Vol. 232 No. 7
asked the Minister for Labour if he is aware that a number of workers with long service employment were laid off by some employers prior to the date of operation of the Redundancy Payments Act, so that they might avoid the legal requirement of redundancy payments; and if he will take whatever steps may be necessary to remedy this injustice to such workers.
36.
asked the Minister for Labour the number of reports conveyed to him concerning the dismissal of workers towards the end of 1967 from employment from which they would have received redundancy benefit had their dismissal taken place after 1st January, 1968.
37.
asked the Minister for Labour if he is aware that six employees from a firm in Tipperary (name supplied) with respectively 35, 27, 16, 12, 11 and 11 years of service were dismissed on the 16th December, 1967; and that had their dismissal taken place after the end of that month these men would have qualified for redundancy benefit; if there is any action he can take to have this occurrence investigated; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose, with your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, to take Questions Nos. 35, 36 and 37 together.
It was represented to me that, in the case of four firms, including the firm to which Deputy Tierney's question refers, which dismissed workers towards the end of 1967, the workers were dismissed in order to avoid the payment of compensation under the Redundancy Payments Act. I had inquiries made in these cases and was informed by the firms concerned that the dismissals were due to pressing economic circumstances, and that the proposed introduction of the redundancy payments scheme was not an influencing factor. Evidence of the financial state of the firms in question was furnished to me. In the circumstances, I feel that I would not be justified in proposing any special steps in the matter.
I should add that I also have information on firms who retained workers in employment until after the 1st January, 1968, so that the workers concerned could benefit from the Act.
Would it be the case that these workers are dismissed and replaced by workers taken over from England? The Minister for Labour is aware of the case I am referring to in Tipperary?
I do not think so.
Is the Minister aware that in my constituency I will confess, to my horror, I discovered that one firm dismissed 20 men last July, some of whom had 20 and 30 years service, and made no redundancy payments?
We all know that that did happen but we hope it will not happen in the future. The legislation is there now.
In cases of that character, which appear quite incomprehensible, if the Minister's attention is directed to them could we reasonably anticipate that discreet inquiries may be made as to whether that situation can be rectified?
There was a lot of discussion on this.
I expressed the belief then that I did not believe it was possible it could happen in this country. Certainly I am obliged to confess that in that regard I was wrong.
Would the Minister agree that a mistake was made by the Minister for Labour in not accepting an amendment to have this legislation backdated? Would he not even at this stage urge on the Minister that there should be some measure of retrospection in the Act so that this would give some safeguard where individuals were laid off.
The Minister for Labour has had representations with regard to individuals who were laid off. It is very difficult to establish the truth of these matters. The Minister has sought information about the financial status of some firms and it seems to indicate that it was the financial condition of the firms which dictated the dismissals.
Not in every case. Even a Member of the Oireachtas did it.
The Minister has said that in this case he was satisfied it was not because redundancy payments were anticipated as from 1st January that those men were sacked but because of the financial state of the firm. If he found that they were sacked in anticipation of the redundancy payments could he have done anything?
I do not know if there is anything that could be done.
The Minister said in his original reply that he did not think any action was called for because they were sacked for financial reasons.
It is very difficult when something like this is brought in because there always has to be a starting point, and no matter where you start, somebody will always be left out.
May I ask the Minister this? I am not so sure that something might not be done. I believe sometimes in matters like this when responsible discussions take place and there is pointed out to these people the irresponsibility of what they have done, they are prepared to amend it. Might the Minister not consider making further representations?
The Minister has inquired in the cases which Deputy Tierney is talking about.
Is the Minister prepared to approach a firm where it appears that they have acted in almost a scandalous way?
Yes.
