The committee has had an opportunity to deliberate on petition No. P00027/12 from Mr. John O'Sullivan regarding shortcomings in the Employment Appeals Tribunal process. I open the meeting up to members to summarise our recommendations.
Decisions on Public Petitions Received
This particular matter is a significant one. While the petitioner has had difficulties, there is a public interest issue in a broader sense, which is the committee's focus. Having read the petition, I would like to invite him to appear before the committee and to notify him that the Minister is considering legislation that might impact on this matter. If the petitioner is to inform the Minister and the legislative process, inviting him to outline for us the various aspects of his petition, particularly regarding the lodging of a bond and the fact that liquidators do not need to be certified, would be useful. It would be on the committee's record.
I support the Senator's recommendation. In the interests of openness, transparency and a proper debate, representatives of the employer groups should also be invited so that they might participate. Doing so would be fair and proper and we would have a balanced discussion on the matter.
This is an important petition - not just for the petitioner, but in light of the wider implications for many people. A series of firms have been liquidated and employees have been left high and dry - at least, they would see it that way - as regards whether they can have proper recourse. Our deliberations could feed into suggestions for the legislation. I agree that we should hear from the petitioner, but we should also hear from representative organisations that have dealt with some of the situations in which workers have been left high and dry.
Workers at Connolly Shoes in my area have been on strike for four years, have gone through the employment appeals process and have won all of their cases, yet the employer appears to have got away with ignoring them completely. This type of issue needs to be addressed. The attendance of representatives of the trade unions that have dealt with these situations frequently would be useful. In particular, many of MANDATE's members have faced this situation.
I suggest that we write to the Minister, who has indicated that he will draft legislation covering this general area. He has not responded to the petitioner's specific proposals on the legislation's contents and how the legislation might be handled. We should seek a more specific response from him.
The petition points to the role that the committee can play, in that we do not necessarily deal with a person's individual gripe with a system. Rather, if someone's difficulties highlight a problem with the system, we can make recommendations.
I agree with the previous speakers. If appropriate, it might be useful to invite someone from the Employment Appeals Tribunal to attend our hearing so that we might discuss the matter with him or her. From my reading of the petition, the person states that the onus appears to be on the employee, the expense is laid on him or her and, even if he or she wins a case, the employer is not compelled to live up to the agreement reached at the tribunal. It would be interesting to know whether the Employment Appeals Tribunal views this as a systemic problem. Given the fact that the Bill's heads have not been agreed, this is the ideal time to feed into the debate. If it is acknowledged generally that an issue exists, it can be addressed in the new legislation.
To summarise, we will write to the Minister and ask how he specifically proposes to address the issues arising for the petitioner. We will also invite the petitioner to appear before us, alongside the IMPACT trade union, IBEC-----
No, MANDATE.
My apologies - the MANDATE trade union. We will also invite IBEC and the Employment Appeals Tribunal. Is this a fair summary? Agreed. We will also write to the petitioner advising him of how matters stand. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Petition No. P00047/12 is from Mr. Niall Donohoe concerning policy issues with the Defence (Amendment) Act 2007. We have had an opportunity to deliberate on this petition and I open the floor to members to summarise their recommendations.
We need to ask people with more relevant expertise for their opinions. This concerns procedures for making complaints or taking actions against senior officers in the military by lower ranking officers. The petitioner is claiming that there is no mechanism for doing so, but I suspect that none of us knows. I suggest that we contact the Permanent Defence Force Other Ranks Representative Association, PDFORRA, which represents rank and file soldiers, and ask whether, in its opinion, this is a substantial issue in the Army that merits an investigation by the committee. We could have an informed discussion on what to do next.
I second that proposal.
Is that agreed? Agreed. We will write to PDFORRA and then re-engage with the petitioner.
Next is petition No. P00057/12 from Mr. Jason O'Sullivan regarding the removal of roaccutane from the market. We have deliberated on this petition and I open the floor to members.
This petition has various complexities. Mr. O'Sullivan has experienced difficulty in dealing with the petition due to the seriousness of his medical situation. We must push the boat out and offer every support possible to the petitioner. I support Senator O'Keeffe's suggestion. Perhaps she will propose it now and I will second it.
This process can be off-putting for people who have difficulty engaging with it. It is up to us to recognise such moments and ask whether a matter of public interest arises. Of course, one does. The drug in question has been around for a long time and has been associated with many difficulties, for example, reports of people experiencing serious illnesses and committing suicide.
The petition has been brought and we should treat it seriously. Perhaps we should take the weight off of the petitioner and ask the Irish Medicines Board for its opinion, whether it is satisfied with the list of contra-indications supplied with the drug, whether it is satisfied that those are up to date and whether it has received requests from members of the public, general practitioners, GPs, or consultants to remove the drug from the market. We could write to the European Medicines Agency in tandem and ask for its advice. In this way, we can determine the position, leave the petition open and decide on whether to take further action following the organisations' responses. I hope that this approach will show the petitioner that we are trying to assist him and do not expect him to engage with the process directly.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Petition No. P00018/13 is from Mr. Ronnie "Indeterminable". It looks like we have gremlins in our system. We must record petitions in sequence on the system. Is it agreed that this is an invalid petition? Agreed.
I thank members. I propose that we adjourn until 4 p.m. on Wednesday, 29 May when we will have a follow-up meeting with Dr. Ambrose McLoughlin, Secretary General of the Department of Health, regarding the legacy issues adverted to by the Ombudsman in her presentation to the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The joint committee adjourned at 5.35 p.m. until 4 p.m. on Wednesday, 29 May 2013.