asked the Minister for Labour if he received a submission from the trade union representing workers at the Cork Marts/IMP plant at Leixlip, County Kildare, regarding the treatment of employees at the plant; if his Department have investigated the complaints made in the submission; the outcome of any such investigation; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers - Leixlip (Kildare) Meat Plant.
8.
I have received a submission from the trade union concerned raising the question of the application of certain labour legislation in this case.
From the information available to my Department, there is no evidence that the requirements of the Protection of Employment Act, 1977, have not been complied with in this instance.
In regard to the European Communities (Safeguarding of Employees' Rights on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations, 1980, my Department understand that what is involved in this case is the sale of a plant and not the transfer of an undertaking or business to which the regulations would apply.
If the employees consider there is not a genuine redundancy situation obtaining in relation to proposed dismissals at the plant, they may appeal to the Employment Appeals Tribunal under the Unfair Dismissals Act and the Redundancy Payments Act to establish their rights under those Acts. However, from the submission made to me, it would seem that the main issues in dispute between the union representing the employees and the firm concerned are the question of extra statutory redundancy payments and the continued employment or re-employment of former employees by the new owners. These are matters for negotiation between the parties concerned. The conciliation services of the Labour Court and, if necessary, the court itself, are available to assist in such negotiations, if required.
Is the Minister satisfied that the board of management of Cork Marts-IMP acted properly in this case? Is the Minister aware that in January 1985 the employees were temporarily laid off with the result that they had used up their unemployment benefit? Will the Minister accept that the procedure adopted in this case was deliberately employed to lay off employees, make them redundant from January 1985, under the impression that it was only a temporary lay-off? Under the Act they were entitled to a lot more information and consultation about what was happening during 1985.
I met a deputation of the workers and their union representatives about this matter and, while the law in its letter has been complied with, I am satisfied that the spirit and intention of the law was not adhered to. However, as the person responsible for administering the law I am confined to the letter and not the spirit of it. For whatever reason over the last year the workers in the Leixlip plant have been laid off and, as a consequence, have lost some of the entitlements which they would otherwise have if they were being made redundant in the normal course of events. I expressed that point of view to the trade union representatives and made the resources of my Department fully available to assist them pursue their rights and the rights of the workers they represented within the framwork of the laws we have.
Is the Minister aware of the inconsistency which has been apparent in the way in which the Cork group treated the workers at Leixlip over the last couple of years? Is he aware that some workers received redundancy and were re-employed while others who to all outwards appearances had similar entitlements did not get the same recognition for their case? Is the Minister aware that some people who were legitimately on sick leave were summarily dismissed while other workers got the benefit of redundancy and a return to work thereafter? Has the Minister a role to play in monitoring such behaviour?
I am aware of some of the points referred to by the Deputy and of his concern about this matter. However, notwithstanding all that has occurred, in terms of the strict interpretation of the law no breach of the 1977 Act in legal terms has occurred. I made that point directly to the deputation of workers I met with Norman Croke in my Department.
Is there any clarification as to who owns the firm? Is that not one of the matters that has been causing a lot of difficulty?
I am not aware that it has been clarified.
I should like to thank the Minister for making the full facilities of the Department available to the workers because they require every help if they are to gain their rights. In connection with the EC regulations safeguarding employees' rights, will the Minister say if in the event of the plant being sold as a going concern the employees' rights have the same value as all other assets and rights in the transfer from one owner to another? It appears to the workforce that the intention is to continue in beef production and they are anxious to know what rights they will have if the plant after it is sold continues in beef production. Will the employees have a right to employment there?
The Deputy has highlighted the ambiguity in regard to the present state of the premises. People have been temporarily laid off and there is a question as to whether the firm constitutes a going concern. It is because of this ambiguity that workers who would have an entitlement under the regulations dealing with the transfer of undertakings do not have the same clear entitlements. As can be seen from the questions put to me, and my replies, the case is a complex one.
My sympathy is unreservedly with the workforce because the spirit of the law has not been adhered to. I repeat now what I said in private to the deputation which I met that, in so far as possible, all the resources of the Department of Labour will be made available to the workforce to enable them to clarify the position and to obtain their legal rights. Constructive negotiations between both sides is required and the services of the Labour Court, either the conciliation services or the court itself, are available to resolve a dispute which has gone on for a long time.