Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Nov 2002

Vol. 557 No. 5

Adjournment Debate. - Redundancy Payments.

I thank the Minister of State for attending the House to take this matter. I am disappointed neither the Tánaiste and Minster for Enterprise, Trade and Employment nor the Minister of State at the Department, Deputy Michael Ahern, both of whom were present for the debate on Private Members' time, saw fit to be in attendance.

Many people at IFI are rightfully angry. Their pension scheme was decimated and their redundancy payments totally inadequate. I understand a sit-in is under way in the canteen of the company's Belfast plant. The workers in Cork have said they have no quarrel with the liquidator, with whom they wish to co-operate. Their argument is with the Government. They have refused to take ammonia from the plant, which is leading to a dangerous situation.

A number of weeks ago, the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Ahern, told the House that the workers would get their money but they would have to sign a receipt which would not sign away any of their other rights. However, the workers, many of whom have given long service to the State and who paid their taxes and everything asked of them, have not received payments. I met a man over the weekend whose daughter is attending a third level college and he told me he will have to remove her from the college. He will not qualify for a grant despite the fact that he has no money except for what he is getting on the dole, and even that was secured with difficulty.

Workers were presented with a document which, inter alia, states: “I hereby irrevocably and unconditionally waive any rights that I, or any other person claiming in respect of me, may have to make a claim arising against the trustee . . . ” It goes on to stipulate that the worker will indicate the form was signed without coercion. This is a form of blackmail on behalf of the Government. Why did it not provide each worker with €5,000, as was promised in this House, in return for a signed receipt? Why did it go back on its promise and demand that workers sign away their rights?

I understand that issues such as life policies, benefit in kind and other policies have been lost to many workers. One worker is very ill and his family is worried that all his rights and entitlements may be lost. If he signs this form they will be lost.

The Government has treated the workers at IFI very badly. They wanted to negotiate. It appears there was a provision to allow for redundancies, but before they were paid the rug was pulled from under them. How would the Minister of State react if this happened in his constituency? Knowing him as I do, I am sure he would be up in arms about the way the workers are being treated, as am I and others in his party in Cork.

I hope that the Minister for State has something positive to say. They are worried also that when planning permission was granted in 1975, a bond was entered into by NET on behalf of the State and this may impact on payments to workers and creditors. Who is responsible for this bond? The workers and I are trying to get an answer to that question. Through a parliamentary question, the Minister told me that the clean up would cost €3 million as the site has to be returned to a greenfield site under planning law. From where will this money come? The company is in deficit to the tune of €44 million, of which the State has written off €34 million. There remain many creditors and workers who are worried. I implore the Minister to give positive answers and withdraw this appalling demand that the workers sign this document. I understand that they were so angry that they tore it up when they were presented with it. The Government should pay the €5,000 promised in the House and meet the workers. ICI will meet them on Friday, and I hope that the Minister will meet them then also. I hope there will be good news for this group of workers who have been loyal to the State. There were virtually no accidents or strike days in that plant. It is an appalling example to give to the private sector where companies might also be under pressure. Let us right the wrong as best we can.

I wish to raise a point of order before the Minister responds. The Minister was here a few moments ago—

The Deputy is out of order. Deputy Stanton had five minutes. He used five minutes and 15 seconds.

She and the Minister walked out showing their contempt for these workers.

I am sorry, but there is no time left for the Deputy. I call the Minister of State.

They are showing their contempt for the workers at IFI.

Deputy Allen is being disorderly.

They should be here to discuss this matter. They are showing contempt for the workforce.

This is a disgrace. They sent in the Minister of State to do the dirty work. They are displaying contempt for this matter.

The Deputy has other ways of raising this matter. He is out of order.

They just walked out the door and would not even listen to what was said.

The Deputy is totally out of order and I ask him to resume his seat. I will adjourn the House and no other Member will have his Adjournment matter raised if he continues to disrupt the proceedings.

I do not wish that but you, a Cheann Comhairle, should put some order on those Ministers.

The Deputy must be in order first.

The Minister does not accept that there is a deepening dispute between the IFI workers and herself and it is regrettable that the Deputy appears to be trying to increase tensions regarding this issue.

That is appalling. Withdraw that remark.

There has been regular contact with workers representatives over the past few weeks. A further meeting between the unions and the two shareholders, including the Minister, has been arranged for this coming Friday.

That is appalling. The Minister of State must withdraw that remark. I am not trying to increase tensions. It is an appalling allegation to make.

The reality is that both shareholders in IFI – ICI and the State – recognise the positive way in which employees have responded—

That is an appalling thing to say. A Cheann Comhairle, you must make the Minister withdraw the remark.

The Chair has no responsibility for political comments.

He cannot get away with saying something like that. What right has he to say such things?

—in what is a very difficult situation for themselves and their families—

This is appalling stuff. He cannot be allowed to get away with it.

It would appear that Deputy Stanton does not want to hear the answer.

Deputy Stanton must allow the Minister of State to continue.

But this is appalling stuff.

The Deputy does not want to hear the answer. He has no interest in the workers. He is too interested in getting into tomorrow's newspapers.

The Minister must withdraw his remark.

They have sent in the bootboy to do the dirty work. Jobs are lost in Cork and the bootboy from Limerick comes in to answer questions.

The reality is that both shareholders in IFI – ICI and the State – recognise the positive way in which employees have responded in what is a very difficult situation for themselves and their families—

One more out of turn remark and I will adjourn the proceedings. There will be no further Adjournment debate. It is quite specific. The Deputy is entitled to make his contributions and the Minister of State is entitled to make his.

Without interruption which the Deputy made.

If Members wish to disrupt proceedings for other Members who are waiting to have their Adjournment matters taken, so be it. The debate will be adjourned if there is one more remark.

—and while there is no legal obligation on us to provide severance payments, we have established a trust for the distribution of ex gratia severance payments to the workers and agreed to provide a total of nearly €24.5 million to the trust. This ex gratia fund is in addition to around €11 million in statutory redundancy and other payments which employees will receive, either as preferred creditors in the liquidation of IFI or directly from the relevant Government agency. Thus, a total of over €35 million will be available for workers or the equivalent of average payments of over €57,000 per worker. Both the Government and ICI believe that in setting up the ex gratia fund they are providing severance arrangements which are fair and reasonable in the circumstances. It will be a matter for the fund's trustee to decide, after consultations with employee representatives, how payments from the ex gratia fund will be made. There is no reason why such consultations cannot take place immediately and enable the trustee to make arrangements for payments in the near future.

Both shareholders have also responded favourably to concerns raised by the unions that employees could find themselves facing immediate financial problems. We have now provided funds to the trustee which enable him to make payments on account from the ex gratia fund of €5,000, or three months pay if lower, to each former full-time IFI employee with pro rata payments to former part-time employees who lost their jobs as a result of the liquidation. This is to help them manage their financial situation through the short-term pending agreement with the trustee on the shape of the final scheme. Such interim payments have been available since last Monday and a number of workers have now received payments. I note what the Deputy stated about people not receiving payment and will ask the Minister to respond to the Deputy on this tomorrow.

However, it is regrettable that not all staff availed of this facility. I understand that workers have some concerns about a waiver form which they are required to sign to obtain payments from the ex gratia fund, the form to which Deputy Stanton referred. Unfortunately, there would appear to be some misunderstanding around the nature and extent of the waiver. For the sake of clarity, the following is the position. Employees are not being asked to give up their rights to claim in the liquidation of IFI. Payments out of the ex gratia fund will be totally unaffected by any payments which employees in the Republic of Ireland receive from the liquidator as preferred creditors or directly from the relevant Government agency. This includes the normal statutory entitlements such as redundancy, minimum notice and so on.

In addition, the equivalent payments to staff in Northern Ireland will be treated in the same way for the purposes of the waiver, even though these may rank as ordinary unsecured creditors under Irish insolvency law. Where employees have other claims against IFI, which would rank as ordinary unsecured creditors, they will have to agree that payments in respect of such claims will be reduced by the amount of any payments which employees receive from the ex gratia fund. This would mainly cover claims such as periods of notice which are longer than the relevant statutory minima. If a payment in respect of such a claim is greater than the payment received from the ex gratia fund, employees will still be entitled to the excess from the liquidation. In addition, IFI employees will be asked to waive all claims against the trustee and the sponsors of the ex gratia fund.

The arrangement is designed to ensure that employees cannot, in effect, be compensated on the double for the loss of their jobs, that is by both the ex gratia fund and the liquidator. It also seeks to ensure that all employees, regardless of location or differences in terms and conditions of employment, are treated in a fair, equitable and broadly equivalent manner. It is accepted that the details of these arrangements may appear complex and the trustee has been asked to arrange a process for explaining and reassuring IFI employees on this issue.

Even though it is now over a month since the company announced that it was to close, the position in relation to pensions remains unclear. This is unavoidable given the complexity of pensions issues generally. However, it is unfortunate that there still appears to be a lot of incomplete and sometimes conflicting information circulating at present regarding the position of the various schemes. Nevertheless, it is understood that the pensions funds face potential difficulties, which in the case of Belfast, seem to be particularly serious. For a number of reasons, such as the different regulatory environment, the position of the schemes covering workers at the other locations seems to be somewhat better. However, I should point out that the problems seem to stem mainly from the impact of adverse stock market movements on the pensions funds' investments. IFI has been meeting its obligations to the various schemes on an ongoing basis.

The Minister of State's time is concluded.

Very well.

Top
Share