asked the Minister for Labour if redundancy payments will be made to those dismissed on the Lisadell estate, County Sligo, after it was intimated that a Redundancy Bill was being introduced, as those people owing to their age and the nature of their employment are unable to get suitable employment; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Sligo Estate Redundant Workers.
23.
Qualified workers who lost their employment on the Lisadell estate since 1st January, 1968, have received redundancy payments. There is no provision in the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, which would allow its application to redundancies which occurred before 1st January, 1968, when the Act came into operation.
I understand, however, that the workers concerned are at liberty to make application to the President of the High Court for the payment of gratuitous redundancy compensation from the estate of the owner. I also understand that there is a possibility that the Land Commission, which has acquired most of the land, can consider the question of paying cash gratuities to the workers who have lost their employment.
Is the Minister aware that the Redundancy Bill was introduced on 17th May, 1967, and, on 19th May, two days later, six people, five of them qualified, were dismissed on the Lisadell Estate? Is he further aware that there was no reason for the dismissal except to escape redundancy payments to these men because, the following autumn, hay and oats were left uncut on the Lisadell Estate due to lack of labour?
I cannot accept that. The person who made the decision is now deceased but, if he were to avoid responsibility under the Redundancy Payments Act, he could have done this to a number of people, people who lost their employment on 5th January, five days after the commencement date. He also allowed people to remain on the estate in rent free houses after they had lost their employment. I would not, therefore, accept that he was attempting in any way to avoid his responsibilities. He was instructed by the President of the High Court to reduce expenses in the running of the estate.
In view of the fact that the Minister did, on 1st June, 1967, indicate to the House that, if he got evidence of employers putting people out of employment because this Bill was in the offing, he would consider inserting a section in the Bill to cover such people, will he now amend the legislation because these people regard themselves as having had an injustice done to them? I would ask the Minister to investigate this matter. I believe an injustice has been done.
Surely the Minister is aware that the comment he made about the Land Commission being entitled to give gratuities to people in this category is not correct because they would not be in the employment of the owner and they would have to be before they will be considered.
I am advised that is not so.
As a trade union official, I have got numerous letters from the Land Commission stating that is so.
I am advised it is not so.
I will use the Minister's advice against them so.