The Government is to proceed with plans to curtail the work of the Employment Appeals Tribunal despite a claim that the move will severely diminish the rights of dismissed workers.
The decision, announced by Minister of State for Labour Affairs Tony Killeen, will result in the tribunal's role being limited to that of an appellate body only.
The move was strongly opposed by the tribunal chair, Kate O'Mahony.
In a letter to Mr Killeen, seen by The Irish Times, she claimed it would have far-reaching effects and would downgrade the rights of dismissed employees.
It would "relegate Ireland to the lower echelons among the European member states in terms of its employment rights", she claimed.
The move means people taking unfair dismissal cases will be required to go before a rights commissioner in the first instance, with the option of appealing a decision to the tribunal only after this procedure has been exhausted.
Ms O'Mahony's letter to Mr Killeen was written on March 31st, before the decision was taken to scale back the tribunal's role.
The change had been signposted following a Government review of the employment rights arena.
This was designed to eliminate complexities and duplications in a system which is at present administered by seven State bodies, operating under 25 Acts.
The Irish Congress of Trade Unions, in particular, had lobbied for the Employment Appeal Tribunal's functions to be curtailed.
In a submission to the review group, it said the tribunal had become "overly legalistic" and could often be a "cold place" for workers. "Despite the absence of 'wigs and gowns' . . . the Employment Appeals Tribunal is an intimidating place."
In contrast, the rights commissioners' procedures were "user friendly and informal", it said.
Ms O'Mahony told Mr Killeen that the tribunal's lay members were "taken aback" by congress's complaints, as the tribunal was constitutionally bound to act fairly and apply fair procedures.
"Some would want the tribunal to apply the bargaining, negotiating and compromise practices of an industrial relations process, but these are not appropriate procedures for the vindication of a legal right."
In a document submitted to Mr Killeen, Ms O'Mahony said the change would be a retrograde step for several reasons.
It would force unfair dismissal claimants to go through a two-stage process before they could obtain a legally binding decision.
This would have the effect of doubling the delays and costs for the parties, the State and the employment rights bodies involved.
Two-thirds of unfair dismissal claimants opted to take their cases directly to the tribunal at present, she pointed out, rather than to a rights commissioner.
"There is more confidence in the decision of a competent, independent and balanced tripartite body, whose members are drawn from both sides of industry with a legal chairman to interpret the law."
Future generations of workers, she said, "will not thank us for dismantling the solid protections we have in place".
Concern about the move has also been expressed by Fine Gael employment spokesman Phil Hogan, who said it did not have the universal support of "practitioners in the field".
Mr Killeen, however, said there was a "considerable level of support" for the move.
He was aware there were divergent views, but the "overarching concern of Government must be to ensure that the system is fair and accessible to everybody at reasonable cost."
An Employment Rights Group has been set up to advise the Government on how the change, and other planned reforms, is to be implemented.
The group comprises civil servants as well as representatives of the social partners and employment rights bodies, including the Employment Appeals Tribunal.
