Gerry Adams
Question:1Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the recent contacts he has had with the social partners. [1912/12]
View answerTuesday, 31 January 2012
Questions (7, 8, 9, 10)
Gerry Adams
Question:2Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he has had any recent contact with the social partners. [1930/12]
View answerGerry Adams
Question:3Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will provide an update on his process of social dialogue. [1932/12]
View answer
Joe Higgins
Question:4Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach the discussions he has had with the social partners since the beginning of the year. [3678/12]
View answerOral answers (15 contributions)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.
As I stated in previous replies, most recently in November 2011, my Government very much values dialogue with key representatives of civil society. The Government recognises the contribution that social dialogue can make to maximising common understanding across all sectors of society as we respond to the many challenges facing the country.
In October, the Tánaiste and I stated our intention to meet with lead organisations over the following weeks and months. In this regard the Tánaiste and I met with ICTU on 2 November last, with the IFA on 14 November and with IBEC on 24 November. Separately, I addressed the ICMSA annual general meeting on 19 November and I addressed the IFA annual general meeting on Wednesday, 18 January.
The meetings in November were an opportunity to discuss broad economic issues and the challenges facing our country. The Tánaiste and I highlighted our support for ongoing bilateral engagement with relevant Ministers on issues of mutual concern, as well as the value of the National Economic and Social Council as a forum for engagement with Government on economic, social and environmental issues. The council is chaired by the Secretary General of my Department and has met five times since September last. The Tánaiste and I plan to attend a plenary session of the council each year.
The Government's approach to social dialogue does not amount to a return to rigid social partnership structures of the past but rather involves a more flexible, adaptable approach which can support change. My intention is that senior Ministers, including the Tánaiste and I, will continue to meet with social partner organisations on a periodic basis to discuss matters of mutual concern.
I am a bit reluctant to ask the Taoiseach hard questions given his inability to answer even the most simple ones but-----
The Deputy might get a straight answer.
In terms of his engagement with the social partners, has the Taoiseach discussed any steps to avoid the recent events involving workers, such as those in Vita Cortex, La Senza and Lagan Brick, where they have had to go to extraordinary lengths to vindicate their rights and entitlements? At stroke of pen, 250 workers in Diageo in Dundalk and Kilkenny were told they were out of work. Unfortunately, that announcement came when the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation was in Guinness with the Diageo management.
The occupation of Vita Cortex continues and it is in its seventh week despite the collapse of talks, which was no fault of the workers. Clearly, the owner of that company has a responsibility to pay the workers what they are owed. Has there been any feedback from the Labour Relations Commission and from the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation on this issue? What will the Government do to ensure these workers' rights are protected? Will it introduce legislation to ensure no employer can in future treat workers in this disrespectful and exploitative fashion?
Some 32 Vita Cortex workers have been involved in a sit-in in Cork since 16 December which arose from a dispute with their employer over redundancy payments, as Deputy Adams pointed out. The workers seek severance payments of 2.9 weeks pay per year of service, inclusive of statutory redundancy, in line with previous redundancy deals in that company.
In the interest of achieving a resolution to the dispute, which is obviously of concern to everybody, the Minister, Deputy Bruton, urged both parties to avail of the industrial relations mechanisms available in this State as soon as possible with a view to the possibility of bringing a conclusion to it. Officials from the Minister's Department were in contact with the workers' union representatives in an attempt to clarify the issues involved and to make them aware that the industrial relations mechanism of the State was available to them so that they might be assisted to resolve that dispute.
As Deputy Adams is aware, the Labour Relations Commission invited both parties to meet in Cork on Tuesday, 17 January to clarify the facts of the situation and, against that background, to explore with both parties the potential to move it forward. The meeting adjourned and reconvened on Friday, 20 January. Those talks adjourned on 20 January and there was no plan to reconvene. According to the Labour Relations Commission, it was unable to find a basis for agreement between the two parties involved. The Labour Relations Commission has confirmed that it will maintain contact with both parties and that if an opportunity should arise for it to be of any further assistance in this serious matter and in moving the situation forward, it will be prepared to get involved again.
The absence of an agreement on the payment of extra statutory severance payments for the workers is without prejudice to the arrangements being made by the Department of Social Protection to process the applications made for payment of statutory redundancies to the workers concerned. I can inform Deputy Adams and the House that I understand the Vita Cortex workers submitted 34 applications online on 22 December 2011. Hard copies and associated correspondence and papers were received on 4 January of this year.
Statutory straightforward redundancy claims submitted since October 2011 have generally been processed for payment within six to eight weeks. This can vary considerably depending on the complexity of the claims but on the basis of the current processing times, I would expect that the Vita Cortex claims will be processed by 6 February.
The position is that the Labour Relations Commission has made it clear to both sides that if it can be of any further assistance in resolving this dispute, it is there to assist if it can.
I thank the Taoiseach for that information. My questions were around trying to ensure these events do not become common place and what he has done in regard to the social partners or to bring in legislation. Diageo, which is a hugely profitable company, makes billions in profits and sells Harp and Guinness globally as Irish brands, closes a brewery in Dundalk with the stroke of a pen. Some workers had given 25 years to 30 years of service. It is not fair. As I said earlier, the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation was actually in the Guinness headquarters at St. James's Gate when this announcement was made and there was not a bleat from the Government about it. Some 250 workers, their families and all the small business which thrive in the local economy will be robbed of that income.
To go back to my initial question, workers must be treated respectfully and not in an exploitative way. Has the Government discussed this with the social partners? Will it bring in legislation if there is a need to do so to ensure no employer can treat workers like this?
As I said, I intend to continue to meet the social partners as appropriate and I made that clear to them. Together with the Tánaiste, I hope to have full twice yearly meetings with them. Clearly, the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation is concerned about these matters. I repeat that the well proven mechanisms of the State are available where unfortunately disputes arise, as they do on a pretty regular basis.
I do not intend to have a return to the kind of formal process that applied before but I have encouraged every Minister to engage bilaterally with the parties which might be relevant to their responsibilities. The question of legislation beyond where we are does not arise at this time.
The machinery has been tried and tested over many years and I would hope that, in the case of Vita Cortex and any other dispute, that process would be used and tested in order to see if a resolution can be brought about to what are sensitive and serious disputes affecting people and their families.
The Taoiseach does not seem to realise that what he calls the well proven mechanisms of the State are utterly ineffective in protecting workers' rights with regard to some of these - what I was going to call - rogue employers. However, the La Senza lingerie chain was part of a huge multinational corporation that owns Weetabix, which is an internationally known brand. The Taoiseach says these protections are there, but how can it happen in this State that as workers go home on a Monday night, having left their shops, a few of them get telephone calls from KPMG, acting on the instructions of Lion Capital or La Senza, to tell them not to come in in the morning because their jobs were finished? Does the Taoiseach realise that those workers are left hanging on for the State to pay their entitlements with regard to redundancies for 12 or 18 months by this massive multinational? It has overall responsibility but it has created a spurious distinction between companies using legalisms so it can walk away. It is incredible that this can happen in this day and age.
The situation is similar for the Vita Cortex workers where the State mechanisms have let workers down. The Government says it is concerned about the rights of these workers, so what initiative will it take regarding Vita Cortex and La Senza for an immediate redress of their situation?
I am well aware of the nature of disputes and how sensitive and serious they can become. Far from using the cliché of "well tried mechanisms", the Labour Relations Commission has been an outstanding success over the years. On occasion, it has spent many hours of intensive discussion trying to sort out disputes between employees and employers. A better way has not been found - except probably in some dictatorships, which we are not - to resolve disputes. I feel strongly that in regard to the particular dispute mentioned by Deputy Adams and others, a resolution has to be found. The way forward is to explore all the possibilities that exist under the Labour Relations Commission, which is the official machinery of the State. The officials of the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Bruton, are available at any time to assist in that overall work. I would like to see a resolution to these disputes, but the best process is to get involved with the Labour Relations Commission, which has a proven record of bringing parties together where sensitive disputes like this have occurred. While talks were suspended in the Vita Cortex case, I hope they can be resumed and a way forward found. At the end of the day, a resolution for that dispute has to be found in any event.
I tabled a question on the social dialogue over the Croke Park agreement, which for some reason was transferred to the Minister with responsibility for the public sector, such is the restrictive nature of trying to get questions answered by the Taoiseach during Taoiseach's questions. Would the Taoiseach agree it is arguable that if we had a more proactive social dialogue and social framework, the issues around Vita Cortex, Lagan Brick and other companies could have been dealt with much earlier? The Labour Relations Commission came too late to the Vita Cortex dispute. Ministers were standing back from it up to Christmas. We ended up ringing Ministers about it on 23 December. In addition, the matter was raised in the Dáil on a number of occasions prior to the Christmas recess, but no formal intervention came before January. If a more proactive social dialogue was going on, a framework would exist to deal with these issues much earlier. Closer linkages are required between employers, trade unions and State agencies in this regard. It would also allow for more inter-ministerial dialogue. Three Ministers are involved with different dimensions: Finance, Social Protection, and Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. The resolution of this dispute could involve all three, as well as the owner who has the fundamental obligation and responsibility.
I hear what the Taoiseach is saying about not wanting to go back, but there is an argument for a more proactive social dialogue. The Agency Workers Bill was poorly worked out because of the absence of a proactive social dialogue between the partners. We did not get the optimal outcome on that prior to Christmas as regards jobs in the economy. It has passed most people by in terms of awareness and profile, but it could have implications for jobs if there was a more proactive engagement.
It has been widely reported that the Taoiseach's backbenchers have been beating down his door about the Croke Park agreement, and that they and some Ministers have been talking tough about tearing up that agreement. Is the Taoiseach holding any such discussions with backbenchers or are these stories just part of some misleading spin being placed in the media? I would like the Taoiseach to confirm the Government's position on the Croke Park agreement because many Deputies in his own party and some in the Labour Party have questioned it; they have suggested that it be torn up. I would argue that we do need a more proactive social dialogue framework to deal with many such issues that are arising.
The Deputy has raised an important point about contact between the social partners and the Government. While I said that I have no intention of returning to the formal process that existed before, in the meetings we have had with the social partners we have made it perfectly clear that the line is always open, either on an individual ministerial basis or directly to the Government. I have made it clear to the social partners, as has the Tánaiste, that if there is an issue that needs immediate attention or requires the availability of the Government, that line is open. While I, as head of Government, and the Tánaiste meet with the social partners in formal session twice a year, each individual Minister and member of the Government is available to the social partnership. That is why in this case, the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Bruton, outlined what the process was for dealing with this particular dispute in Cork, which has now dragged on for some time. He appointed his own departmental officials to discuss with the workers' union representatives the clarification of a number of issues there. Following that, the Labour Relations Commission invited both parties to a meeting on 17 January, which resumed on 20 January and was then suspended. I would hope that this process can be resumed because this dispute needs to be sorted out. The people concerned need to have it resolved.
Last week, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform set out for the House the position concerning the Croke Park agreement. Deputy Martin is aware that a review of the agreement is pending in March this year. We have already made a number of claims in regard to Croke Park being implemented in full. We need this because it is an important element of the relations that exist between the public sector and the Government. It is also an element that is clearly referred to in the memorandum of understanding with the troika. All the issues in respect of the Croke Park agreement are due for review at the end of spring.
In the second week of January, I was called by a La Senza worker and asked to come out to the occupation they had just begun because their jobs had been terminated and their wages had not been paid. Yesterday, I received another telephone call from a La Senza worker who said their promised wages from KPMG had still not been paid. In addition, they will be subject to emergency tax because KPMG has messed up their tax credit entitlements, which means they will not get much of their money for a considerable time. They have also had massive delays in accessing the social welfare system because they did not get their P45 forms until yesterday morning, after two weeks of haranguing KPMG on that issue. Since June, the Jane Norman workers have been without a month's wages due to them when the company went into administration. Jane Norman is now trading in this country with a new workforce that is paid less and on lower conditions. The Connolly shoe workers in Dún Laoghaire have been on strike for over a year after their employment was terminated. Despite several Labour Court rulings in their favour, the employer has not yet paid the moneys owed. These issues raise the question of what this Government will do to stop rogue employers treating workers like this. It needs legislative action so that employers cannot do this to workers. I ask the Taoiseach to intervene on the specifics of the cases I mentioned and to bring forward legislation to protect workers. If we can do it to protect bankers, can we do it to protect workers?
Deputy Boyd Barrett has raised three cases, the workers being subject to emergency tax because KPMG did not send out wages, the Jane Norman workers who have not been paid, and the workers in the shoe shop who have not been paid. I do not have all the details of these cases. Workers have rights and it is important that these rights are exercised and fulfilled in accordance with the law. Where a dispute arises, there must be a dispute mechanism to clarify the issues and get on with the resolution of the dispute. I do not have the detail of the reasons why KPMG has not been able to pay wages and whether the Revenue Commissioners said the workers will be subject to emergency tax because they have not received their wages in time. In respect of Jane Norman and the Connolly shoe workers, if Deputy Boyd Barrett forwards the details of the cases, I will be able to offer some assistance in having the matter resolved. There may be other elements to these disputes of which I am not aware.
Following my colleague's question, immediately after Questions to the Taoiseach, the Taoiseach should get one of his senior officials to telephone KPMG and ask the company to send the wages immediately. The workers are in very difficult economic circumstances. This is money that they are owed. There is cynicism in working them overtime during sales and then walking away without notice. I will telephone KPMG, along with Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett, and I ask the Taoiseach's office to telephone KPMG. I will forward the name of the relevant official in KPMG to the Taoiseach's office so that he can be told the money should be out within days. Is that not simple justice? Should the State not stand behind workers who are victimised in this disgusting fashion by companies behaving in this manner?
Workers are entitled to receive their legitimate wages and if Deputies Higgins and Boyd Barrett give me the details of these cases after the Order of Business, I will be happy to contact the firm involved. People expect to have their wages paid and I do not have the detail of what is blocking this.