I should like to thank the Office of the Ceann Comhairle for giving me the opportunity to raise the question of the work conditions existing at Southern Unijig, a company which I previously knew as Southern Unijig (Ireland) Components Limited. The reason I believe this issue should be of concern to the House is because employees of that company who were found through the Jobsearch programme work in conditions that are less than desirable. I am also concerned that the practices should continue at the company. The company is situated on the campus of University College Dublin, at Belfield, in the job company innovation centre. It is a matter of considerable concern that UCD, an institution of learning and enlightenment, allows the practices I hope to unfold tonight. These facts were brought to my attention by a constituent, Mr. Anthony Grimes, Marion Park, Baldoyle. The House should know a little about Mr. Grimes to understand the insult that this sage represented to him and his family. He is 46 years of age and has had 26 years of constant employment as a toolmaker/manufacturer with various reputable companies in the city such as Technicon, Unidare and Sambra Fyffe. He was, through no fault of his own, laid off in April 1986 from Technicon, having spent nine years with them. He was obliged to look to the State for assistance for his family of two children, aged 14 and nine years, both of whom were at school. Up to the time of his employment with the company Southern Unijig he was in receipt of an amount a little short of £90 per week.
During the months prior to his employment with this company I had occasion to make representation to his constituency Member, Deputy Michael Woods, Minister for Social Welfare, in regard to the attention, close scrutiny, if not harassment by the Minister, through his Department, of Mr. Grimes. Despite his excellent work record, good qualifications and many efforts to find employment, Mr. Grimes was being accused by the Department of Social Welfare of being engaged in some form of subterfuge and work. Suggestions were made that because he had a glasshouse he was growing and selling vegetables when all that came out of the glasshouse were chrysanthemums for the local church. It was suggested that he was earning a living from cleaning windows when, in fact, he was, through good mercy cleaning the windows of his mother's house, and those of another widowed lady in the estate where he lived. There was a suggestion that because he had a mini motor car parked in his driveway he had other independent means despite the fact that the motor car was a modest gift from his father.
Faced with those accusations Mr. Grimes welcomed very much the letter, dated 5 April 1988, from FÁS to the effect that they were happy, through the Minister's Jobsearch programme, to say that a position had been found for him and that he should notify the office without delay. He did so and was advised by the person in charge that he should ring a "Mr. Murphy" at Southern Unijig Components Limited where an interview would be arranged for him. He rang that number and spoke to "Mr. Murphy" for an hour and a half and, eventually, was brought to the company in Belfield. He was met by "Mr. Murphy" who talked to him and, ultimately, offered him a job. In fact, "Murphy" was not that person's correct name and even the office of FÁS was constantly given a wrong name. The Minister, who was providing employees for that company, was dealing with a person who was using a fictitious name.
The company, Southern Unijig Components Limited, was incorporated on 16 April 1987 with a possible potential share issue capital of £50,000 of which two of £1 each have so far been taken up. The sole directors are Mr. and Mrs. Peter Traynor and the company is located at Campus Innovation Centre at Roebuck in UCD. An interesting fact about the company, and Mr. Traynor, is its close association with another company which at that time was in difficulty due to industrial action. I am referring to the company of Packard Electric in Tallaght. Mr. Traynor had previous close associations with that company. Labelling and packaging found at Southern Unijig, and retained by me, clearly indicate a close association. The strong indication is — hence the reason for the nom de plume, so described by the UCD authorities, of “Mr. Murphy”— that there was an attempt to mask the people behind the company. The origins of the company arose out of a desire to circumvent the industrial action faced by Packard Electric at the time and carry on the work piecemeal on the UCD campus.
Mr. Grimes was advised by Jobsearch that there were a few basic conditions of work. He was told that he could hope to support himself and his family on a basic wage of £170 per week, would work from 9 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. but that the work might prove to be of a temporary nature. When he met "Mr. Murphy" he was advised that the conditions offered were generally the same as those outlined to him. However, after three days with the company he was presented with a written contract. That document portrayed a somewhat different picture. Firstly, he would be required to work from 8 a.m., as opposed to 9 a.m., to 4.30 p.m., as opposed to 5 p.m. He was also told that he would be paid on a fortnightly basis, as opposed to a weekly basis and, particularly that he would be obliged to do all overtime expected of him by the company. It was indicated to him that due to the piecemeal nature of the work of the company, closely related to a bigger parent organisation, he would be required to do all overtime and take his holidays when the company decided. He was not to be paid for any overtime and he would not be paid for any holidays he did not take up. On the other hand, he would be given time off.
Mr. Grimes was somewhat startled and took the contract home. After eight days considering it he was presented with an ultimatum, sign the contract or no job. Had he at that stage decided to take a firm stand on the issue and not sign the contract no doubt, in view of the earlier accusations levelled at him, he would not have been considered by the Department for unemployment benefit or assistance. He would have had difficulty getting any further assistance on a second ground because it could have been argued that it was as a result of his own decision that he left employment, that he was not dismissed. At the end of the day the ultimatum he faced was, accept the job on the conditions offered or he would have no job and, in all probability, no assistance from the Department.
The other interesting feature was that Mr. Grimes also established that the other six or seven employees on the shift were in a similar situation. They had come from the Jobsearch programme, were about middle aged and were highly qualified for the jobs they were given and expected to do. Though he had been employed as a toolmaker, it was made clear in the contract that he would be required to do all jobs his employers might direct him to do.
This is a worrying feature even more so when one looks at what happened when he settled into his job. Within a short period he was working overtime at the rate demanded by his employers, including Saturdays, so he was working five and a half days a week. He lived on the north side close to the Howth peninsula, near Baldoyle, and was required to travel to the south side, a feature not to be overlooked. The Department of Social Welfare have maintained the regime that unless people look outside their locality they will not be considered to be seriously looking for work. A half hour was allowed each day by the company for lunch and that was the only break beyond a tea break in the afternoon at the workplace.
However, the pattern of work was as follows: in April, he worked 18 hours overtime, in May 20 hours, in June 28 hours and in July seven hours. That was 73 hours overtime but not a penny was paid for it. Having been with the company at that stage for upwards of four months and having worked 73 hours overtime he could not expect one penny extra. All he got was £170 into his hand.
However, when it occurred to the company that the employee might be entitled to time off and that the question of holidays might well arise, what happened? Coming to the end of the period of employment by the company he was dismissed. A letter dated 14 July was sent to him at a time when he was, in fact, laid off. Two weeks previously he had been told he should take time off because at this stage the company's workload had decreased. He was simply laid off and sent home, but the £170 continued to be sent to him. Two weeks later on 14 July he was dismissed as of 29 July.
The question I should like to ask is if the company's workload has increased and has the Jobsearch provided to this company more employees from their group of well qualified people. For how long has this pattern existed whereby Jobsearch provides highly qualified people with long records of work and experience to companies such as this, and these people are then literally bullied and pushed about, kept for a short duration, and once their usefulness has come to an end on a seasonal or cyclical basis are dismissed into the unemployed circle and someone else is taken on so that there is no period of commitment in terms of other conditions, for example, the 12 months requirement to deal with unfair dismissal or the condition of two years employment to deal with redundancy. This pattern was clearly emerging in the short time Mr. Grimes was with this company and he certainly experienced this at first hand.
I raised all of these issues in correspondence with the Minister for Social Welfare. His answer to me was that as I had also written to the Minister for Labour he would await the outcome of that. The function of the Minister for Labour is clear. I have written to him regarding the conditions of employment and he has adequately answered me except for one outstanding issue which he has undertaken to answer.
In seeking this Adjournment Debate I specifically wanted to highlight the role of Jobsearch in this saga of providing qualified men or women from the work-force, through this great scheme, for jobs where they are summarily dismissed and other people hauled in. I wanted to chase down this issue, this concept that Jobsearch was such a constructive and useful mechanism, providing good placement employment. Indeed, the Minister for Labour, in part answering for the Minister for Social Welfare indicated this point. In a letter to me he said that the national Jobsearch programme was aimed at assisting the unemployed, particularly the long term unemployed. That is so but let us be clear that it is there or should be there to assist these people obtain good and useful employment that will keep them off the dole queues in the future. That is not what is happening, at Southern Unijig Components Limited in UCD.
I raised the matter with the UCD authorities as an institution of learning and of enlightenment. I thought it was incumbent on them to ensure that whatever institutions were invited onto their campus would adhere to some of the principles and conditions that have now been introduced into work practices and ensure that the type of regime, something from another era, which was forced on Mr. Grimes and his fellow employees would not exist on the campus. I have to say that the response of UCD was disappointing.
With regard to the contract and conditions of employment they indicated that these were all matters for another forum. They said it was not for the college to rule on the legality or otherwise of this document. This referred to the contract of employment presented to Mr. Grimes. Regarding the false name which they called in the terms a nom de plume, they said there were sound business considerations for using the nom de plume related in some way to the non-availability of a telephone. This is a remarkable explanation to be presented with by such an institution of enlightenment.
At the end of the day, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, this man, Mr. Anthony Grimes, who has given good employment to companies in this city, who has contributed consistently, over a long period by way of taxes, PRSI contributions and so on to the State, found when he became unemployed for the first time in his working life that he was harassed by the Department of Social Welfare and crossquestioned on his means. He was eventually placed in a job where he was exploited and abused. He is now back on the unemployment queues which are ever mounting. What are his prospects? His prospects are that one day he may again receive another letter from the same agency saying that there is work available for him. How can we seriously ask Mr. Grimes, or any one like him to have confidence in that type of system? It is a sad day when these facts have to be outlined at such length in this House.
I am not satisfied that the Minister for Social Welfare understands the extent to which his scheme is being abused. I believe that Mr. Grime's case fully illustrates the dangers of not properly policing the system. I had hoped this matter would have been taken by the Minister for Social Welfare and that his Department would appreciate the seriousness of the concern behind the motion. However, I hope that the Minister for Defence, who is here on behalf of the Minister for Labour — I thank him for coming in and listening to what I have to say — will take it back to the Minister for Social Welfare to apprise him of the abuse that I suspect is far more widespread than in just one company and to have the matter investigated so that such abuse will not be continued.
