We will resume consideration of the Terms of Employment (Information) Bill, 1993. The Minister has Question Time today and I think we should adjourn at 1 p.m. if we have not completed our business, although I hope it will be completed by that time.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 6, subsection (1), between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:
"(n) any terms or conditions relating to disciplinary procedures pursued by the employer,
(o) any terms or conditions in relation to redundancy situations pursued by the employer.".
In the context of the type of information which should be set out at the commencement of employment, I tabled these amendments to ask the Minister to consider whether these items, namely terms and conditions relating to disciplinary procedures and to redundancy situations, should also be set out at the beginning of a term of employment. Generally speaking, there are issues which can cause contention in the work place and could be contributory factors to industrial disputes subsequently. It might be in everyone's interest for procedures of this sort to be known at the outset. It may not be appropriate in a Bill such as this, which is perhaps too inflexible, but I would be interested to hear the Minister's response.
Also, while dealing with this part of section 3, I would like to ask the Minister why it has been decided to extend the period within which an employer has to supply this information to two months compared to the provision of one month in the legislation which this is replacing. The previous legislation, where it dealt with contracts of employment, required the periods of notice or, if the period of employment was for a fixed time, the date when the contract expired. That seems to have been changed somewhat in section 3 (1) (e) which states: "the date of commencement of the employee's contract of employment". The notion of date of expiry has been dropped.
I would like to hear the Minister's response or some statement on whether disciplinary procedures and procedures adopted in the event of redundancy situations should be part of this information set out for employees.
I think the Deputy recognises that this is perhaps not the correct conduit for the amendments he has tabled. With regard to disciplinary procedures, the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1993, pursues this objective, perhaps not in as refined a way as this amendment, but it does take on board that point. With regard to redundancy situations, there will be a Bill in the summer or autumn, the Protection of Employment Bill, which follows on an EC directive of two years ago which will take that point on board.
As we discussed on the last occasion, the purpose of the Bill is clear and simple. I am of the opinion that we should stick with the range of information which was listed in the EC directive. Including the information listed in this amendment might complicate matters.
The Deputy also asked me why we changed the limit from one month to two. When we were drafting the Bill consideration was given to retaining the one month limit. However, the two month limit was considered preferable and justifiable because there was more in this directive than had been in the previous one. As the directive does not apply to those employed for less than a month, it would be confusing to require that the statement be provided within one month of commencing employment. It is a technical point, but understandable. I hope that I have explained it to the Deputy because I wondered about it myself at the time.
I accept what the Minister is saying, but could she just clarify what these two future Bills will do? As I understand it, the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1993, does not actually set out that an employer should issue warnings or——
: I know what the Deputy means. There is no lead up to the dismissal, which is the final disciplinary action.
That is right; and arguably, at least, if that was known in advance and if employers committed themselves to pursuing certain procedures, problems could be overcome. Similarly, perhaps the Minister would clarify in relation to this future Bill which will deal with redundancy situations if it will enshrine a particular type of redundancy arrangement or just require that an employer make a statement of what his——
May I interrupt? That is the future. I respectfully suggest that——
The Minister is suggesting that it would be sensible to withdraw this amendment on the grounds of legislation which is coming in the future.
I do not think it would be right for us at this stage to anticipate what will be in future legislation. We are dealing with amendment No. 8 to section 3 of this Bill.
With respect, chairman, if we were making a decision not to push an amendment on the grounds that the Minister is shortly to introduce legislation which will deal with the content of the amendment, I think it is only right that the committee should know, at least in broad terms, what the Minister is proposing.
I think that this section stands or falls on its merits. With all due respect, I would have to rule you out of order on that. You can make reference to it but it is inappropriate to go into detailed discussion at this stage.
Yes. I am not saying "yes" to that, but rather I am answering the first part. Deputy Bruton is correct——
Is the Minister disagreeing with the chairman?
No, I am not. It is a habit I have. I had better stop saying "yes" all the time. With regard to the first part of his amendment, the Deputy is quite right in that the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1993, relates to the final disciplinary action, which is dismissal. I referred to that when I first answered the Deputy. We wanted, as I said, to keep the Bill relatively straightforward and simple.
The second Bill which the Deputy asked me about — we hope to have it in the autumn but, perhaps, it will be earlier — is an enhancement of the Protection of Employment Act, 1977, and allows for a greater length of time about notice of redundancy. It allows for notification regarding training and redeployment possibilities and such matters. I respect what you said, chairman, about not going into too much detail.
I submit in relation to this section that it is often safer to have procedures laid down in a Bill rather than having this arise when disciplinary action is about to take place. It is safer because at that stage the relationships have already broken down between employer and employee. I do not know whether what is here is satisfactory.
I take the Minister's point that she is trying to bring in straightforward and simple legislation which will be accessible to employers and workers and that people will immediately understand their rights in this matter. I also understand her point that legislation such as this cannot deal with every eventuality. However, I have found that although legislation is there, employers will sometimes go to great lengths to evade responsibility. For example, many workers are let go after one year, 11 months and two weeks to frustrate the payment of redundancy. Similarly, workers are often let go after 11 months and three weeks to frustrate unfair dismissals action or after two months and three weeks to frustrate minimum notice requirements.
While there is provision in the Bill to take an action against an employer who has terminated the employment of a worker who wishes to join a trade union, it should also be possible to bring a case — not on frivolous grounds — to the tribunal where an employer has deliberately set out to frustrate this legislation. Similarly it should be possible to bring a case to the Employment Appeals Tribunal on the ground that an employer set out to frustrate this legislation by letting somebody go a few days before the end of the period after which they would be entitled to take a case to the tribunal. That is more important than some of the points Deputy Bruton made. In my experience this is where the legislation is being frustrated and evaded.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 3 agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.