Lack of staff, resources, training and legal support is hampering the pursuit of employers who exploit their workers, labour inspectors have told the Government. Confusing legislation, inadequate powers, ambiguous targets and a lack of clarity on their roles are also hindering their work, the inspectors say in a confidential document seen by The Irish Times.
The document starkly sets out how poorly equipped inspectors are to tackle workplace exploitation. The problems they highlight include:
Officials in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment wrote the report on the mandate and resourcing of the labour inspectorate.
It was prepared as part of a review of employment rights set up under Sustaining Progress, and drew heavily on the practical experience of the inspectors themselves.
The review, which is ongoing, was a response to trade union demands for a big increase in the number of inspectors dealing with workplace exploitation. There are currently 21 inspectors.
The department's report says that even that figure overstates the number of inspectors normally working.
"In practice, the labour inspectorate has only very rarely had its full complement of officers due to delays in fulfilling vacancies. . .
"The lack of resources is also a severe impediment when our business plan, concentrated campaigns or sectoral 'blitzes' are being implemented.
"Until this lack of a critical mass of inspectors is addressed no significant improvement in the current performance of the inspectorate can be envisaged."
The report suggests the number of inspectors should be raised to between 38 and 51, based on a study by the International Labour Organisation.
A serious problem identified in the report is the high turnover of staff at the inspectorate, resulting in "a loss of experience, knowledge and expertise".
The average amount of experience within the inspectorate at present is 15 months, it says. "It should be noted that an inspector would only begin to feel capable and confident of carrying out their duties after a 12-18 month period."
Bizarrely, the report reveals that while various competencies are necessary for a person to be appointed an inspector, knowledge of employment rights legislation is not one of them.
It follows from that, the report says, that a "thorough, structured training regime" is a necessity.
"The reality is that the training regime is haphazard, unstructured and quite inadequate."
The consequences of this include "a lack of consistency in the handling and management of cases".
"From informal discussion with inspectors it is quite clear that the lack of self-assurance undermines confidence in bringing cases forward for prosecution . . . That lack of confidence must also come into play, at least sometimes, when inspections are under way."
The report also highlights the lack of powers held by inspectors in a range of areas. Under the Organisation of Working Time Act, for example, they are empowered only to ensure employers keep records.
"Under the Payment of Wages Act the only issue an inspector can pursue is an employer's failure to provide a payslip."
Other breaches of either Act are a matter for the rights commissioners.
The report also refers to "confusion" over the inspectorate's mandate. When urgent cases arise, "regular work" is deferred and inspectors find themselves operating in a "fire brigade fashion".
"The situation has both a demotivating effect on the officers concerned and also has a detrimental impact on the overall effectiveness and professionalism of the service."
