I move: "That the Bill be read a Second Time."
This Bill will apply to all persons in employment in firms normally employing more than 20 persons. The main purpose of the Bill is to ensure that employees faced with job loss as a result of impending redundancies receive prior notification as well as being consulted by their employer. The employer contemplating collective redundancies must enter into prior consultation with the representatives of the employees concerned. These consultations must be commenced at the earliest opportunity but at least 30 days before the first dismissal. It is envisaged that the consultation which must take place would be on the basis of information which the employer will supply in regard to
(1) the reasons for the proposed redundancies,
(2) the number of employees proposed to be made redundant,
(3) the number of employees normally employed, and
(4) the period during which it is proposed to effect the proposed redundancies.
A further obligation devolves on the employer to notify me so that opportunity is given to arrive at solutions with assistance of existing agencies like the National Manpower Service either to find alternative jobs or, indeed, redeployment within the undertaking.
I would like to say at this point that the requirements specified in the Bill will assure the employee of forward information and consultation in circumstances of impending redundancies which are no more than most good employers accept voluntarily now.
Employers with good relations with their employees accept that a structural change in their enterprise which may lead to job loss for certain categories should be the subject of prior consultation with representatives of employees. Regrettably there have been exceptions to this majority practice of employers. Employees with many years of service in a particular firm have found themselves at the receiving end of a 48 hour notice that their jobs were gone. Admittedly, in these circumstances individual employees may have legal redress under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973 which we passed here in 1973 and which provides that an employee is entitled after 13 weeks of employment to a week's notice of impending dismissal. His entitlement to notice rises progressively to eight weeks after 15 years of employment. The point remains that as a body employees were in a minority of instances admittedly treated in the harsh manner I have mentioned. By means of this Bill I hope to see consultative practices which exist in most employments extended throughout our industry.
Redundancies will continue to occur in periods when unemployment is a less acute social problem than it is now in all EEC countries. Collective redundancies occur for many reasons and will happen in times of prosperity as well as recession. In some cases, firms which have to reduce or discontinue their activities because of reduced demand for their products are compelled to make a corresponding reduction in their work force. In other cases, dismissals may arise from technical progress in techniques of production or following mergers or concentrations of businesses. The point is that our industry must evolve procedures for dealing with redundancies which are humane, which respect the employee and which minimise hardship to him.
The best redundancy procedures involve a fully articulated scheme, worked out long before the event, between management and the unions concerned. Such procedures would oblige management to give early warning of forthcoming redundancy based on an adequate company manpower planning programme and to enter at the same time into consultation with the employees' representatives concerning details.
I believe that the proposals of this Bill by laying down compulsory guidelines for management, will contribute towards the spread of good practices. Essentially the current proposals aim at reconciling the employers' freedom of management and the employees' stability of employment by respecting the interests of both parties, and introducing into the management's right of dismissal in the work situation where redundancy is inevitable the concept of prior notification and consultation. Hopefully this will reduce the adverse social consequences for the employees and their families. The legislation will in no way hamper the ability of an enterprise to adapt speedily to economic, structural, technical and market changes. If this were otherwise, the very existence of the enterprise and the continued employment of all who remain in it would be endangered. I have already provided in previous legislation protection for legal rights of the individual employee in the Redundancy Payments Acts and the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act. These individual rights of the employee will be further buttressed when the Anti-Discrimination (Unfair Dismissals) Bill, which is at Committee Stage in the House, becomes law.
I have already referred to the entitlements under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act. Under the Redundancy Payments Acts, an employee is entitled to two weeks' notice in writing before being made redundant. These Acts, however, apply only to employees between the ages of 16 and 70 who have been in continuous employment for two years with the same employer and who are insured for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts. However, under the Protection of Employment Bill all employees, irrespective of length of service or of age are included in the proposed consultation procedures.
The Redundancy Payments Acts already referred to do not provide for consultation prior to redundancy. Neither do they decide who shall be selected for redundancy or when they shall be dismissed or how the redundancies shall be phased.
As I indicated earlier, sections 8 and 9 provide that in future an employer who is contemplating collective redundancies must consult beforehand with the representatives of the employees concerned with a view to reaching agreement. These prior consultations should be based on prescribed information supplied by the employer and must cover the possibilities of avoiding redundancies proposed.
So far I have concentrated on consultations between employers and employees. I have also provided in sections 11 and 12 that an employer must give me advance notice in writing of the proposed collective redundancies. I am taking power to prescribe by regulation the particulars to be included in this notification of the employer. Within 21 days of the first notification to my Department, I will require a written report stating whether or not agreement has been reached in the consultations with employee representatives.
Collective redundancies shall not take effect earlier than 30 days after notification to my Department. During that time, the employer will be expected to co-operate as far as possible with officials of the Department in trying to alleviate the adverse effects of the proposed collective redundancies.
I should clarify what is meant by a collective redundancy. For the purposes of the Act a collective redundancy would be taken as occurring where during any period of 30 consecutive days, the number of proposed redundancies is:
(a) at least five in establishments normally employing more than 20 but less than 50 persons,
(b) at least ten in establishments normally employing between 50 and 100 persons,
(c) at least 10 per cent of the number of employees in establishments normally employing between 100 and 300 persons, and
(d) at least 30 in establishments normally employing 300 or more persons.
Under the enforcement provisions of the Act, it will be an offence for an employer not to advise employee representatives and my Department of impending collective redundancies, not to supply all relevant information or not to hold the necessary consultations. It will also be an offence to effect the collective redundancies within the prescribed delay period of 30 days. Substantial fines can be imposed on conviction by the courts for any of these offences. The employer will also be obliged to keep for at least three years records showing that the provisions of the Act are being complied with in relation to his employees. Authorised officers of my Department will have powers of inspection and investigation for the purposes of enforcement of the Act.
The Bill conforms to views put forward on behalf of the Irish delegation at the Council of Ministers meeting in December, 1974, which adopted the EEC directive on harmonisation of the legislation of member states relating to collective redundancies.
I expressed the view on that occasion to my colleagues of the other EEC countries that the directive to be adopted should apply to five dismissals in firms employing between 20 and 50 employees. I did not succeed on that occasion in obtaining a majority agreement for that proposal and, therefore, the final agreed EEC directive applied only where there are ten dismissals. I consider that a minimum of five dismissals in a firm with between 20 and 50 employees relates more to our conditions in contrast to the terms of the directive.
The provisions of the Bill, when enacted, will be brought into operation by ministerial order. It is my wish that the Bill should pass through the House as quickly as possible and become law very soon. I believe that this legislation will be welcomed by all Deputies and I accordingly commend it to the House.