Menu
Ireland's political and cultural magazine
14September/October 2015
This is one of
the downsides
of the vested
enfranchise-
ments that
underpinned
social partner-
ship
“
T
HE Equality Tribunal, the Employ-
ment Appeals Tribunal, the
Labour Relations Commission and
the National Employment Rights
Agency will soon be merged together
into the Workplace Relations Commis-
sion (as recommended by An Bord Snip
Nua).
Many of the reforms envisaged by the
Workplace Relations Commission are
necessary and will benefit both employ-
ers and employee. These include:
shorter waiting times for hearings and
more effective measures for the enforce-
ment of decisions. Existing Rights
Commissioners and Equality Officers
will become Adjudication Officers when
the Workplace Relations Commission is
instigated on st October. A further
Adjudication Officers have been selected
through a transparent process con-
ducted by the Public Appointments
Service. Some of these have already
begun hearing Equality cases. However,
the new Adjudication Officers are being
paid a low daily rate. This means most
of them are working part-time. Some
have expressed fears that this could
lead to potential conflicts of interest.
The Employment Appeals Tribunal
will be dissolved as it is an expensive
system requiring a Vice Chair (facilitat-
ing political appointments of Solicitors
and Barristers) as well as a worker
member and a business member.
Instead, under the new system an adju-
dication officer will sit on her own (in
private) hearing complaints. However,
at least one reform flies in the face of
transparent administration of justice.
Section () of the Workplace
Relations Act states: “The Com-
mission shall publish on the internet in
such form and in such manner as it con-
siders appropriate every decision (other
than information that would identify
the parties in relation to whom the deci-
sion was made) of an adjudication
officer under this section”.
Anonymisation of decisions is a ret-
rograde step. The Employment Appeals
Tribunal currently holds hearings in
public: anybody can attend. They deal
with important issues like unfair dis-
missal e.g the Sean Quinn v IBRC case.
The Equality Tribunal holds it hearings
in private but publishes all decisions on
its website with both employers and
employees named (unless in the case of
a minor, certain disabilities or sexual
harassment cases). From st October
this will no longer be the case.
Employment law practitioners say
that the most powerful sword over bad
employers or service-providers has
been the threat of their name in the
papers. Both Equality tribunal redress
and EAT awards tend to be quite low so
reputational damage can be the main
factor in preventing employers attempt-
ing to defend the indefensible. There is
every likelihood now that employers
will no longer bother with the first
instance stage and will put their energy
into settling just before the appeal stage
at the Labour Court (which, in fairness,
will be in public). However, this imposes
a huge cost on the taxpayer as Deputy
Chairpersons of the Labour Court are
paid at the equivalent of Assistant Sec-
retary in the Civil Service level
(€, to €,). It will also
discourage the use of the Early Resolu-
tion and mediation service. All
litigation is about assessing risk. Even
in the existing system, the odds of an
employee winning a case are low
-approximately a one in three chance in
the Equality Tribunal and odds of about
one in five with an unfair dismissal case
in the EAT. Why would an employer
settle a case at an early stage when it
would be as cost-effective to do it at a
later stage? In a time when court
reporters are allowed access to the
family courts, questions have to be
asked about why this approach to some-
thing as important as employment
rights is being taken.
While the Bill was going through the
Oireachtas it was clear there was no
appetite for anonymisation of decisions
during the public consultation on the
WRC. Trade Unions certainly do not
want it, neither do legal representatives
(they like the deflected fame) and IBEC
has never publicly canvassed for it as
employees are also named. This is one
of the downsides of the vested enfran-
chisements that underpinned social
partnership. And the Labour party
notably did not take a stand on this.
If this part of the Act is not amended,
it will mean that cases like the Philip
Smith v RSA, Sheehy Skeffington v
NUIG or the three Filipina workers
against the UAE Embassy in Ireland
would never have benefited from the
public illumination of daylight.
Anonymisation of employment law
decisions does not occur in any other
countr y.
Why is Ireland so out of step with
international best practice?
The current government has brought
in very important legislation creating a
register of lobbyists and the shielding of
whistleblowers in the Protected Disclo-
sures Act . Anonymisation of
employment law decisions is against the
tide of this increased transparency in
Government. •
The Workplace Relations Commission will anonymise its decisions. By Michael Smith
Justice in the dark
NEWS Workplace Relations
