'Ireland faces legal aid crisis' as Flac fields 53,000 calls in a year
In its annual report, Flac said it only has the capacity to respond to a fifth of these queries, with family law and employment law the main areas in which people sought assistance. Furthermore, it said a record high of 539 queries in relation to domestic violence were received in 2024.
'We have nowhere to refer the 20% of callers who seek employment law advice as the Legal Aid Board cannot provide representation before the Workplace Relations Commission [WRC] or indeed in social welfare appeals,' said chief executive Eilis Barry.
'The Legal Aid Board does not have the function of providing legal information and while it can provide legal advice in relation to the areas of law where legal representation is not available, like social welfare, housing, and discrimination, it does not do so to any significant extent.
Flac, with tiny resources and staff numbers, cannot begin to bridge the gulf left by the chronically under-resourced Legal Aid Board, with its limited functions and narrow scope.
Callers to the Flac phoneline with family law queries frequently reported being unable to access a family law solicitor from the Legal Aid Board's private practitioner panel, even though they had been approved for legal aid.
Flac also provided representation for 102 complaints under equality legislation.
Cases under equality legislation involved alleged discrimination in employment by shops, hotels, schools, healthcare providers, childcare providers, and providers of public transport.
Employment law queries centred on issues around grievance procedures, dismissal, bullying or harassment, and discrimination, which were all at higher rates than the previous year.
Flac said it often heard from people representing themselves in cases before the WRC and facing an employer who has instructed a solicitor and barrister.
Flac has nowhere to refer these people to because the Legal Aid Board cannot provide representation in such settings.
Cases highlighted in annual report
Its annual report also highlighted successful cases, such as the High Court ordering a local authority to provide a Traveller family with Traveller-specific accommodation after finding it had been unreasonable in withdrawing a housing offer to the family.
In another case, a school was ordered to pay €5,000 in compensation to a student with a visual disability after the WRC found his exclusion from the Summer Provision Scheme constituted discrimination.
"It is incredibly difficulty to achieve change in the area of civil legal aid, due perhaps to a perception that it is about more money for lawyers,' said Ms Barry.
'This ignores the very high cost of not providing legal aid to children, families, and communities, and the growing body of international research that shows unequivocally that investment in legal aid saves states more money than it costs.
Civil legal aid needs to be treated like the vital public service which it is.
She said the Legal Aid Board should be resourced to provide legal information and advice to address the 'huge unmet need' for these services, and it must be able to provide representation in employment, discrimination, social welfare, and housing cases.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
2 days ago
- Irish Examiner
'Ireland faces legal aid crisis' as Flac fields 53,000 calls in a year
Ireland is facing 'nothing less than a civil legal aid crisis', the Free Legal Advice Centres (Flac) has said, after new data showed that the organisation received more than 53,000 calls for support last year. In its annual report, Flac said it only has the capacity to respond to a fifth of these queries, with family law and employment law the main areas in which people sought assistance. Furthermore, it said a record high of 539 queries in relation to domestic violence were received in 2024. 'We have nowhere to refer the 20% of callers who seek employment law advice as the Legal Aid Board cannot provide representation before the Workplace Relations Commission [WRC] or indeed in social welfare appeals,' said chief executive Eilis Barry. 'The Legal Aid Board does not have the function of providing legal information and while it can provide legal advice in relation to the areas of law where legal representation is not available, like social welfare, housing, and discrimination, it does not do so to any significant extent. Flac, with tiny resources and staff numbers, cannot begin to bridge the gulf left by the chronically under-resourced Legal Aid Board, with its limited functions and narrow scope. Callers to the Flac phoneline with family law queries frequently reported being unable to access a family law solicitor from the Legal Aid Board's private practitioner panel, even though they had been approved for legal aid. Flac also provided representation for 102 complaints under equality legislation. Cases under equality legislation involved alleged discrimination in employment by shops, hotels, schools, healthcare providers, childcare providers, and providers of public transport. Employment law queries centred on issues around grievance procedures, dismissal, bullying or harassment, and discrimination, which were all at higher rates than the previous year. Flac said it often heard from people representing themselves in cases before the WRC and facing an employer who has instructed a solicitor and barrister. Flac has nowhere to refer these people to because the Legal Aid Board cannot provide representation in such settings. Cases highlighted in annual report Its annual report also highlighted successful cases, such as the High Court ordering a local authority to provide a Traveller family with Traveller-specific accommodation after finding it had been unreasonable in withdrawing a housing offer to the family. In another case, a school was ordered to pay €5,000 in compensation to a student with a visual disability after the WRC found his exclusion from the Summer Provision Scheme constituted discrimination. "It is incredibly difficulty to achieve change in the area of civil legal aid, due perhaps to a perception that it is about more money for lawyers,' said Ms Barry. 'This ignores the very high cost of not providing legal aid to children, families, and communities, and the growing body of international research that shows unequivocally that investment in legal aid saves states more money than it costs. Civil legal aid needs to be treated like the vital public service which it is. She said the Legal Aid Board should be resourced to provide legal information and advice to address the 'huge unmet need' for these services, and it must be able to provide representation in employment, discrimination, social welfare, and housing cases.
Irish Times
4 days ago
- Irish Times
Charity finance manager who raised concerns over accounts awarded €35,000 for dismissal
A charity has been ordered to pay its former finance manager nearly €35,000 for dismissing him 'wholly or mainly' because he voiced fears its accounts might not stand up to an audit. The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) ruled that an email from the employee, a chartered accountant, looking for 'extra time' to investigate a loss of €33,000, sparked an 'adverse' response from its former chief executive. In a ruling just published, the WRC held back the charity's identity, despite the complainant's objections to holding the case in private, citing the nature of its work and the potential that a Garda probe into allegations of 'criminal conduct and financial irregularities' might be prejudiced. The charity asked that the case be entirely anonymised on the grounds that 'negative publicity' would lead to those using its services losing confidence. READ MORE The accountant, who represented himself before the WRC in March said he took up work with the charity as an independent contractor in June 2023 and joined its staff on September 30th that year. The charity's previous finance manager had been out sick before leaving the organisation, while an accounts assistant also left in October 2023, leaving the complainant responsible for the bookkeeping and payroll, and dealing with creditors as well, the tribunal heard. On October 26th, 2023, the complainant said, he told a board member, Mr A, he would have management accounts available 'as soon as possible' in response to a query. The organisation's chief executive wrote the following day, the eve of the October bank holiday weekend, asking after the accounts and stating they had been due the previous day. The claimant replied that he was looking into a 'draft loss of €33,000' and had identified matters requiring 'explanation and correction'. 'I must do a thorough clean up now in order to pass audit by end of January 2024. I need some extra time please,' the email concluded. When the chief executive said the board member would come to the office the following Tuesday to 'assist with the anomalies in the management accounts' the claimant expressed concerns about independence, the email thread submitted to the WRC read. The chief executive said he was 'comfortable' with the board member assisting. The complainant told the WRC the costs were being treated as current liabilities on the balance sheet and he was not confident they were being posted correctly. 'Substantial payments leaving the bank account in October 2023 triggered the query, and there was a snowball effect from there,' he said in his evidence, adding that he 'wanted to see what else was outstanding'. The claimant said he 'wasn't sure' at the time whether or not there was wrongdoing afoot at the charity but he was 'confident that company law was not being complied with and that books and records were not being kept, which is an offence'. He added that when he used the phrase 'pass audit' he 'did not do that lightly'. 'Accounts don't lie,' he said, adding that if he was in the place of his boss, he would have seen it as a 'red flag' and given more time to examine the matter instead of dismissing him. He called in sick the Tuesday after the bank holiday. The chief executive wrote to him on Thursday, November 2nd terminating his probationary employment with immediate effect. He had been a direct employee of the charity for just over a month. He also made formal written complaints to the Garda Fraud Squad, and the Charities Regulator the tribunal heard. The respondent's lawyers submitted that these complaints cited 'alleged misappropriation of funds by the CEO'. Una Clifford BL instructed by John Carroll of Crowley Millar Solicitors, for the charity, argued that the email was not a protected disclosure, but 'just another excuse' for delay due to 'poor performance'. The board member, Mr A, said he was an accountant himself and did not consider the complainant 'competent' in the role. Mr A accepted the accounts 'required improvement' but said they were not in 'as bad a state' as the complainant alleged. The chief executive, in his evidence, denied the email of October 27th was a protected disclosure. He said concerns were raised at a board meeting on Wednesday, November 1st about the complainant having 'inappropriate contact with service users', 'having his feet on the desk' and an 'issue' with Garda vetting. The accountant was terminated for poor performance, he added. The witness said the claimant had 'disobeyed a direct reasonable instruction' about going to a Friday coffee morning with service users. The claimant said he only ever went in the company of a professional employed by the charity. The tribunal also heard that in the days between the claimant writing his email and being dismissed, the charity's board discussed his Garda vetting application and noted in its minutes that he was 'not forthcoming' when he filled out the form. The claimant told the WRC that he had been bogged down with work and was delayed in submitting the application – but that in any event, the Garda vetting bureau had advised him he did not need to be vetted. He accepted when questioned that vetting was a term of his contract, but asked in response why he had been 'allowed on site without Garda vetting'. Adjudicator Michael MacNamee wrote that when he heard the evidence on the question of alleged inappropriate contact with service users, he was 'left with the impression that it was far less serious than was suggested in the submissions'. It lacked 'credibility' as a reason for dismissal, he added. Any issue around Garda vetting was 'no longer live' by the time it was brought before the board, he added. The adjudicator noted that both Mr A and the complainant were accountants, but neither could be said to be independent, so there was no independent expert evidence before him on the accounts. He concluded on the balance of probabilities that the charity had failed to rebut the presumption that the claimant had a 'reasonable belief that the accounts were not being kept in accordance with the legal requirements'. He concluded that the email of October 27th, 2023 from the complainant was a protected disclosure, and that this 'started a chain reaction which led directly to the complainant's dismissal'. The WRC ruled that the accountant's dismissal 'resulted wholly or mainly from the making by him of a protected disclosure'. Whatever concerns the chief executive had about the worker's performance 'whether justified or not', there was no written record of anything serious enough to require more than some 'coaching', the adjudicator wrote. He found the chief executive had a 'strong adverse reaction' to the email of October 27th, 2023 which was exacerbated by the complainant's emails pushing back on allowing Mr A becoming involved, and leading ultimately to the chief executive's patience running out. He ruled the worker was unfairly dismissed and awarded him €34,737 in compensation.
RTÉ News
4 days ago
- RTÉ News
RTÉ HR manager denies making worker 'misrepresent' tax status
A senior human resources manager at RTÉ has denied that it procured a media worker to "misrepresent his employment status" to the taxman to get shifts in its newsroom. The worker, Joseph Kelly, claims he was denied the statutory entitlements to paid leave and Sunday premium pay that would normally accrue to an employee while he was engaged by the broadcaster under a "freelance" contract between 2012 and 2018. The State broadcaster, however, argues that Mr Kelly was paid all Sunday premium owed, along with annual leave and public holidays. RTÉ was found liable for a €36,000 bill for the period by the Department of Social Protection after it ruled in 2022 that Mr Kelly had been employed since 2012. However, it maintains the ruling only pertains to insurability of employment and that the claims are out of time. Questioned repeatedly about Mr Kelly's status at a hearing yesterday, a senior human resources manager at RTÉ said: "We absolutely accept the insurability decision. The reality was that the contract Joseph signed was a sole trader agreement. I can't rewrite history, that's what it was." The WRC was hearing evidence in complaints brought under the Organisation of Working Time Act 2005 and the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 by Mr Kelly. Mr Kelly's representative, Martin McMahon, said the Scope ruling showed his client "should have been treated as an employee" by RTÉ since 2012, and it therefore followed that he had been denied various pay-related statutory rights set out in his complaints. Mr Kelly claims he was denied the entitlement to paid annual leave, not paid for public holidays, and did not receive a premium for Sunday work from 2012 to 2018. He further alleges he was not provided with a statement of his core terms of employment. Giving evidence yesterday, Mr Kelly said: "The way I was brought in was by word of mouth. "My name was given to a guy, I was brought in, talked to a manager, it was a casual interview. When I was coming in, HR said I had to be a sole trader, so I became a sole trader," he said. Mr Kelly said his job at that time in the broadcaster's media ingest department from 2012 to 2018 was to "cover the guys in the room" - all of whom were RTÉ employees - and to do "whatever was needed of me". It was a "high-pressure role" where Mr Kelly and his coworkers received and organised multimedia material and recorded news feeds from across the world in preparation for news broadcasts, the complainant said. "I wouldn't have received time off. It's famine or feast - you might have a month where you might get two days; you might have a month where you only get two days off," Mr Kelly told the hearing. This situation continued from 2012 to 2018, when the ingest room manager "got a promotion" and an employee "moved up" into the management position, leaving an open vacancy, whereupon he "became staff", Mr Kelly said. He told the WRC that due to the fact he was self employed, he "wasn't allowed" to apply for internal jobs. Having received a staff contract, he later secured a more senior position as a newsroom coordinator in 2023, he said. He also said he believed he should have got incremental pay rises and could have advanced to a more senior role more quickly if he had access to internal staff competitions and that he "should be on a higher rate than I'm on now". Addressing Mr Kelly's current contract in cross-examination, RTÉ's solicitor, Seamus Given of Arthur Cox, put it to the complainant that he was on point 12 of a 14-point salary scale in his current role, after 11 years' service. "I'm putting it to you are correctly positioned," Mr Given said. "Well, I would say no," Mr Kelly said. Angela McEvoy, a senior HR manager at RTÉ, gave evidence that in that period Kelly was paid all Sunday premium owed, along with annual leave and public holidays, referring to a payroll report submitted by the broadcaster. Questioning Ms McEvoy, Mr McMahon said: "Joseph was an employee of RTÉ from 2012 to 2018, that's the legal position, uncontested by RTÉ. Joseph's increments would be different if RTÉ accepted all those years of service, yes or no?" "No, we're saying not, because Mr Kelly is on point 12 of the salary scale, that is obviously close to the top of the salary scale," Ms McEvoy said. Asked whether RTÉ informed Mr Kelly that he had been "misclassified as self-employed" when he was first put on an employment contract in 2018, Ms McEvoy said: "No, because there was no need to do that. There was no need to inform Mr Kelly of anything like that." "Joseph was offered employment in RTÉ, but legally Joseph had been an employee from 2012, do you accept that?" Mr McMahon said. "No I don't," Ms McEvoy said. "You've accepted it in Social Welfare, why won't you accept it here?" Mr McMahon asked. "What RTÉ accepted is a PRSI insurability decision going back to 2012," the witness said. Mr McMahon continued to press Ms McEvoy on this point for some time and received the same answer. She said at one stage: "You're saying there's a contract of employment. We absolutely accept an insurability decision. "The reality was that the contract Joseph signed was a sole trader agreement. I can't rewrite history, that's what it was," she said. Addressing the contract for services signed by Mr Kelly in 2012, Mr McMahon put it to her that RTÉ "has the power in that situation" and that there was "no negotiation" of its terms. "I don't accept what you're saying. There is a choice for an individual to sign or not. Nobody is forced to sign," she said. She agreed that it was a term of the contract that a worker "had to be registered as self-employed in order to access a self-employment agreement" with RTÉ at that time. Mr McMahon said it was an offence to "procure an employee to misrepresent themselves to the Revenue Commissioners". "In the contract, black and white, [it states] RTÉ has to receive written confirmation from the Revenue Commissioners that Joseph can be treated as self-employed for tax purposes," Mr McMahon said. "Do you accept RTÉ did procure Joseph to misrepresent himself to Revenue?" Mr McMahon said. "Absolutely not," Ms McEvoy said.
