I spent most of my political life in opposition and, therefore, welcome the opportunity to attend a meeting of the committee at this stage of the process. Conventionally, legislation appears before the Oireachtas only when much of it is cemented into place, at which time there are not enough moving parts for the Oireachtas to influence. It is very important that we seek progress in this regard.
A number of members will be familiar with the consultative process to date. It has been very much in the public domain and worthwhile. I am sure today's exchange will be worthwhile also. It will not in any way neutralise the right of the Oireachtas to make changes during the more formal legislative process on Committee Stage.
Everybody knows that a well-functioning employment rights and industrial relations system is critical. It is a source of competitive advantage and serves as a way of ensuring a level playing field for employers who seek to be compliant and treat their workers fairly. Bearing in mind the concept of competitive advantage in respect of the long-term future of nations, one realises the system is built around people and the manner in which they are treated, respected and valued, in addition to the manner in which they engage in the workplace. The employment rights and industrial relations functions are really valuable tools. We ought to value the experience that has been gained and ensure that we promote compliance. We should ensure that compliance with obligations becomes the natural default option rather than non-compliance. Enforcement and all that goes with it should be a feature.
When I began to examine the system, I concluded it was not working as desired. It was not well understood. Neither workers nor employers understood their obligations and rights exactly. The system for the resolution of disputes was extremely complex, cumbersome and legalistic. It was completely foreign to what its authors originally desired, namely, a system in which people could resolve issues quickly and informally. We did not and do not have proper and effective enforcement. Orders against the non-compliant ought to be enforced and enforceable.
It was not I who discovered the background to this subject; the truth is that people knew the system was dysfunctional. There have been eight reports over recent years complaining about defects in the system. We resolved to address this and seek to achieve best practice, as recognised globally. There are five organisations whose functions have very often overlapped. It was very difficult to understand one's rights. Claims are often referred to the wrong forum and are discovered too late, that is, when the time for making a claim has expired and one's case is statute-barred. There have been cases in which the same incident resulted in claims being made in different forums. Employers often did not know a claim was made for months after it had been filed. Thus, there was no opportunity for correcting an unintentional fault. The system ran headlong towards legalistic processes and hearings, which are clearly not desirable. There were often inexplicable differences in the way compensation was decided and different routes of appeal. Very long delays were typical and, as I stated, enforcement measures were poor. From a taxpayer's point of view, the system was not good value for money, bearing in mind that we are all trying to make do with fewer resources. The amount of duplication and overlapping did not result in good value for money.
There is a consensus that reform is required. If one considers the consultation we have had, one will be struck by that consensus. There may be some issues on which opinions differ, but the direction being taken has received a broad welcome.
A great deal has been achieved in terms of delivering improvements in the past 12 months, which is a tribute to the officials who are present as well as to the wider family of agencies. Whereas we used to have 30 forms for 100 different forms of complaint, we now have one. We have a single point of contact, the workplace relations customer services. Complaints are acknowledged within five working days, which means that employers do not need to wait weeks or months before learning about situations. There are no backlogs for rights commissioners' services, whereas it used to be as much as 16 weeks. Once statutory notice periods have expired, those services can be provided on demand. We also have a single website and are piloting an early resolution service so that issues can be resolved without proceeding to adjudication. This service will work well. It builds on the work of the Equality Tribunal, which has successfully run a mediation service. We can be confident that the principle of early resolution will work well.
We have received 67 responses to our consultation on the blueprint. Many of these are positive, although we can revert on specific issues. For example, there has been a difference of opinion in respect of the registrar's role, but much of it is based on misunderstandings. The registrar will weed out cases in which there is no case in law - that is, something that would flop if it went to a hearing. There is no point in letting such cases go through the process and incur costs on all sides just to fall at the last hurdle. It is a question of ensuring that cases are robust, forms are properly completed and so on.
There is a question about whether issues of first instance should be in private or in public. We recommend that they be in private. This meets the needs of workers and employers. People in these situations do not want a great deal of publicity. Instead, they want their rights vindicated in a reasonable, discreet and private way. If an issue goes to appeal, those involved will have a right to have it heard in public. We are making provision in this regard and will respect the rules on human rights that obtain.
An issue was raised about whether there should be service charges. We considered a charge, but we have since withdrawn that recommendation. However, we envisage retaining the power to levy charges in a particular instance, that is, when someone makes an appeal after refusing to participate in the first-instance resolution. We are providing for a quick and easy adjudication process to resolve problems after which appeals can be taken. However, if people refuse to attend the first-instance hearing and turn up for an appeal, it is reasonable to charge a fee, as they have not allowed the case to be adjudicated fairly.
Different opinions have been expressed about access to the appeals process and enforcement measures. We considered that the Labour Court would sift through the appeals, but we are withdrawing that recommendation in light of submissions made to us. The information is set out in greater detail in the document supplied to the committee.
The next step is to produce legislation. The document sets out the basis on which that legislation will be drafted. It will give legislative force to what we are doing. The key measures will be to establish a body of first instance and a separate appeals body. The former will be the workplace relations commission and the latter will be the Labour Court. The roles of the five current bodies will be consolidated into these two. It will be fairly simple, with just one place to go in the first instance and one place to go to appeal. The only exception on the appeals front is equal status claims, which fall under the Equality Tribunal's remit, as opposed to workplace claims. Equal status claims will be made to the workplace relations commission in the first instance because the Equality Tribunal adjudicators, who have the requisite knowledge, will be transferring into the commission. Their experience of handling such cases will be preserved within the commission. The appeals in such cases will be to the Circuit Court, not the Labour Court, because the latter has not dealt with equal status matters, which are primarily not workplace-related issues. The requisite knowledge and experience lies with the Circuit Court. However, these cases represent only 10% of the Equality Tribunal's cases and the majority of cases will be appealed to the Labour Court.
The aim is a simple, fair, quick and effective system for dealing with people's concerns. We will seek to set out time limits for the various stages and require that there be written decisions so that the basis for those decisions are visible. The workplace relations commission will be established as an office of the Department and will have a board. As well as adjudicating when something goes wrong, it will promote best practice, disseminate information, introduce early resolution tools to avoid adjudication, develop codes of practice and conduct inspections, but it will not handle appeals. The legislation will set out all of the usual elements, including the commission's governance arrangements, the board's composition, strategy statements, reporting to the Oireachtas, the appointment of the director by the Minister on specified terms and staffing. The legislation will provide a statutory basis for the introduction of new measures, such as compliance notices and fixed charge notices, to make compliance functions more effective. It will provide for sharing of information, which is an important element. It will have a new and more transparent system for the appointment of commission adjudicators as well as chairs, vice chairs and ordinary members of the Labour Court to ensure expertise. Current adjudicators and rights commissioners will transfer from the Equality Tribunal and be trained to form the core of the adjudication system and to hear cases in the first instance. Where new people are appointed, it will be done through the Public Appointments Service. In the case of chairs and vice chairs of the Labour Court, there would be appointments by open competition and ordinary members will be appointed from panels drawn up by the social partners. We are retaining a social partnership element in the selection of ordinary members of the Labour Court because we believe that social partnership glue in the system is important.
The other issue to be addressed is improvement of the system for enforcing awards, as there has been a problem with the enforcement of awards even when they are made. We are putting in place a new system for enforcing such awards, which would involve the director of the workplace relations commission having certain power with a determination order. If an award is made but not honoured, a person can get a determination order from the body which made the adjudication, either in the first instance or on appeal, and on the basis of that determination, the person can proceed to either civil or criminal enforcement. The District Court will deal with that so it will be an easier and speedier process. There have been instances in which awards were not made because employers were walking away from their responsibilities. Redress in the area has been poor.
We see this as a body of work that has commanded much support within and outside the system among users. It has its critics and some people in the legal profession are not happy with some elements. We can defend robustly all the positions we are taking, as we are protecting human rights. We do not want an excessively legalistic process, as it does not serve the public interest or the interests of individuals seeking speedy resolution. Nevertheless, we want to protect fair systems, which is what we have done. The system will be more user-friendly, quicker, fairer and better value for money.
I welcome the contributions from committee members and acknowledge the many people who have contributed to this process and made submissions. That has informed the development of the issue, and we have made many changes along the road as we have dealt with different submissions and listened to parties with experience in the field. We now have a robust set of proposals. I welcome the comments of members.
