Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 10 December 2008
69 Deputy Catherine Byrne asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if her Department has received an application from Aer Lingus for a rebate on some of the statutory elements of the redundancy package offered to its staff; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [44966/08]
View answerAer Lingus has, in line with standard procedure under the Protection of Employment Act 1977, written to my Department with notification of its intentions with regard to collective redundancies in the company. My Department is examining the correspondence and it will be dealt with in the normal way if and when a redundancy situationarises.
Should the company proceed to file claims for redundancy payment, the applications will be examined to see if they meet the eligibility criteria set down in the Redundancy Payments Acts. The Department does not comment publicly on any particular company's applications.
I thank the Tánaiste for the answer. It is fair to say a decision has yet to be made on that matter. It was important to have a deal at Aer Lingus. Unions and employers have come together to make an agreement that I hope will save the airline and allow it to continue as an independent airline. I have a concern that the taxpayer might effectively subsidise bogus redundancy arrangements whereby someone resigns from a job, receives a redundancy payment for having done so and reapplies for the same or a similar job in the same organisation with different terms and conditions. The taxpayer is then hit for that. We talk about the race to the bottom in Ireland. Should unions and employers wish to negotiate a reduction in pay and conditions it is a matter for them. I would not like to see the taxpayer subsidising such an arrangement. Given the Tánaiste's answer, I have a concern that Aer Lingus employees would believe that, based on the assurances given by Aer Lingus and the unions, they will not be taxed on these redundancy payments. From the Tánaiste's answer, that seems uncertain in some cases at least.
There is no uncertainty on the basis that the application is not with me at this moment. There are set procedures under the Redundancy Payment Act and, to ensure we have final determination arising from the issues raised by Deputy Varadkar, where there are concerns on adjudication the Employment Appeals Tribunal is used for decision making. There has been no decision and I cannot give a preliminary decision on the basis that there is no application. I reiterate the view of Deputy Varadkar that, arising from the decisions made by the company and the unions, clarity will be provided as quickly as possible.
Did the Department give prior assurances?
We can only give a preliminary view but it is based on an individual application. Each person can have an issue raised but in ensuring that there is absolute clarity we would be taking the matter to the Employment Appeals Tribunal.
I thought the Minister would say that because it is prescribed by a statutory procedure.
Is the Tánaiste concerned that it has taken 16 weeks or more to deal with applications for statutory redundancy? My view is that it is longer than 16 weeks. Despite the good practice objective within the Department to have it dealt with quicker than that, it is taking at least 16 weeks, notwithstanding the reply of the Minister of State, Deputy Billy Kelleher. He disputed my contention but stated he was disappointed it was taking 16 weeks.
I acted upon Deputy Penrose's promptings.
It is of concern and Members are aware of the situation on the ground. Can additional staff at the Department be deployed to expedite this matter, as was done at the Department of Social and Family Affairs?
That is broadening the question.
Given the Deputy's views, the Minister of State is concerned that the period is outside our customer charter and, on that basis, we are redeploying staff within the complement to facilitate the major workload of our staff.
Would the Tánaiste see the proposed agreement between trade unions and management at Aer Lingus as an advancement of industrial relations? Does she consider it a positive example for employers where, if they engage and negotiate positively and constructively, there is a way forward? It is not that I would prefer this deal but does the Minister regard this as a positive move?
Again, this broadens the question.
It is ingenuity.
It is ingenuity or innovation. There are statutory requirements that must be addressed. That is to secure the entitlements of an employee. The matter of workers' rights and statutory supports was raised a few minutes ago. Equated to this is a balance given the difficulties we are working within. The role of social partners in the context of economic recovery and difficulty is of major importance. Working with social partners will benefit the outcome of the economy and, most particularly, some trying issues that face us all.
