Vol. 334 No. 3
(Waterford) asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is prepared to amend section 35 (1) of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981, which is currently being invoked to deprive the workers of Clover Meats Ltd. in County Waterford of their just entitlements; and, if so, if he is further prepared to make this amendment legislation retrospective to cover the period in which the workers were denied payment.
23.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will amend section 35 (1) of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981, to allow for the payment of unemployment and pay-related benefits to workers such as those in Clover Meats, Waterford, where there was a failure to agree on terms and conditions of employment, but where no industrial action was involved; and if he will make provision for the payment of benefit retrospectively in this particular case and in the meantime if he will exercise his powers under section 35 (4) of the said Act to make regulations so that the anomalies which at present prevent the workers in question from receiving benefit, will be removed.
24.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare when amending legislation will be introduced to remove the anomaly in the law which originally prevented the workers in Clover Meats Ltd, Dungarvan, County Waterford, from receiving unemployment benefit; and if he will make a statement in the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 22, 23 and 24 together. The question of amending section 35 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981, is under consideration by my Department and with this in mind my predecessor had written to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Federated Union of Employers requesting them to submit any specific suggestions they might have for amending the legislation. Since assuming office on 9 March I have also written to the organisations concerned and conveyed to them my interest in the matter. I have invited their views and as soon as I have received replies from both organisations I will have all aspects of the matter considered.
With regard to the suggestion by Deputy Deasy that section 35 (4) of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act might be used, I should explain that the purpose of that subsection is to impose, where considered appropriate, conditions additional to the basic conditions contained in section 35. It does not give power to override the basic provisions set down in the section and could not be used for the purpose suggested by the Deputy.
(Waterford): Is the Minister aware that the circumstances which gave rise to the tabling of this question in my name are that 300 Clover Meats workers, some with upwards of 30 years service with the company, because they failed to agree to a rationalisation programme by the company were thereby deprived of their social welfare entitlements? Would the Minister agree that this section is being used as a weapon by employers to force their workers into subjection?
I would like to make it quite clear that the Act as it stands has been correctly interpreted by the deciding officer, the appeals officer and the courts. The question that arises now is whether any amendment to that section should be considered for the future. Such examinations have gone on in the past. I would also like to make it clear that this Section 35 was included in the Consolidation Bill of the foundation Act. Of course the Consolidation Act did not enact any new legislation but only consolidated existing legislation and the Attorney General had to certify that there was no change in the legislation as it existed and no change in any of the amendments made by the standing committee. We are dealing with regulations which had existed under the legislation. The decision was made honestly and objectively by the deciding officer, the appeals officer and the courts. It was an honest decision in relation to the Act. The question of whether or not the Deputy is happy with the Act as it stands is a separate one which is being discussed now and in relation to which we have invited contributions from the organisations which are directly concerned, including the ICTU and the FUE, and when these are available we will consider what further action might be taken.
Is the Minister aware that the section cost Fianna Fáil overall control of the Dáil on this occasion? More important, was there a mistake made in drafting the relevant section of this Act? Was it intended that a disagreement over the terms and conditions of employment be interpreted as a trade dispute or was that a mistake? Previously it was not designated as a trade dispute but under this new section of the 1980 Act it has been interpreted as such. Could the Minister answer that?
There was no amendment made in 1980. There was no change in the Consolidation Act. It was in 1967 that a change was made in the Act and that was following consultations with the ICTU when subsections 35 (1) (a) and (b) were added to the section which enabled persons not directly involved in a dispute to be excluded from the disqualification and to become eligible for benefit. They were all excluded before that. Therefore, that was an improvement on what happened previously and that was carried forward into the Consolidation Act. So the question that arises now is whether there are other categories of persons who should be excluded in particular circumstances.
Why then is it only in this dispute that the people were disqualified from social welfare benefit? Surely since 1967 there should have been numerous such examples. But this was the first time that this had occurred. It must have been something included in the 1980 Act, something new.
It was a relief that was given in the 1967 Act and it was prior to that that all the parties, whether they were directly involved in a dispute or not, were excluded. What happened in 1967 was that it was considered that it was unfair that people who were not direct parties to a dispute should be denied unemployment benefit. Therefore, the sections in question were included for that purpose. These were really escape clauses which allowed social welfare benefits to be paid to people who were not directly involved in a dispute. To go further into it one would have to refer to particular sections and to the wording of sections.
I believe that the interpretation of the application for unemployment benefit by the workers of Clover Meats concerned was wrong. Would the Minister consider amending the Act to ensure that where both the trade unions involved and the employers involved agree that there is no dispute, whether it be a trade dispute for the purposes of the Trade Disputes Act or a dispute, under the Social Welfare Act, the workers involved will be entitled to unemployment benefit and other social welfare benefits?
I appreciate the point the Deputy is making, but the Deputy will appreciate that we could have constant payments of social welfare benefits. It is not a question of whether employers and unions agree that there is not a dispute; it is a question of whether or not they are in dispute and of who is in dispute with whom under the law. That is an amendment that could be proposed in relation to the legislation, but the Deputy will recognise that there would be implications flowing from that which would have to be considered on a much wider basis. The question is one of whether a dispute exists under the law as it stands at present. Section 35 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981, referred to in the question, was simply a re-enactment of the trade dispute provisions contained in section 17 of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, as amended by section 8 of the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1967. It provides that a person who has lost his employment by reason of a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute at his place of employment is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit for as long as the stoppage continues except where he has taken up other regular employment from which he subsequently becomes unemployed.
But it was not a trade dispute.
The deciding officer is statutorily authorised to decide whether there is a dispute or not. The appeals officer is the next level at which our legislation is implemented and the third level is the courts, and all three decided that in this case there was a dispute and that meant that in relation to the Act itself the unemployment benefit could not be paid except in following the Act.
Is the Minister aware that a very clear commitment and promise was made by the present Taoiseach and the present Tánaiste to amend this section to ensure that workers who were deprived of their employment in similar circumstances would get their unemployment benefit? Is the Minister aware that this alteration in the law was to be proceeded with forthwith? Is the Minister further aware that a large group of workers in Castlecomer in County Kilkenny have, since 15 March, been deprived because of the failure to act on this promise? Arising from the fact that the Government paid to the Clover Meats workers amounts of money equivalent to the social welfare benefit pending the amendment of this enactment, will he arrange forthwith to make similar payments to the workers in Castlecomer and other workers who are similarly debarred from social welfare benefits because of this section?
The payments made in that instance were made by the Department of Agriculture as part of a rescue package for the company at the time and did not come under this legislation. The Tánaiste gave an undertaking to have this matter reviewed immediately and that review is already under way. Naturally the views of the ICTU would have to be taken into consideration together with the views of the other interests concerned.
Can the workers be paid pending the outcome?
The Deputy is talking about a different question.
I am talking about the delay in amending the section, which is causing severe hardship.
That is a different question.
(Waterford): Is the Minister aware that the commitment given by the Minister for Finance was not to review the section of legislation under discussion but was a written guarantee to amend it? If the Minister accepts this as so — he was present during the course of the discussions — how soon will the proposed discussions take place with the trade union movement and when will we see the amending legislation before the House?
As soon as the discussions are completed, any amendments arising from them will be proceeded with immediately. The Deputy need have no worries about that.
I am perturbed at the attitude of the Minister.
A question please, Deputy.
Can the Minister assure me that, if he decides not to amend the legislation, the payments made to the workers will not be recouped by the State? Will the Minister state the funds from which the payments will be made? It was stated that they would be equivalent to the unemployment benefit and I should like an assurance that they will not be recouped by the State in the event of the Minister deciding not to amend the Act.
Payments were not made under this legislation and there is no question of them being refunded in any event. The question deals with the legislation and the legal aspect of it. I have explained the legal position, given the Act which we have. If Deputies consider that is inadequate in relation to particular disputes — this view was expressed in relation to this and other disputes — it should be remembered that this is the matter of the review which is under way at present. A similar review took place in 1967 when two additional relief clauses were built in at that time and have been in operation since then. I will proceed urgently with any amendments which arise from this review.
Would the Minister consider some way of paying workers who are debarred from receiving unemployment benefit because of section 35? Am I correct in assuming that the Minister will go ahead with the necessary amendment? Can the Minister not anticipate the amending legislation and arrange for payments to be made, because if some way can be found to pay people in a similar position in an election campaign, surely some way must be found to pay the workers in Castlecomer? Just because there is no election campaign at present they should not be left without payment.
The question of Castlecomer is a completely different one which can be dealt with when it comes up.
They are also debarred.
Supplementary welfare is available at present for families of workers who are in dispute in that way. The question of any other arrangements would be outside the scope of this legislation.
The remaining questions will appear on next Tuesday's Order Paper.
