Vol. 251 No. 9
asked the Minister for Labour the number of appeals dismissed by the tribunal under section 24 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967; if he will state in that connection the number of cases in which employers had previously failed to give a notice under section 17 and/or a redundancy certificate under section 18; and the number of prosecutions initiated by his Department.
54.
asked the Minister for Labour the number of appeals dismissed by the tribunal under section 24 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 in cases where the tribunal found that a redundancy certificate should be issued or the employee was dismissed in circumstances of redundancy or the employee was awarded weekly payments; if he will state in relation to those decisions the number of cases in which the employer had failed to give a notice under section 17 or a redundancy certificate under section 18; and the number of prosecutions initiated by his Department.
55.
asked the Minister for Labour if he will state, in relation to appeals dismissed by the tribunal under section 24 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 in respect of which the employee was held to have been dismissed in circumstances of redundancy, (a) the number of redundancy certificates awarded by the tribunal, (b) the number of cases in which redundancy certificates were not awarded and (c) the number of cases in which the employee had or had not appealed against the employer's decision to refuse a redundancy certificate.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 53, 54 and 55 together.
It is not possible to furnish answers to these questions in the precise form sought by the Deputy. From an examination of decisions of the Redundancy Appeals Tribunal, a total of 55 appeals were heard by the tribunal to which section 24 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, applied. Of these 55 appeals, the tribunal in seven cases expressed no opinion on the question of whether or not, but for section 24, the appeals would have succeeded. In 36 cases the tribunal held that, irrespective of section 24, the appellants were not entitled to lump sums or weekly redundancy payments. In 11 cases the tribunal decided that the appellants satisfied the general conditions for redundancy payments, except for the provisions of section 24, and were entitled to weekly redundancy payments. In the remaining case, the tribunal held that the appellant was not eligible for redundancy payments because of the 1969 High Court decision in the Limerick Health Authority v. Mrs. Anna Ryan case.
From the above particulars, it will be seen that in only 11 of the 55 cases were the entitlements of the appellants concerned to redundancy payments, but for the application of section 24 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, established by the tribunal. Weekly redundancy payments have been or will be paid to the 11 employees concerned. The employers concerned in these 11 cases, three employers in all, failed to give notices to the employees concerned under sections 17 or 18 of the Act. The decisions of the tribunal in ten of the 11 cases have been published only at the end of January, 1971. In the remaining case, my Department secured the payment by the employers to the employee concerned of the lump sum to which he would have been entitled but for the failure of his appeal under section 24 and for lump sum payments to be made by the employer to eight other employees of the same company who were dismissed in the same circumstances. I decided, in view of the employer's agreement to pay lump sums to the nine employees, that proceedings should not be instituted against the company.
56.
asked the Minister for Labour the expenditure from State funds on the resettlement allowances scheme under the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, in respect of the year ended (a) 31st December, 1968, (b) 31st December, 1969, and (c) 31st December, 1970; and the estimated expenditure in the year ending 31st December, 1971.
The expenditure from State funds under the resettlement allowances scheme in the years 1968, 1969 and 1970 was £383, £632 and £4,377 respectively.
It is estimated that expenditure under the scheme in the year ending on 31st December, 1971, will be of the order of £12,000 to £15,000. This is a tentative figure as it is difficult to forecast the effect of the extension of the scope of the scheme proposed in the Redundancy Payments Bill, 1970.
57.
asked the Minister for Labour if he will state in respect of the Redundancy Fund the surplus at (a) 31st December, 1968, (b) 31st December, 1969, and (c) 31st December, 1970; the estimated surplus at 31st December 1971 on the basis of the Redundancy Payments Bill, 1970, as introduced; and the yield of one new penny in contribution in a year.
The surplus of the Redundancy Fund at
(a) 31st December, 1968, was £660,732;
(b) 31st December, 1969, was £1,135,961;
(c) 31st December, 1970, was £1,750,000 (provisional).
The estimated surplus at 31st December, 1971, on the basis of the Redundancy Payments Bill, 1970, as introduced will be £2,000,000.
It is estimated that an increase of one new penny in redundancy contributions for every worker would yield £380,000 in a year.
