Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 25 Nov 1986

Vol. 370 No. 2

Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - County Kildare Plant Employees' Redundancy.

5.

asked the Minister for Labour the measures he is taking to ensure that former employees of the Cork Marts-IMP plant at Leixlip, County Kildare, receive their statutory entitlements in terms of redundancy payments and minimum notice money; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

There have been difficulties regarding statutory redundancy and minimum notice claims made by the employees of Cork Marts-IMP plant at Leixlip and my Department have been pursuing these claims. I now understand that, following negotiations between union and management, a settlement formula has emerged and that pickets have been withdrawn from the plant. In the light of this new development, which I welcome, I hope that any outstanding difficulties in regard to the statutory entitlements of the former employees can now be resolved quickly. My Department will be available to give any possible assistance in that regard.

Is the Minister aware that certain former employees who attended the Employment Appeals Tribunal in September of this year received a decision on 5 November that they were entitled to six weeks' notice which in money terms would amount to £1,421? Is he aware that both the IMP and the Department of Labour have informed some of these people that they will not be paid? Can he explain who is responsible for the payment of the minimum amount of £1,421.

With regard to the question of the employees' entitlements the tribunal made awards ranging from £1,584 to £2,946 in favour of nine former employees of Irish Meat Producers Limited. As these awards have not been paid the Chief State Solicitor was asked on 11 November 1986 to consider the possibility of instituting proceedings.

Are proceedings being instituted? I am sure the Minister is aware that these people have been unemployed, out of work, since January 1985 without a penny. What steps is he taking to ensure that this miserable amount of £1,400 or £1,500 for their ten. 20 or 30 years' service is to be paid? Can he assure us that it will be paid——

That is a separate question.

——before Christmas?

Deputy Mac Giolla is aware that the awards made under the Employment Appeals Tribunal are the responsibility of the employer and should be paid by the employer. On 11 November the Chief State Solicitor was asked to consider the possibility of instituting proceedings. My hope is that this matter will be finalised at an early date.

A final supplementary question.

Has the Minister informed the employees of this? A constituent of mine has just contacted me to say that as late as 20 November he was in touch with Mr. McElroy of the employers who said he was not paying out any money and instructed the person concerned to contact the conditions of employment section of the Department of Labour. Is the Minister of State aware that when the conditions of employment section were contacted on 20 November they said the money was not being paid out because Irish Meat Producers Limited were not in liquidation? Is the fact that Irish Meat Producers Limited were not in liquidation providing or constituting some type of legal barrier to the Department in forcing them to pay out this money? What is the position?

The position is that the Department have not received evidence that the company are in liquidation or receivership. If the employees have not been informed of the present position I will arrange through the Department that they be brought up to date. The Deputy is aware also that 81 appeals were heard by the tribunal on 17 November 1986 and that a further two were lodged with the tribunal on 18 and 19 November.

Will the money be paid out? Is it a fact that it will or are there some barriers?

The position is quite clear in that the responsibility rests with the employer and that the awards should be paid by the employer. In that context the Chief State Solicitor was asked on 11 November to consider the possibility of instituting proceedings in this case.

Top
Share