It is a competitive advantage here in the context of the industries we are attracting and in terms of what is happening in Spain, Portugal, Greece and France. It is an important strategic issue for us that in the past 20 to 25 years this country has constructed a stable industrial environment, regardless of what people think of previous periods of social partnership. Those structures have remained robust even though we do not have a national agreement in the private sector and we have one in the public sector. There are accolades this country should acknowledge, one of which is that with labour capital and public service management and Government we have managed to achieve a significant period of industrial peace. That is continuing and we hope it will continue.
Earlier this year we were in a position to conclude a public service pay agreement, the Croke Park agreement as it is now called. That has, at least currently, withstood a certain amount of criticism in the context of the change requirement that must be made under it. That is what the parties agreed to and it must happen. It has to have tangible, measurable delivery and must achieve that significantly over the next six to 12 months. Otherwise, the agreement and its efficacy will be called seriously into question, not only by those who are party to the agreement but by the general public and the political representatives. We are involved not as caretaker of that agreement but as a dispute resolution body in the context of issues that must be and are being addressed. It certainly got off to a slow start but I have a feeling there is momentum on this agreement, in light of the budgetary changes that are imminent not only nationally but also in regard to the provision of State services. I believe we will see a great deal of traction in the Croke Park agreement over the coming months. I hope we can be in a position to manage and deliver those changes without any reversion to conflict. As the committee knows, there are robust procedures including voluntary binding arbitration in this public service agreement.
Significant transformation has taken place in the commercial semi-State sector. We have been involved in this over the past six to 12 months. Over every two or three years there is significant change in these firms and companies, which are household names. We have been involved in all of them, ranging from energy to transport to aviation. That also reflects itself in local authorities and other areas.
In regard to the private sector, both indigenous and multinational, I doubt there is a company here that has not been affected by the international crisis. We are involved significantly in a great deal of transformation change management issues in the indigenous and multinational sectors. It is a mixed picture. There is some good news and much bad news at present in the context of the change that has taken place. However, one must also take cognisance of the fact that there is a continual stream of inward investment being attracted to this country in the multinational sector and that there are still 1.8 million people employed in this country in daily economic activity.
The main issues relate to pay, not so much basic pay as plus payments such as overtime, shift pay, premium pay and so forth. To a large degree basic pay has generally remained reasonably intact in most of these transformation agreements. The issue is competitiveness and outsourcing, including outsourcing within the multinational sector in other countries in which the multinational is operating. This has taken place with the considerable involvement of unions and management. In 85% to 90% of cases it has been done by agreement between both sides. An amicable settlement has been reached and there is no need for unilateral action to be taken that would lead to industrial conflict.
The biggest areas we have been involved in over the past six to 12 months are the financial services sector, the construction sector and the service companies to these sectors. Employment is haemorrhaging in these areas. Up to now in the case of the construction sector it has been marked by closure and, in effect, compulsory redundancies. In the financial sector it is largely still voluntary redundancy and early retirement. The question is how long that position can sustain itself in light of the downturn in business in the financial sector. We are awaiting probably some major news in that area in the next two or three months as banks readjust to their current financial and business circumstances. These are being done by agreement with the representatives of the unions involved.
Pensions has emerged as the serious major issue in a considerable number of employments as a reflection of the international markets. I doubt there is an employee in any company in this country lucky enough to have a pension scheme who is not seriously concerned about the status of their pension, the longevity of that pension fund and its future funding. We are already engaged in a considerable number of employments on reviews of pension schemes and the almost universal elimination of defined benefit schemes with a move towards defined contribution or hybrid schemes.
The other issue is the phenomenal growth in the employment rights and related cases, to which the chairman referred. It has moved from 5,500 cases in 2005 to an anticipated case load of 16,000 this year. Already, 12,000 were received in the first nine months of this year. On the one hand this is a reflection of the unemployment situation, where people have terminated their relationship with their employer, are taking the view that the termination has not been to their satisfaction and are exercising their rights under various legislative measures in regard to redundancy, payment of wages, holiday pay and so forth.
Over the past 12 months there has been the phenomenon developing of what we call multiple cases, which are emerging from the failure of either collective bargaining or collective agreements. At present, we have more than 6,000 multiple cases on our books which we have not processed to date. I will give the reason for that. These are largely, although not exclusively, under the Payment of Wages Act. A total of 95% of them are under that Act. We have received 4,375 collective cases involving three financial institutions over the non-payment of bonuses, national wage agreements and related payments which are covered by the Payment of Wages Act. There are 250 involving voluntary hospitals and 416 involving the closure of a multinational. In the run down in community employment schemes involving 93 employers there are more than 1,000 referrals. There are 100 to 120 in the aviation sector.
These are causing particular difficulties for the commission because under the Payment of Wages Act and the primary legislation establishing the rights commissioner service everybody must be given an opportunity for their case to be heard. In our quasi-judicial procedures it means they must have an opportunity for a scheduled hearing and to be heard. That means that if we were to schedule all these cases individually for the next 12 months alone, all 15 rights commissioners would be totally engaged and not one other hearing could take place. We have asked employers and unions who are representing most of these categories of people to agree to class action cases, in the sense that we would select ten to 15 from the grades. We are not getting a positive response in this regard, largely, I must say, from the employer side. A considerable number of employers have indicated a "No" to us. They want copies of every claim submitted to us which is impossible to do administratively with the resources at our disposal. We do not believe that, in efficacy, this is the right approach. Taking financial institutions, for example, of those 4,000 cases I mentioned all may be on different grades of pay, personal contracts, personal bonuses or personal types of payments. That is our difficulty at present. We are reviewing this but that is where it stands.
We are giving priority, however, to people who have lost employment. We feel to some degree they came in earlier and are precedent cases and we are trying to work our way through all of the cases. In the majority of cases the employment relationship was terminated by the employer. In a minority, but still in significant numbers, the employer is no longer solvent, is in liquidation or is not around to answer the correspondence from the commission. We find that a heavy volume of correspondence is returned to us.
In a nutshell, that is the enormity of the situation. We are constrained, limited, or protected, whatever way one looks at it, by legislation, both primary and secondary. We deal with 32 pieces of employment legislation, some of which are very detailed and some of which have their origins in the European Union and the directives that are transposed into Irish legislation. Our board has said, "Look, we can't leave this situation as it is. It must be addressed." Justice delayed is justice denied. People are entitled to have a hearing of their case so we are looking at ways of doing this. We undertook a study with the support of our parent Department and with an acknowledged law expert, Mr. Tony Kerr of the law faculty of University College Dublin, to look at the anomalies and inconsistencies in the legislation. With the best will in the world, over the past 20 years legislators have had to deal with an enormous amount of legislation, particularly in the area of employment rights, that has been transposed or domestically driven. There are inconsistencies and anomalies which we are trying to eliminate. We have presented the results of our study to our parent Department which is responsible for legislation and policy.
Through the employment rights review which the Minister has undertaken for the past six months with the dispute resolution bodies, we are trying to find whether there is a method by which legislation can be adopted or amended that would not require every case to be investigated; whether there might be a way by which we could use a clearing house, a deciding officer or a progression officer who would look at these cases and the related paperwork and contact the parties by telephone to see if they could mediate or effect a settlement without the necessity for the paraphernalia of a full investigation of the case, with the time constraints and difficulties that occur. We are looking at that at present and also at the possibility of creating a singular IT platform so there would be one point of receipt of all employment-related issues for the dispute resolution bodies. In that way a person would get one number and would be put in line, on schedule, and we would utilise a common scheduling system. At present, an employee or employer can potentially be asked by four or five dispute resolution bodies to turn up in the same week or on the same day in a multiplicity of locations, because of the multiplicity of claims. Therefore, we are looking at ways in which we can co-ordinate the legislation with the bodies and this may lead, in the interim or in the long term, to a consolidation of labour legislation. However, that is a matter for the Minister who has sole prerogative with the Oireachtas in that regard. It might also remove the most blatant examples, few as they are, of dispute shopping whereby people put in claims to all dispute resolution bodies on the basis of having their day in court, irrespective of the issues involved and whether they are appropriate. We have a strong tradition in this country constitutionally, administratively and in natural justice, namely, the right to be heard. We have to balance that against administrative effectiveness, and efficiency.
With all respect to the Chairman, we also have increased attendance by legal practitioners. There are now some firms which are involved exclusively in the representation of litigants in the employment rights area. That produces problems, first, of scheduling and availability and, second, it stops the user-friendly ethos. We are now beginning to find ourselves being more judicially challenged, if not judicially reviewed. Obviously, in that regard we must be careful to adhere to the principles of natural and constitutional justice. This is an element, however, that has come into the system over the past two or three years. Where there is more of what we may call the quasi-judicial element of the system there is more of the judicial than the quasi, user-friendly side in terms of the practitioners in the system.
That is an overview of our position. In summary, on the conciliation-advisory side of our activities, in preventive mediation, dispute resolution on interests and in trying to scope what is happening in the economy in terms of the employment relationship, we feel we are ahead of the posse in the sense we are matching our resources to the requirements. Members will see that product being produced on a daily basis. It is far more complicated and difficult to address employment rights because of the complexity of legislation.
