Skip to main content
Normal View

Redundancy Payments

Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 20 March 2013

Wednesday, 20 March 2013

Questions (290, 292, 293)

Joe Higgins

Question:

290. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation his views on the industrial dispute between a company (details supplied) in County Kerry and seven employees, members of SIPTU, whereby the employees are informed by the company that they are to be made redundant, the company refuses to engage with them, their union and the Labour Relations Commission over the terms of the redundancy and explore the possibility of saving some of the jobs and furthermore the company has threatened the workers with instant dismissal with no redundancy payment if they exercise their legal right to engage in strike action as a result of the company's approach. [14178/13]

View answer

Clare Daly

Question:

292. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if his attention has been drawn to the fact that workers were threatened with immediate dismissal and non-payment of redundancy entitlements if they chose to exercise their right to take industrial action (details supplied). [13877/13]

View answer

Michael Healy-Rae

Question:

293. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation his views on correspondence (details supplied) regarding the threat of dismissal of workers engaging in industrial action; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13905/13]

View answer

Written answers

I propose to take Questions Nos. 290, 292 and 293 together.

I understand that the dispute arose following a decision by the company to restructure its operations in Ireland, resulting in the closure of its office in Tralee with the loss of eight jobs.

I understand also that the workers have been trying to negotiate terms with the company, including in relation to the retention of two home-based positions in Tralee.

The company has said that all employees based in Tralee were offered relocation to Dublin, the company’s only other office in Ireland and that the possibilities of home working for two employees to support the company’s operations in the UK and Europe were also explored. The company has also said that when staff were not prepared to accept alternatives, including an offer of enhanced health insurance cover for those staff who would not be retained, it arranged for a third party consultant to meet with them and give them support with CV writing and interview techniques.

I have been advised that the Labour Relations Commission has been in touch with both parties offering assistance. In this context, I understand that the parties have agreed to meet under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission at an early date.

I very much welcome this development and I would urge both parties to engage constructively in the process. In my opinion, engagement with the State's industrial relations machinery offers the best way whereby the parties involved in this dispute can hope to resolve their differences.

Top
Share