asked the Minister for Labour the reason the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, applies only to employees and does not cover people referred to as "officers"; if he is aware that most health board employees are categorised as officers; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions Oral Answers . - Unfair Dismissals Act .
3.
: Officers of a health board were excluded from the provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, because it was considered that they were covered by existing legislation which included procedures for their protection against dismissal. In comparison with the employees of the boards to whom the provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Act apply, officers were regarded as having at least equal protection against the risk of arbitrary or unfair dismissal.
The legislation is, however, currently under review and the inclusion of categories which are at present excluded is being considered as part of that review.
4.
asked the Minister for Labour if he is aware of difficulties being experienced by successful claimants under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, where a recommendation is secured under the Act from a rights commissioner which is neither appealed against nor implemented by the employer (particularly where the employer is a company) and of the problems associated with securing the payment of compensation; and if he is further aware that the cost to employees in obtaining legal assistance to secure compensation may exceed the payment eventually recovered in the Circuit Court; and if it is his intention to rectify this matter.
: A claimant who is awarded compensation under the Unfair Dismissals Act under a determination of a rights commissioner does not require to have recourse to the civil courts where the employer fails to pay. Such a person may refer his case to the Employment Appeals Tribunal. Where a determination of the tribunal is not implemented within a certain period of time, the Minister for Labour may take proceedings in the Circuit Court on behalf of the employee. In such a situation the employee is not liable for costs.
I am aware that difficulties may be experienced by employees in securing payment of unfair dismissal compensation where employers are insolvent and that even in cases where employers do pay compensation there may be delays in payment. My Department assist in reducing such delays and where satisfaction is not obtained within a reasonable period proceedings are initiated by the Minister for Labour to secure the employees' entitlements.
The only case in which an employee would be liable for costs is where he appeals against the substance of a determination of the Employment Appeals Tribunal to the courts of law.
The whole question of appeals procedures against determinations of the tribunal to the courts of law is being considered in the context of a comprehensive review of the Act which I have initiated.
5.
asked the Minister for Labour the reason his Department have not implemented the appropriate provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, on behalf of a person (details supplied) in County Dublin who received an award of £1,402 on 25 February 1982; the reason his Department had declined to secure a decree against the firm concerned on behalf of the claimant for the amount due to him; if he is aware that failure to take court proceedings in this case has encouraged other firms to adopt a similar attitude; and the amount of compensation now due but which has yet to be paid to the claimant.
: The Chief State Solicitor was instructed on 1 October 1982 to institute legal proceedings under the Act, and the case was listed for hearing in the Circuit Court on 24 February 1983.
The firm had already paid £324.99 to the person concerned in November 1982 and paid the balance of the award amounting to £1,077.01 to the Chief State Solicitor on 22 February 1983. As the full amount of the award has been paid, the hearing in the Circuit Court was adjourned.
I am not aware that other firms have been encouraged not to pay awards made by the Employment Appeals Tribunal because court proceedings were not instituted immediately in this case. The position is that, in accordance with normal practice, my Department made efforts to persuade the firm concerned to pay without recourse to legal proceedings. Proceedings were instituted as soon as it became clear that satisfactory arrangements for payment could not be made through negotiations with the firm. The fact that full payment has now been secured will, I hope, indicate to other employers that they should pay awards voluntarily and without delay; otherwise, where necessary, legal proceedings will be instituted.
: Will the Minister not agree that to talk about negotiation with an employer after an award has been made would be inappropriate? Once an award has been made it would be reasonable to expect the employer to pay within a reasonable time, be it seven days or 14 days, and, consequently, a more active procedure would be necessary with a defaulting employer after an award has been made.
: I would have to agree with the Deputy that this practice should not have to be resorted to and I hope that employers pay on the awards. Unfortunately, that does not always happen. The normal practice in the Department is to endeavour in the first instance to persuade employers to pay the amount due, and this approach has proved successful. I agree that employers should pay but where this does not happen we have been successful in the Department in putting pressure on them. However, I say to the Deputy that, even though there may be the occasional case of this kind, it may not be necessary to take more strict measures.
: I share the views of the Minister on this matter. It is a difficult dilemma for any Minister. One always tries to achieve the result by persuasion, if possible, rather than using the legal system, which can be protracted. I ask the Minister to consider the position generally with regard to this Act. There is the growing tendency where the insolvency of a company may create problems for people, whether it be awards made under this Act or with regard to redundancy payments. Because of the number of job losses, does the Minister not think this is the right time to review the position of employees in regard to such awards —in other words, to protect them? I had not the time to face up to this problem when I was in the Department but it was a matter of concern to me then, as I am sure it is to the Minister now.
: The Deputy will be aware that legislation on insolvency is being considered and I hope that before the end of the year we will have a Bill dealing with this problem. I agree with the Deputy that what he suggests should be done.
: May I say——
: We are having a perfectly orderly and gentlemanly debate and it is a precedent which the Chair wishes to see.
: The Ceann Comhairle knows I was never involved in any other type of debate. The Minister can rest assured that he will have my support on this legislation but will he give further consideration to the necessity for including all the awards in the insolvency legislation and ensuring the protection of workers' entitlements? We all know the difficulties in this area. I urge him to impress on his Department the urgency of this legislation.
: I will.