Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Mar 1992

Vol. 416 No. 7

Adjournment Debate. - Closure of Dún Laoghaire Firm.

I thank you, Sir, for giving me this opportunity of raising this matter on the Adjournment this evening. The matter concerns 31 employees of a film animation studio in Dún Laoghaire who have not been paid wages since 22 October last and whose employment has now ceased.

Originally the film studio was known as Emerald City Animation Studio and closed down in March 1991. It was reopened in August 1991 by a Dorset-based company called Fairford Films, the directors of which are a Mr. Redford and a Mr. Andrew Holford. Thirty-one employees were recruited, most of them former employees of Emerald City Studios. At first the company appeared to be doing well but, towards the end of October last, their employees were informed there would be a delay in the payment of that week's wages, the directors stating they were experiencing difficulty in transferring funds from Switzerland and the United States. The staff expected this to be a short-lived problem. However, it dragged on for another week and yet another. The staff kept inquiring and the directors kept assuring them that the money was on the way. For example on 6 November last Mr. Redford wrote to the staff stating that he expected the problem to be resolved with the minimum delay. It dragged on to Christmas, staff continuing to work on the promise that they would get their wages. The studio did not re-open after Christmas. To date, the 31 employees have not been paid for their work between 22 October and Christmas.

I became aware of the problem in early January when I wrote to the Ministers for Industry and Commerce and Labour. I also wrote to the company. On 21 January last Mr. Holford replied to me that "solicitors acting for our funders confirm money will be available for us to pay staff before the end of this month".

That was nearly six weeks ago and the staff have still not been paid. A similar promise was given recently to one of the local newspapers. Yet no money has been produced. It appears to me that the employees of this studio have been grossly exploited, the company having ripped off their labour for two months. The company have spun them a fallacious yarn about money being held up in Switzerland, the Isle of Man, Norway and the United States. The company have now disappeared.

I am now requesting the Minister for Industry and Commerce to take action under the Companies Act, to send in an Examiner, because I believe this studio is still a viable business concern. I appeal to him to take whatever action he can to ensure that the employees are paid the wages due to them, for which they worked between October and Christmas. This company, in quite a disgraceful, exploitative manner, have disappeared without paying the staff the wages for which they had worked for two months.

The Deputy will, no doubt, be aware of the significant investigative provisions of the Companies Act, 1990, arising from the recent inspection activities. Section 8 of the 1990 Act provides, inter alia, for the appointment by the High Court, on the application of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, of one or more inspectors to investigate the affairs of a company. The recently concluded investigation into Siúicre Éireann and certain related companies was carried out in accordance with this section.

Section 14 of the Act Provides, inter alia, for the appointment, by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, of an inspector to investigate the ultimate beneficial ownership of one or more companies. The ongoing investigation into certain named companies involved in the Telecom Affair was initiated on the basis of this provision.

Section 7 of the 1990 Act provides a mechanism whereby parties interested in the affairs of a company, for example, a significant shareholder, can apply to the High Court to have an inspector appointed to look into the affairs of the company. As far as I am aware, this provision in the 1990 Act has not been used to date.

The Companies Registration Office have confirmed to me that Fairford Films Limited are not listed on the register of companies. In addition, the CRO have indicated to me that the company are not listed on the external register. A company incorporated outside the State, if they are establishing a place of business in the State, may obtain a listing on the external register. However, there is no obligation on such a firm to register.

In view of the foregoing, it is possible that the company are, for example, a UK company trading in Ireland. While this is a legal practice, Irish company law does not necessarily apply. There is also the possibility that the company have been passing themselves off as a limited liability company in contravention of section 381 of the Companies Act, 1963. It has not been possible, in the short time available to me, to identify the precise status of the company. If the Deputy is agreeable, I would be glad to arrange to have this aspect double-checked and the outcome formally communicated to him. The relevant industries division of my Department have indicated that they have no data on the company, given that firms in the film-making business do not qualify for grant assistance for development purposes.

The Deputy has referred to the fact that the firm's closure resulted in the loss of 31 jobs. I should like to point out that the Minister for Labour is responsible for the legislation in this regard, namely the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1962-91, and the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973. In the circumstances, perhaps the Deputy might wish to pursue the situation with the Minister for Labour.

Top
Share