Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 24 Mar 1977

Vol. 298 No. 3

Protection of Employment Bill, 1976: Fifth Stage.

I move: "That the Bill do now pass."

It is imperative that the Opposition spokesman for employment should offer a final comment before this Bill goes to the Seanad. Under this Bill both sides will have to take certain steps in the event of forthcoming redundancies. It would be an ideal situation if this Bill were never used. I believe the Government, who are now beginning to have a rethink about this, recognise the economic advantage of sustaining industries either by direct participation or by meaningful assistance to prevent redundancies.

Before this legislation was introduced people in every city, town and village had traumatic experiences. Earlier this week the Minister gave figures in answer to a question which indicated the harm that might have been done by the long delay in introducing this legislation. Immediate steps should be taken by the Department of Industry and Commerce or the Department of Finance in an effort to prevent redundancies taking place or to assist an industry.

I want to quote the figures the Minister gave me earlier this week. They frightened me and should frighten any person concerned about this situation. I asked the Minister to tell me the total amounts of redundancy payments in the Cork area paid out of the redundancy fund. If the figures for the Cork area are indicative of the trend throughout the country, one can be very concerned about the lack of Government action. In 1973 the figure was £218,450; in 1974 it was £327,762; in 1975 it had grown threefold and was £979,180, almost £1 million; in 1976 it was £1,306,143. In other words, from 1973 to 1976 the amount in Cork increased sixfold. There is no need for me to say to what better use this money could have been put. It must be remembered that there was also the resultant payments from social welfare, and this came from the same fund. Therefore, I believe this Government have created hardship and caused disappointment in many homes.

Deputies are approached by people who have been made redundant, particularly those in the upper age group who have given long and valued service to a company. Because they are over 45 years of age or even in their early fifties, they go to many interviews with a tremendous handicap— there are many younger people looking for the same jobs. Unfortunately for the working people, the time has come when we have an employers' market and there is little hope that all these people can be accommodated.

About one year ago approximately 1,100 people all over 40 years were looking for senior management positions. Before Christmas that figure had grown to 1,800. That figure has dropped back to 1,400. It must be remembered that that big increase was caused mainly by redundancies.

The Minister said this Bill was not anti-management. I never suggested it was. What I did suggest was that it could have harmful effects and be a possible deterrent, through fear to employers. I am not talking now about this Bill alone—because I believe this measure is very important —but about this package of social legislation which we are enacting at a time in our economic life when employment should be in the forefront. This legislation will be worthless unless the Government take serious cognisance of any forthcoming possible redundancies notified under the terms of this Bill. In other words, Departments that can do something to aid an industry on the verge of collapse should subsidise it, because I believe it is far cheaper to subsidise than it is to allow a business to die. However, what is more important is the disruption in the home and the morale shattering experience for so many good people determined to find work and not content to receive something in lieu. For the vast majority the soul-shattering experience of redundancy has done harm.

This Bill can be used, provided the Government have the will, to the advantage of those who might be threatened with redundancy. I hope we will see no more redundancy, but this Government have failed to take steps even when they have had more than ample notice of the trend of events. No steps were taken to aid industry, steps that could have been and should have been taken. Had the proper steps been taken jobs would have been saved. Fortunately, there has been a change of heart but the experience in the meantime has been a costly one. I maintain the Government owe an apology to every worker who became redundant since the end of 1974 and an explanation as to why this measure was not introduced earlier in order to save jobs.

Deputy Moore rose.

The Deputy appreciates he may speak only on what is in the Bill on this Stage.

Of course. The fact that the provisions of this Bill are being applied now is in one way an indictment of the Government and of the condition of employment generally. The greatest protection one can give a worker is the knowledge that there are so many jobs available employers are actually looking for workers to do them. Apparently we are now prepared to accept as the norm an abnormal unemployment situation.

Deputy Fitzgerald is quite right in saying that the image created abroad is that this Government are antiemployer and anti-enterprise. When one looks at the nations of Europe and sees the high standard of living enjoyed by the communities there, one realises the sorry state in which the economy is here. Most of these nations are approaching full employment because of their almost total commitment to free enterprise. Like Deputy Fitzgerald, I deplore the rising numbers in redundancy. This is an effort by the Government to try to protect what is left of our labour force in employment. It is not designed to expand employment. Some of the safeguards would be necessary at any time but the majority are necessary now because of the negative attitude of the Government towards employment over the past few years.

The economy is slowly grinding to a halt. We will probably have more redundancies and more unemployment. The Government should examine their consciences and their attitude towards free enterprise and initiate a massive attack on unemployment. The best way to protect employment is by creating more jobs. Parts of this Bill are necessary but I would suggest that the Minister might direct his talent and his energies more towards the creation of employment instead of accepting the fact that we are going to have more redundancies and the workforce will go on shrinking. Of course, protection will always be necessary but attack is the best form of defence and the real defence of the worker would be an attack on the unemployment situation. If more jobs are not created, the figures for redundancies in Cork, as instanced by Deputy Fitzgerald, will be double this time next year.

Collective redundancies will occur irrespective of whether times are good or bad. Redundancies will occur in times of prosperity. Whether redundancies occur because demand is declining or whether they occur for technical reasons, arrangements have to be made to ensure that employers adopt humane procedures for dealing with redundancies in order to minimise hardship. Under this Bill the employer must enter into prior consultation with the representatives of the employees concerned and these consultations must be commenced at least 30 days before the first dismissal. The employer must also provide certain information to the employee as to the reasons for the redundancy. The vast majority of employers already engage in this prior consultation but there have been exceptions. There have been cases where employees with many years' service have found themselves at the receiving end of a 48-hour notice. It is to combat this practice in a minority of cases this Bill has been introduced. I hope to see the widespread development of consultative practice in industry with fewer possibilities in future of dispute action on foot of matters connected with redundancy.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share