A system under stress

WE HAVE five state bodies overseeing disputes in the workplace — but yet cases take up to two years to get a hearing.

These organisations and their dedicated staff provide a crucial public service — but is anybody well served by the system?

In these pages recently, Fergus Finlay wrote about the importance of ensuring that the good work done by the Equality Tribunal is not undermined by the reforms under way within my department. I share his concerns.

Citizens have a right to assume that the State will protect them against discrimination on the grounds of gender, age, race or nationality, and the Equality Tribunal is the forum to which they can take complaints in relation to these rights.

However, despite the best efforts of staff, it can currently take up to two years for an equality case to be scheduled for hearing, and even longer to have rights vindicated. If a worker has an employment law complaint as well as an equality complaint arising from the same issues, he/she will usually have to pursue two different cases with two different bodies, with two different routes for appeal afterwards.

Other workplace disputes, depending on their nature, may come under the responsibility of the Labour Relations Commission (LRC), the National Employment Rights Authority (NERA), the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) or the Labour Court. This complex and expensive system was established not in pursuit of any plan, but in a piecemeal manner.

As currently set up, their responsibilities often overlap and the service they provide is too often characterised by confusion and delay. Last year, workers seeking to enforce their rights faced waiting times of up to 80 weeks, more than 50 different forms, and six different websites.

Despite — or possibly because of — the existence of five overlapping bodies, many workplace abuses go undetected, while too many disputes which could be resolved earlier are driven straight to a confrontational legalistic hearing. Workers seeking to enforce their rights face making multiple applications to different bodies arising from one incident.

Taxpayers, employees and employers, as well as the people who work in these organisations, are all badly served by this system.

My aim is to create a new world-class streamlined system which costs less to the taxpayer, slashesdelays, encourages early resolution of disputes, and is easier and cheaper to use for employees and employers alike.

Already the reforms which have been instituted have started to bear fruit:

* The backlog for Rights Commissioner hearings has been reduced from 142 days in 2010 to a matter of weeks now;

* All complaints are acknowledged and notified within five days of being lodged — compared with the eight months it took in some cases in 2011;

* A Single Complaint Form for all first instance complaints has replaced the 30 that existed previously, covering the more than 100 different complaint types;

* There is now a Single Point of Contact for all complaints — replacing the five that existed previously.

The remaining reforms which are currently in train, and which will be delivered by the end of 2012, include:

* A one-stop-shop for information about employment and equality cases — this information is currently spread across several sources;

* An Early Resolution Service to facilitate resolution of disputes without the need to resort to a hearing or inspection;

* A streamlined structure to replace the five bodies currently in existence, with a single body of first instance and a single appeals body, established on a statutory basis, with common time-limits and a target of three months from complaint to hearing;

* Written, reasoned and published decisions — extending good practice from the Equality Tribunal across the system;

* Mechanisms to encourage compliance with employment law and to help resolve disputes in the workplace rather than resorting to inspections and hearings.

However, as Fergus Finlay argues, it is crucial that in our reforms we do not throw the baby out with the bath water.

In the case of the Equality Tribunal with which Mr Finlay is particularly concerned, I am determined to ensure that its important work is protected — but also to ensure it is done better, quicker, and with less disruption and expense to employee, employer and taxpayer alike.

AS PART of these changes, I will ensure that all functions currently carried out by the tribunal continue to be performed after the reform process is completed. I will guard against a loss of corporate memory by ensuring that staff currently employed by the tribunal will continue to adjudicate on equality cases in the new structures.

In addition the mediation function, which was so successful in the Equality Tribunal, will continue to be available in equality cases and will in future be available as part of the Early Resolution Service for other employment complaints. I will ensure that very important services like publication of case-law continues.

Promotion of equality in the workplace, setting standards, and provision of advice and support were never the responsibility of the Equality Tribunal — advice and advocacy could not be carried out by the same body responsible for deciding on complaints. These functions will remain the responsibility of the Equality Authority, under the responsibility of the Minister for Justice and Equality.

These reforms are being carried out in cooperation with all stakeholders, including representatives of employees and of employers, management and workers of the state bodies affected by change, other government departments with an interest in the process — all of whom have engaged very constructively in the process.

Reform is never easy, and some difficult questions remain to be resolved before we reach our goals — including for example what is the best way to deal with Equal Status claims in the new arrangements. This will be the subject of further engagement with stakeholders.

I am convinced by the end of the year we will have created a world-class system for resolving workplace disputes, as well as a model for introducing positive change in the public sector, in the interests of taxpayers, public sector workers, and service users alike, from which we can all learn lessons.

* Richard Bruton is Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation