It is not only migrant workers who need protection from some employers, writes Chris Dooley, Industry and Employment Correspondent.
If one good thing emerges from the Gama Construction controversy, it may be that the Government will finally begin taking employment rights seriously.
The first sign of hope was provided last week by Minister for Enterprise Micheál Martin when he announced a plan to appoint 10 new labour inspectors, in addition to the existing 21.
In itself, this is just a small first step towards what is required to police an economy which has nearly two million employees.
The most significant aspect of Mr Martin's announcement, however, was his decision to make the new inspectors specifically responsible for sectors where migrant workers are concentrated.
This is the first time the Government has acknowledged that exploitation of migrant workers is a particular concern. His predecessor, Mary Harney, steadfastly refused to do so. In fairness to her, the intention was not to discriminate, but rather to ensure there was no division in status between Irish and foreign employees.
"All workers have the same rights and recourse to redress regardless of their background," was almost a mantra from her department whenever concerns were raised, which was often.
But rights are no good without a means of vindicating them, and this problem goes to the heart of the sorry mess that passes for the State's employment rights system.
There is no shortage of legislation in the area. EU membership has brought with it what Labour Court chairman Kevin Duffy described recently as an "explosion" in employment legislation.
But while the system delivers results for some, it is clearly not working for all.
Any doubts about this were surely dispelled by officials in the department's own employment rights unit, in a recent document that paints a depressing picture of the situation. The document was prepared for a review of the employment rights arena set up under Sustaining Progress.
As reported in The Irish Times earlier this month, it reveals that labour inspectors are deeply dissatisfied about the level of service they are able to provide. It highlights the difficulties facing individuals in pursuing what should be straightforward cases and in bringing them to a conclusion.
One example in the report sets out just how laborious and complex the system has become in some areas. A person has been awarded compensation against an employer by the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) or the Labour Court.
As is not uncommon (a perusal of the Labour Court's website will bear this out) the employer in this theoretical example refuses to pay up. One avenue of redress for the employee is to ask the Minister for Enterprise to apply to the courts to have the order against the employer enforced.
First, the employee must forward a copy of the Labour Court's or EAT's decision to the department along with a copy of the last tax document received from the employer.
The department's legal services unit must then check with the Department of Social and Family Affairs that the employer named in the decision is the legal employer, and with the Companies Registration Office if the employer is a company.
It will then write to the employer requesting payment within 14 days. If the money is not paid, a case is prepared for referral to the Chief State Solicitor's Office. This involves legal searches to check assets and to obtain previous judgments. And the process goes on. Not surprisingly, the officials want "a simpler legal process".
Other aspects of the report, already highlighted in The Irish Times, are of even greater concern. Limited powers to take on rogue employers, inadequate penalties and a range of systemic failures combine to create an environment in which exploitation goes unchecked.
Irish Congress of Trade Unions general secretary David Begg referred on Friday to a "culture of impunity" among employers, and the officials' report bears this out.
The courtroom experiences of some inspectors, it says, do not "instil a sense that they are perceived as working in the general public interest".
It quotes from a report of a recent case, written by an inspector, after he had brought a prosecution under the Protection of Young Persons Act.
The case involved more than 40 breaches of the Act; a child had been working up to 10pm and a young person more than 10 hours a day, up to 2am. The judge imposed a fine of €230.
The inspector's report continued: "Comment by Judge . . . What do they spend the money on! The Government is taking money from them in taxes so that more of ye (inspectors) can be employed to go around and get more of them and keep the cycle going on and on. Laughter in court."
The case underlines the fact that it is not only migrant workers who require protection from unscrupulous employers. The Gama case should ensure the issue can no longer be dismissed - or indeed laughed at.