the employment rights compliance and enforcement systems much more user-friendly and much more citizen-friendly by providing for standard procedures and timeframes wherever possible. This is the kind of consistency people wish to see in this kind of process. On that basis, it would be inappropriate for me to accept the Deputy's proposal to shorten the period within which an employer may appeal a compliance notice. Therefore, I will not accept amendments Nos. 12 and 13.

Amendments Nos. 17, 20 and 21 relate to the time periods provided for in section 36 and would have the effect of reducing the period of time within which an employer on whom a fixed payment notice has been served would be obliged to make the payment specified in the notice period. The period of 42 days within which an employer must make the payment specified in a fixed payment notice issued by an inspector also mirrors the standard limitation period specified throughout this Bill. As noted earlier, an important principle underlying the procedural reforms the Bill introduces is that of consistency. Therefore, I will not accept the Deputy's amendments Nos. 17, 20 and 21 either.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

The reason I conflated together these two matters is theses are timescales by which the Government expects individuals to take action on something. There are two separate groups of individuals-----

Deputy Gerald Nash

One is an administrative scheme, while the other is something quite different.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

One is an employer who has been found to have broken a law, etc.

Deputy Gerald Nash

It is a different matter entirely.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

The other group comprises individuals who have had their rights taken away from them. Yet, were one to flip those timescales, there would be a logic to it. However, the timescales are shorter for those who have suffered. Moreover, there is conflation with regard to many different aspects of legislation. The figure used for fines in this process is a figure used for fines for driving offences, etc. They are not the same things at all but are considered to be a consistent approach to certain aspects of trying to keep behaviour within the law.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendment No. 13 not moved.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 28, after line 37, to insert the following:

“Liability of a company officer or officers for a breach of employment law

29. Where a breach of employment law is committed by a body corporate or by a company officer or officers acting on behalf of a body corporate and is determined to have been so committed, with the consent, connivance or approval of, or to have been attributable to any neglect on the part of, a person or persons who, when the breach was committed was a company officer or officers of the body corporate, then that person or persons shall be personally liable for the breach committed.”.

This is a massively important issue upon which I cannot focus enough. In my experience of working with employees and workers for a number of years, one major trick used by unscrupulous employers to impoverish workers or to hammer their rights is the use of company law to separate the company that has the assets from the company that employs the employees. For example, I know of local authorities that hold tendering processes whereby one company applies for the contract to the tendering process, that is, the company with the assets, while the other company employs the individuals. Thereafter, company B that employs the individuals goes to the Labour Relations Commission seeking a reduction in wages because its financial health seemingly is not good enough to provide the employees with the wage rates with which they were employed but yet the company with the assets is the company holding the tender. This is evident in respect of Connolly's Shoes and many companies that have gone into liquidation or insolvency, albeit not formal insolvency, and which have withheld assets from staff members who have not had redundancy payments, holiday money or even their normal wages paid to them. Members need to pierce this corporate veil, this paper wall, which makes a mockery of employment law. I sincerely ask the Minister of State to take on board this amendment.

Deputy Billy Kelleher

I wish to contribute to the debate on this amendment because, as Deputy Tóibín pointed out, there are some unscrupulous employers in operation here. These people will go to major lengths to hide behind the law in general or use corporate law to undermine the rights of workers. I do not wish to be parochial but I am aware of a case in my constituency which provides an indication of what can happen. I refer to a company, Highway Retail, which just decided to lay off its employees and deny them their rights. Some of the employees have been working for this company for 24 years and they are now involved in a sit-in at a petrol station it operates. Basically, they are seeking their rights and entitlements under employment law. There appears to be an unwillingness to confront the stark reality that some employers may be disposed to abusing the rights and entitlements of their employees. The case in Cork North-Central highlights that fact. Lock-ins or sit-ins took place at the premises of a number of other companies in Cork in the past. The employers involved in these various disputes have undermined labour law and employment rights protection. There needs to be a recalibration of the rights of the rights and entitlements of individual employees.

The company to which I refer, Highway Retail-----

Acting Chairman (Deputy Olivia Mitchell)

As the Deputy will be aware, the rules stipulate that he cannot refer to people outside the House.

Deputy Billy Kelleher

The matter is referred to in every newspaper this morning.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Olivia Mitchell)

I am not obliged to rule on what is contained in the newspapers.

Deputy Billy Kelleher

I do not wish to become involved in an argument with the Chair but the matter has already been covered by the national print media.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Olivia Mitchell)

That may be the case but the Deputy knows the rules of the House.

Deputy Billy Kelleher

I do. However, I am not divulging information that was previously secret. This matter is covered by every newspaper in the country and there is a story relating to it on TheJournal.ie.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Olivia Mitchell)

That is not our concern.

Deputy Billy Kelleher

Six employees in Cork are being badly treated by the company in question. This is an example of a company abusing or undermining employment rights law by exploiting the weaknesses in it. Deputy Tóibín is quite right; there comes a point where people can shirk their responsibility by splitting up a company by divesting part of it into the assets and the remainder with the current management. This is a matter to which it would be worth giving consideration. I urge the Minister of State to examine what I and other Deputies have to say on this issue. Action must be taken because it is disgraceful that six people may be obliged to be involved in a sit-in on the relevant company's premises over Christmas.

Deputy Mick Wallace

I support the comments made by Deputies Tóibín and Kelleher. There has been a great deal of abuse of our employment laws in the past ten to 15 years. The State must play a stronger role in terms of ensuring there will be no recurrence of many of the things which happened during that period. A current example in this regard is that some workers employed by J.J. Rhatigan appear to have been paid in the region of €5 per hour. There has been a serious problem within the construction industry for a number of years whereby main contractors take on subcontractors - or subbies - who are not obliged to pay tax until the end of the financial year. Some of these subcontractors come from outside the State and, as a result, they do not pay tax at all. They form companies and they are actually able to get away with doing so for approximately 18 months before they are caught. When they are caught, they scrap the companies. As a result of the fact that subcontractors do not pay the 35% for which they are liable, they are in a position to quote very low prices for work. It has become increasingly difficult for people in the Republic to obtain work directly on building sites because subcontractors who are based outside the State - generally in Northern Ireland - are in a position to provide lower quotes for work. This type of behaviour has been going on for many years and neither this Government nor that which preceded it have taken action. This is a glaring problem and this type of behaviour undermines the rights of workers in this State.

Deputy Clare Daly

I support the amendment. What we are discussing here is the fairly extensive, in some ways, practice on the part of some unscrupulous employers to deliberately breach employment law while hiding behind a company set-up. That is just not on. Given that we are deliberating on legislation designed to improve workplace relations, we must deal with this issue. I accept that some matters are open to interpretation. In that context, I refer to the earlier amendment tabled by the Minister of State in respect of holidays when someone is on sick leave. Many companies have different practices in this regard because the legal position has not been clarified.

Amendment No. 14 seeks to deal with those cases which involve clear-cut breaches of employment rights by unscrupulous employers. On a previous occasion I brought to the attention of the Minister of State a case involving a breach of the National Minimum Wage Act by Hertz, a reputable multinational company. He correctly pointed out at the time that it is a criminal offence for someone to breach that Act. The difficulty is that an entire company cannot end up in prison. It can, however, take a hit. The National Employment Rights Authority, NERA, reached a decision regarding such matters to the effect that it is not its practice to take action in respect of a first offence. I do not believe that such an approach could be taken in respect of other crimes. For example, I do not see how someone could be let off for murder because it was his or her first offence. We must get tough and hold people individually responsible when they flagrantly breach the law, as it is set down in black and white. Many examples of such breaches have been aired in this Chamber. The position will not change unless people are held personally to account.

Deputy Dara Calleary

I support the spirit of the amendment. In recent years, many companies have used employment law in an anti-competitive way. It is important to emphasise that 90% of employers are both compliant and supportive of employment law. However, the other 10% use it in order to gain competitive advantage in the context of tendering, pricing and how they run their businesses. There have been many examples of the kind of case to which Deputy Kelleher referred in the past number of years. I will be tabling a large number of amendments to the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2014 in order to try to confer more powers on the inspectorate with a view to stop the minority of employers from driving a coach and four through people's employment rights.

Deputy Willie O'Dea

I support the thrust of the amendment. The corporate veil was to some extent pierced by the Companies Act 1990, which stipulates that in certain situations directors of a company which had gone out of existence could be held personally liable for trading while insolvent or other activities.

There is no doubt that, as previous speakers indicated, certain companies are playing fast and loose with the loopholes in company law. An example in this regard is the case relating to J.J. Rhatigan and Company, which was mentioned in the House yesterday on Leaders' Questions. This company is contracted directly to the Department of Education and Skills. It has consistently abused its workers at a number of sites, particularly one located in Lucan, County Dublin, and neither the Department of Education and Skills nor the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation has intervened. Will the Minister of State provide an assurance to the effect that action will be taken to bring this type of abuse to an end forthwith? This matter has dragged on for 15 weeks and the company has circumvented the law by designating its employees as subcontractors. That is absolutely outrageous because the individuals in question work for a wage and are employees in the normal sense of the word. In order to circumvent the law and avoid its obligations, however, J.J. Rhatigan and Company has designated them as subcontractors. That type of behaviour is completely insupportable. I ask the Minister of State to provide an assurance to the effect that this practice will investigated as a matter of urgency. It should already have been investigated during the past four months and brought to an end.

Debate adjourned.