Protection of Employees (Employers' Insolvency) Bill, 1984: Report and Final Stages.

Mr. B. Ahern

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:

"(ii) the date on which the liquidation is finally concluded and the company is wound up, or".

We are anxious to make a last attempt to help employees who, following a full investigation of a company's assets, do not get any finance under the legislation. We have sought a change in this regard on Second and Committee Stages. We want to include the date on which the liquidation is concluded and the company is wound up. Our argument is that when a liquidator is called in, employees may feel there are adequate assets to pay their entitlements but, following a full investigation, it may transpire that the position is different. We have seen some examples where administrators or liquidators were called in and they found that the position was different from that indicated to them. I do not have to cite the two examples that received a lot of publicity in recent days.

A liquidator or administrator can be as much as £80 million out in his assessment based on the information he was given when he went into a company and the position he discovered after a full examination. Employees prior to the effective date of the EC directive, October 1983, may have been happy that there were adequate resources to pay them their entitlements but they may find now that following the liquidation there are no funds, with the result that they lose out. The Minister is aware of our arguments and I appeal to him, in the event of his not accepting our amendment, to consider carrying out some examination to deal with hardship cases. Some firms in the summer of 1983, on the information available to the liquidator may have had adequate assets to pay employees their entitlements but those employees may now find that such assets do not exist. The Minister should examine such hardship cases. That would help to overcome some of the fears we have expressed.

Mr. Daly

I should like to support Deputy Ahern's amendment. I do not wish to reopen the arguments put forward on Second and Committee Stages but when the debate has concluded there will be a few hardship cases. Some people will not be able to claim their just entitlements. The Minister acknowledged that our amendment would be a tidier way to deal with this matter if the final winding up of a company meant that some people had outstanding sums which may have been granted to them by the Employment Appeals Tribunal as due to them. This amendment would be a protection for these people.

The Minister's argument may be that we would have to mention a date because we could not leave it open-ended. Companies which went into receivership or liquidation many years ago, but which have not yet been wound up, might consider they would come under this legislation, therefore the Minister would find it almost impossible to estimate what the cost would be and would not accept this amendment. He could improve our amendment and tighten it up by inserting 1 January 1983 or the date the directive was implemented.

We feel this is a tidy and effective way to deal with this problem because the amount of money involved will not be enormous. If the Minister agrees with the principle of our amendment he might wish even to improve the wording of it. If this amendment were accepted it could be very beneficial to many people out of work, especially those who are still unemployed as a result of closures and liquidations. Perhaps the Minister will agree to this very reasonable amendment.

Mr. Quinn

We have already covered this ground rather extensively and I have nothing further to add. I am not in a position to accept the amendment.

Mr. B. Ahern

We are presenting this argument because the redundancy fund stands at over £12 million. This was debated in detail last week. There is a comparatively small number of employees caught in the circumstances Deputy Daly and I have outlined. Employees understood that the liquidator would find that there were adequate assets to pay their entitlements, but following the liquidator's selling the assets, or investigating the assets and discovering that the assets mentioned on balance sheets did not exist, these people would not be protected under the employees' legislation. Many people could have lost out by way of pay or holiday entitlements but not very great sums of money would have been involved. This Bill will become effective from 22 October 1983, but the earlier part of 1983 was the worst period in the history of the State for liquidations and insolvencies. If there are people still unemployed since early 1983 they have been suffering great hardship. The maximum sum involved will be in the region of £200 per individual. If the Minister does not allow them by right to claim this money, perhaps he would allow them to state their case to an investigating officer and if they prove that they have suffered deprivation because of losing these essential benefits to which they are entitled under existing labour legislation, perhaps he would consider helping them. Many of these people are on the long term unemployed list and have a chip on their shoulders against the State because they were done out of their entitlements to which they had contributed but now people in similar circumstances whose companies went into liquidation after October are entitled to this money.

This is not an unfair request. We would agree to any safeguards which might be needed to prevent the floodgates being opened so that every Tom, Dick and Harry could make a claim. There must be a fund which is adequately financed to give assistance to some of the most deprived people in the State who have lost their legal entitlements and who are on the long term unemployment list. Surely there is some way they can be given this small amount of money.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Daly

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 6 line 13, after "and" to insert the following:—"in exceptional cases or cases of hardship, the 1st day of January, 1983, and".

The general principle of this amendment is similar to that in amendment No. 1. In this amendment we are leaving a certain amount of discretion to the Minister and tying the date to 1 January 1983. The Minister mentioned the date 22 October 1983 but we want to change that to 1 January 1983. Within the period, 1 January 1983 to 22 October 1983, where hardship exists in certain cases, the Minister would have authority to cover those entitlements. We have taken the example of Kilrush Potteries. In that case the very highly skilled workforce have no prospect of further employment in that area. The Minister should take into account the hardship suffered by such people. The plant and machinery have been sold and there is no question of new management taking over or the company being restructured and re-employing some of these workers. This is an industry which will never be seen again. Some of these highly skilled people worked in Kilrush Potteries for 20 years and will never get similar employment.

Under our amendment the Minister would have discretion to make decisions in particular cases. This would not be an enormous drain on the fund. The period we suggest is 1 January 1983 to 22 October 1983, and we are giving the Minister discretion to select individual companies or employees. This is a worth-while amendment which will meet the needs of those who have suffered hardship and have no prospect of getting employment using their specific skills. I have argued the case of Kilrush Potteries already and it is unfortunate that these employees will lose out for the sake of a few weeks. The Minister had some sympathy for our amendment on Committee Stage, but he opposed it because it would cost an amount which he was not satisfied could be justified. In this amendment we are giving discretion to the Minister to decide within the period January-October if he would have some regard for hardship cases within that period. It is easy to estimate how much this would cost and it would be covered by the Minister accepting the amendment.

Mr. B. Ahern

I am sure the Minister has sympathy for these employees especially as so many companies have closed down and are not covered by the Bill. I hope the Minister will be able to do something for the people who were affected during the previous nine months. He has probably been advised that if he allows exceptional cases everybody who lost entitlements during that period will be looking for compensation but that could be covered by a definition of cases of exceptional hardship. It seems rather heartless not to make some attempt to help those people by at least allowing them to make their case of how they are affected. Under the Bill there are sections which allow inspectors to examine cases which have arisen since 22 October. If the Minister would allow people to submit cases for the period between January and October on exceptional grounds it would give him an opportunity to help a small number of people whom he genuinely feels have lost out on entitlements. Redundancies were at their highest in 1983 and it is grossly unjust that workers affected are not allowed to make their case.

Mr. Quinn

I am tempted to say a lot on this amendment but it has already been said repeatedly and, therefore, I have no additional arguments to make in response to these proposals, since they were debated on Committee Stage.

Mr. Daly

I am disappointed that the Minister has adopted this hardline approach because we have had a very constructive debate. However, we had very little commitment from the Minister even though he agreed in principle with many of our views. He stonewalled throughout the debate in regard to further concessions to these people. It is regrettable that we still have not found a solution for the problems of this very special category who have suffered great hardship. In 1983 there was severe unemployment and redundancies in many industries.

I made a case here for the workers in Kilrush Potteries which is a typical example of the problem that faces many other firms. We have been disappointed at the response of the Minister and the Government to this issue. I also noted the crocodile tears which were shed by Deputy Prendergast when he criticised the failure to implement this legislation earlier. We all agree with that sentiment although it was not possible to implement it earlier. It is possible to make it more effective now and it is hypocritical for Deputy Prendergast and members of the Government to argue the case on behalf of these people and, at the same time, not be prepared to influence their Minister in regard to changes. It is regrettable that the Minister cannot see his way to meeting this as the amount of money is significant, probably in the region of £500,000. It is very important for those people who are highly skilled and competent but who will not be able to find employment in the work in which they were involved. I am at a loss to understand why the Minister is adopting this attitude when such a small amount of money is involved. The Minister is concerned about how much it is going to cost and because of this failure to meet this amendment, the legislation will be weaker and many people will be disappointed.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Nov 1984