Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 23 Oct 2003

Vol. 573 No. 2

Written Answers. - Job Losses.

Bernard Allen

Ceist:

62 Mr. Allen asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the outcome of discussions between her officials and representations of Comerama workers on 23 June 2003; if she will enter into positive talks through the national implementation body to honour her commitment, to do all in her power, to ensure that the benefit of the Redundancy Act 2003 will accrue to the workers that lost employment in Comerama in December 2002; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [24402/03]

Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Ms Harney):

Two officials of my Department travelled to Castlecomer to meet with union officials, workers, representatives and Mr. Martin Carroll, county councillor at the Comerama factory on 23 June 2003. The manager of the company attended as an observer for a short while.

The union officials and the workers representatives spoke at the meeting. They made the case that the workers who had already been made redundant up to January 2003 before the new enhanced rates came into force in May 2003 should be retrospectively paid these enhanced rates. However, these workers were paid about 3.2 times the then statutory rate by the company on a voluntary basis and also the company had applied for and been paid by my Department its entitlement to a 60% rebate from the social insurance fund.

The legal advice to my Department when this type of issue was considered during the drafting stage of the Bill to give statutory effect to the new enhanced rates was that retrospective effect could not be given, as to do so would be placing a legal onus on employers retrospectively, which the Oireachtas is not allowed to do in these circumstances. Unfortunately for the workers concerned, my Department is precluded from paying the enhanced rates of redundancy with retrospective effect.

The case was also made on behalf of these workers that if it was not legally possible to meet their claim for payment of the enhanced rates, the Government should consider bringing a scheme to the Oireachtas to enable them to be paid the enhanced rates from the SIF as a special case. I have also considered this proposal, which I believe would be impractical. It would mean making a special case for the workers concerned on the basis that they had missed out by being made redundant quite a while before the new enhanced rates were passed, by the Oireachtas, into law. Many thousands of other workers are in a similar position and could make a case for special treatment.

It was also mentioned at the meeting, which the officials attended, that during the negotiations with the employer the workers had intimated that they were at the time prepared to accept, in final settlement of their claim for extra statutory redundancy payments, the employer passing on to them the 60% rebate he was entitled to receive from the SIF. I have also considered this and it is quite clear that I have no say in what the employer does with the 60% refund, which he was legally entitled to be paid from the SIF.

I have arranged for a copy of the minute of the meeting of 23 June 2003 to be sent to the Deputy.

With regard to the Deputy's suggestion about the national implementation body, the role of that body is to ensure delivery of the stability and peace provisions of Sustaining Progress. As the redundancy element of Sustaining Progress contains no provisions regarding retrospection the national implementation body has no role in this matter.

Question No. 63 answered with Question No. 40.