Vol. 1041 No. 2
1. Deputy Louise O'Reilly asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if he will convene a meeting of large food companies and large food producers considering the information in the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission High-level Analysis of the Irish Grocery Retail Sector report, which outlined that profits for this sector were significantly higher than profits for supermarkets. [31678/23]
Following the publication of the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, CCPC, High-level Analysis of the Irish Grocery Retail Sector report, will the Minister commit to convening a meeting of large food companies and large food processors regarding possible profiteering in the sector?
The food sector falls within the remit of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, and his Department keeps in close contact with the relevant actors in that sector. Fairness and transparency in the food sector are essential, as is ensuring that consumers have access to sufficient and accurate information before making a purchase. That is why the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, is establishing the new agrifood regulator under the Agricultural and Food Supply Chain Bill 2022. Price development along the food supply chain will form part of the remit of the new regulator. It will have two functions in this regard: a price and market analysis and reporting function and a regulatory enforcement function concerning the enforcement of prohibited unfair trading practices.
In terms of my own remit in relation to competition, I wrote to the CCPC in May requesting an assessment of competition in the grocery retail sector and whether there is evidence of excessive pricing on the part of retailers. In its report, the CCPC states that it has not seen any indications of any market failure or excessive pricing taking place in the grocery retail market. In addition, the CCPC states that there is evidence that competition has improved in recent years on the basis of price, quality, location and service and notes that this has resulted in greater choice for consumers. Of course, it is true that food prices in Ireland remain high when compared internationally. This is based on a number of factors. These relate to Ireland being a small island nation with inevitably higher costs for transport, our small market size, staffing costs and the fact that we are a significant importer of energy and food produce. As a small, open trading economy, Ireland is exposed to global inflationary pressures, including fluctuations on international markets for food, commodities and energy.
However, it is a welcome development that food inflation in Ireland is declining and as of May was at 5.4%, which is below the EU average of 7.1% and the euro area average of 6.1%. Despite our high price position, Ireland remains a competitive economy. Ireland was recently ranked as the second most competitive economy in the globe under the IMD world competitiveness rankings. Having said all that, I think we need to continue to monitor the food retail market closely. We need to understand in more detail why we continue to be a country that has higher food retail prices than most other countries in the EU, even though there are some factors that explain that. I have made it very clear to the sector that we will follow it closely. Of course, we will also work with the new regulator in its new remit.
I am on record as having welcomed the establishment of the agrifood regulator. At the beginning of March the European Central Bank highlighted that corporate profiteering was contributing to price rises, as firms are using inflation as an excuse to increase profit margins. To be clear, I am raising this issue on behalf of consumers and also on behalf of retailers and primary producers. What they are telling me is they are getting squeezed at both ends and the big food producers are in the middle. I welcome the Minister's commitment to monitor it, but what I am asking is whether the Minister will convene a meeting with the major food producers to have that discussion with them. As the Minister has said himself, the profits are not translating to the price at the till. We are in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis and people are being squeezed. Small businesses and growers in my constituency in north County Dublin will tell you that their margins are cut to the absolute bone. Yet, the ECB identified that corporate profiteering was contributing to price rises. Somebody is making money here. The consumer and the primary producers are getting squeezed. We know, thanks to the report, that there is no evidence of profiteering in the retail sector as such, but it has to be coming from somewhere. I would like to see the Minister take the lead on this. I respect the role of the agrifood regulator and Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, but there is a role for the Minister's Department here as well.
First, I acknowledge the role of my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, in terms of the retail forum. That focus on ensuring that consumers are getting a fair deal from a competitive marketplace in the retail sector continues. There will be another retail forum in early autumn and that conversation will continue. The food industry is an industry that I know reasonably well, having been Minister Agriculture, Food and the Marine previously. It is a sector, by the way, that needs to be competitive in terms of productivity and pricing because most of the food that is processed in Ireland actually gets exported and needs to find a consumer outside of Ireland. We are now exporting over €16 billion worth of food and drink. That suggests that this is a sector that needs to be competitive. However, we need to understand in more detail the different margins that are taken along the supply chain, whether that is from primary producer to processor, in terms of large food companies, or then on to retailers. I will happily speak to my colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, on this, but I think it is primarily his responsibility to deal with the food processing sector.
The French finance minister recently convened a meeting of several large food companies to discuss the price of food items and he managed to secure a pledge from firms like Unilever to cut prices. It is astonishing that it has not been done here. I think it should be done. The Minister will talk about the agrifood regulator and I have said its establishment is very welcome. However, the CCPC report highlighted that Unilever and Kerry Group reported pre-tax profit margins of 16.3% and 11.9%, respectively, in 2021. Last week's quarterly report by the Central Bank highlighted that profits contributed more to domestic inflation than wages in recent years. I respect the role of the retail forum, but there is a role here to bring these companies together. I ask again, given that the pressure was put on the retail forum and supermarkets regarding profiteering, if the Minister will commit to the forum and the public that he will convene a meeting of large food companies to discuss the potential for excessive profiteering.
What I will commit to is having a conversation with the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine about what the appropriate direction here is in terms of what we should be doing together as a Government and in the context of the new regulator being set up. It is important to say that we import a lot of food from large food companies like Unilever, Nestlé and lots of others. We are a price-taker as a small, open economy that imports very large volumes of food across many products. When you speak to retailers, as I have, and talk to them about the differential in price between own-brand product and branded product, you often see a significant difference because large food companies with big brands and so on have not dropped their prices in the same way that own-brand has reduced pricing. We need to ask questions around why that is and where the profit margins are. There is an issue here, but it is primarily the remit of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, as it was when I was in the Department. We did bring many of the companies together, for example, in the beef forum, when we did this before to understand more fully the full supply chain and how it functions.
2. Deputy Ged Nash asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if he will outline his engagement with the owners of a company (details supplied) and the trade unions at the company; if he will detail the supports he is prepared to provide to assist in avoiding 650 potential layoffs at the operation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31836/23]
The Minister rightly expressed shock two weeks ago at the plans announced by Tara Mines to put all of its 650 staff at the Navan mine on temporary layoff. Yesterday, a week after proposals were tabled by the unions to avoid mass layoffs, Boliden essentially pressed the button and said it planned to go ahead regardless. Since the announcement two weeks ago, can the Minister inform the House of the precise nature of his engagement with the company and the nature of the supports he is prepared to provide to avoid layoffs?
I thank the Deputy. I would like to have more opportunity to discuss this issue if I could. Maybe we can do that in the next few weeks.
First, I want to say that I know yesterday was another difficult day for all the staff in Tara Mines and my first concern remains for the impacted staff and their families. This includes the 650 staff employed directly by the company in Navan but also staff and companies impacted which have contracts with Tara Mines. There are many people in that position.
My Department, the Department of Social Protection and other relevant Government agencies will support the company and employees in any way we can, including through any income supports that are available through the Department of Social Protection. My Department and I were first informed of the decision of the Boliden Tara Mines board to put the company into care and maintenance on 13 June. I subsequently met with the company management and union representatives, together with my officials, on 15 June. The company informed me that the decision to suspend operations temporarily and place the mine into care and maintenance had been taken to safeguard the long-term future of the company. The company representatives said they were in a very difficult financial position due to a number of factors including a decline in the price of zinc, which has been significant this year, high energy prices and general cost inflation, as well as some other operating challenges which they went into some detail on with me.
Officials from my Department and Enterprise Ireland met again with the company earlier this week to explore options for securing the long-term future of the mine and employment. Yesterday morning, with officials from my Department, I again met with management at the company, who briefed me in some detail on the latest position. Management underlined the constructive engagement they have had with unions since 15 June, which tabled helpful proposals for cost-saving measures to be introduced to address operational challenges. I am also aware that this dialogue will continue and I support that.
I am more than happy to meet the union leadership again in the next couple of days, as soon as tomorrow I hope, if that is what they would like to do. We will continue to engage with management. There are some things we can do, which I can hopefully go into in a second. The union leadership in Tara Mines has shown very significant willingness to propose and think through compromises that can help to save costs in the medium term, and that process needs to continue if we are going to secure a future for Tara Mines.
In the past, SIPTU, Connect and Unite have shown themselves to be extremely flexible and responsible when that company previously hit trading difficulties. They showed their leadership and responsibility again two weeks ago when they started to develop proposals on cost-saving measures. Unfortunately, they were rejected by the company and, extraordinarily, when the trade unions were in negotiations with the company yesterday, at the very same time, workers were receiving emails with regard to the company's plan to introduce those layoffs. We cannot, therefore, say with any confidence that the company was acting in good faith. The missing piece of the jigsaw here is the precise nature of the Government supports the Minister is prepared to provide to the operation. The trade unions have done their piece. There was always an assumption that the Government would introduce supports in association with the work the union has done to avoid and stave off the nuclear option of 650 layoffs. We know, and the Minister has correctly pointed out, that there are already up to 200 people who have been essentially laid off or lost their jobs, in some cases, through contractors.
Could the Minister set out the precise nature of the supports he is prepared to provide? That would be important for clarity in terms of the unions' approach to the issue over the next period. By the way, I do appreciate the Minister's continued engagement with the trade unions and they appreciate that too.
That engagement will continue right the way through this process. Even if it moves into a care and maintenance situation, we want to continue to talk to both the workers' representatives and management to try to make sure that period is as short as possible. It is important to say and put on the record that the management have been really clear with me that they are 100% convinced that this is a temporary care and maintenance situation they are now facing and that Tara Mines can and will open again. I have to take them at face value in terms of that commitment, but I want to make sure that the Government does its part in ensuring that is what happens. If it is not possible to avoid care and maintenance, which, of course, we would all like to avoid if we could, but if care and maintenance happens in a couple of weeks' time, we must make sure that period is as short as possible and that we support the workers and their families as best we can during that.
That is why there are a number of Government Departments and a whole series of agencies involved. For example, Enterprise Ireland is there working with the company to make sure that apprentices in Tara Mines have alternatives quickly so they can continue their apprentice programmes.
Go raibh maith agat.
Enterprise Ireland is also engaging with other companies that are subcontracting, for example, into Tara Mines to try to find alternative work for those companies.
Go raibh maith agat, a Aire.
The Chair might give me a slight bit of latitude and I will finish then. On the core question, certainly, I do not believe that the management has rejected the proposals from the union leadership. What they have said to me is it is not enough in terms of cost savings to be able to avoid moving into care and maintenance for now. Of course, we need then to look at what is possible in terms of state aid in supporting, for example, the company to help compensate for the dramatic increase in energy costs it has experienced over the last 12 months, just like we have done with other companies. Our state aid team is working with that at the moment.
The company stated the obvious when it said the union proposals of themselves would not be sufficient to stave off the scale and quantum of layoffs it is considering at the moment. The assumption always was, based on comments made, for example, by the Taoiseach in this House in recent weeks, that an energy package would be worked on to try to provide some support to the organisation and we await that. If it is the case that the Minister is in discussions and continuing negotiations with the companies and trade unions, I understand why he would not be in a position to disclose the precise nature of the offer of support he has already made, if those offers have been made, at this point.
Mr. Adrian Kane from SIPTU could not have put it clearer this morning. The Minister may have heard him on "Morning Ireland" when he said that a political intervention is required at this stage. In conclusion, I do not believe we would be here at all if the proposition the Labour Party developed in recent years around the introduction of a German-style short-time work scheme based on the Kurzarbeit model was in place to assist companies and workers in organisations experiencing short- to medium-term trading difficulties of this nature.
Last week, the Minister and the Ministers, Deputies Humphreys and Michael McGrath, responded to me by saying that proposition was being considered in the context of a review of the pathways to work strategy. It is all well and good considering it. This is a proposition that has been considered now for a number of years. It should be an important part of our labour market model and embedded in that model to make the kinds of interventions that I believe could stave off the kind of proposition Boliden is considering at the moment.
I hear what the Deputy is saying. With regard to supports in the labour market, of course, the Government is always open to looking at new and more impactful ways of doing things and looking at international best practice and so on.
With regard to Tara Mines, it is important to be upfront about the scale of the financial pressures on the company. The predicted loss for 2023, when the decision was announced a number of weeks ago that the company was going to move into care and maintenance, was approximately €100 million. That is a huge gap to close. The one factor the Government cannot compensate for is the price of zinc, which is the main factor here. What we can do is support the company somewhat to offset the dramatic increase in the cost of energy, which, by the way, is not as dramatic as would have been predicted six months ago. In fact, the cost of energy has come down significantly, but it is still a lot higher than would have been predicted a number of years ago. We can, therefore, do something on energy. There are some limitations in terms of state aid rules and the schemes that exist but certainly, we cannot close that kind of gap. Despite really significant efforts by the trade unions to find ways of improving productivity and reducing cost, about which the management has been very complimentary to me, by the way, and they are very helpful, that conversation needs to continue in the context of finding a viable future for this plant.
All I can say is that the Government will prioritise this issue. I will prioritise this issue and we will continue to speak to the trade unions and management honestly about how far the State can go in the context of the state aid rules we have to operate within.
3. Deputy Maurice Quinlivan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if he has considered the re-establishment of the co-operative development unit within his Department to provide training support and advice to co-operatives. [31679/23]
In April, the Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment published its report on the general scheme of the co-operative societies Bill. As part of that report, there were 27 recommendations. One was on the re-establishment of the co-operative unit within the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Will the Minister confirm if the Department is giving consideration to this proposal? Can we anticipate the re-establishment of this unit?
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta as an gceist agus as an tuaraisc ón gcoiste faoi cúrsaí na gcomharchumann. The issue as to whether the Department would establish a co-operative development unit is part of the bigger issue we are considering regarding overall supports for the co-operative sector. I acknowledge the work of the Deputy and the committee on this. As he knows, there are a number of aspects. One of the most significant forms of assistance for the sector will be the introduction of a modern legal framework which will place the co-operative model on a more favourable and much clearer legal basis. This will encourage the consideration of the co-operative model as an attractive formation option for entrepreneurs and for social and community activities. A modern legislative basis, including strong corporate governance requirements, will also provide confidence to stakeholders and help to encourage investment in co-operatives.
My Department is continuing to engage widely with key stakeholders to raise awareness of the proposed legislation and the potential for those who wish to follow the co-operative ethos to grow and prosper under a modernised co-operative regime. This includes ongoing liaison with the co-operative sector and its representative bodies, the enterprise development agencies, other relevant Departments, professional advisers and direct communication by the registrar with individual societies.
Supports to enterprises through the enterprise development agencies are not necessarily based on the model of business formation. The choice of model is a matter for the founders of any business and this Department does not promote one model over another. The forthcoming co-operative legislation will complement the already modernised and consolidated regime applying to companies.
Co-ops are not homogenous as they differ in size, ownership, sector, and so on. As already said, supports to enterprises are not based on the model of business formation but on the distinctive needs of a particular enterprise at a key point of its journey. At the moment, it is considered that the most appropriate way to raise awareness of the potential benefits of the co-operative model is through existing channels and structures. However, my Department is keeping the matter under review. We are continuing to review the entire pre-legislative scrutiny report. We will come back to the committee with updated information in the autumn.
I thank the Minister of State. As he said, co-operatives can sustain employment in situations where, as I said, jobs would otherwise be lost. They are jobs that would be lost not because the business is untenable but because they were not generating enough profits as expected by stakeholders. Co-operatives are often a way of giving control to local communities, stimulating the local economy and building regional and local wealth, but these co-operatives need support and training. It is my view that we should look to prioritise the supports and assistance available to co-ops in the context of economic growth and development to sustain communities. Local employment offices must be supported in training, upskilling and resourcing to facilitate the establishment and growth of co-operatives within each local employment office. Each office should have a minimum of one person available in-house to provide support to the co-operative sector, especially when establishing co-ops. We are reaching a situation now where we all agree that employment is good at the moment. We are down to 4% unemployment and we need to look at any way to tackle that 4% unemployment. Co-operatives would be one very good way to do that.
Absolutely, we do not disagree. As the Deputy knows, the legislation for the co-operative movement is more than a century old. The best thing is to have contemporary legislation that reflects some of the trends the Deputy has just spoken about. Doing that will be a step change for the sector. The Minister, Deputy Coveney, has been clear that he wants us and the Department to engage widely with the co-operative sector to bring far more knowledge about the Bill. One thing I have discovered is that there is not as much knowledge or awareness of potential changes in the Bill as I would like. We are trying to increase awareness and knowledge. All the proposals the committee has made would be considered on that basis.
Increasing the knowledge and information would be welcome because there is concern and a lack of clarity about what co-ops are. Historically, co-ops have been vital to key sectors of our economy. They have shown that they work, when considering agriculture and credit unions, for instance, among others. Internationally, co-ops have been successful across Europe in a wide range of sectors, including banking, insurance, retail and agriculture. As I said, it is important, not just with regard to co-ops but as we come to a time with full employment. We are down to 4% of people who are not in employment. There are key sectors we can look at, including people from the Traveller community, people with disabilities, and women who have left work to raise children who now want to come back in but do not have the skills or sense of security to come back. There are areas where we unfortunately still have unemployment blackspots. Co-ops can be really good to address those. In my constituency of Limerick, in the census previous to the most recent one and while we are waiting for the new statistics to come out in November, eight of the top ten blackspots were in Limerick city. We need some targeted interventions there. Co-ops would be one way to look at that.
Absolutely. We are completely at one with regard to the potential of co-ops. They have also been important community vehicles to deliver community services such as water over the years. There is huge potential here. We absolutely support that kind of model of social inclusion and social progression. The most important thing is that we have a contemporary legislative framework and underpinning. In framing that, we can also increase and enhance the potential of the co-operative movement and structure. We continue to work to increase awareness and to work with all the various stakeholders in this sphere. I am more than happy to engage with the committee on it again in the autumn.
4. Deputy Cian O'Callaghan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment what engagement he has had with the management of a company (details supplied); if he will meet with workers and their representatives; if he will take steps to ensure the employment rights of the workers are protected; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31853/23]
Iceland workers who are owed holiday pay in their wages have been staging sit-ins in Talbot Street and Coolock. They have been treated disgracefully by the owners. Workers should not have to stage sit-ins to get the wages they are due. Will the Minister meet the workers and their representatives? What has he done to ensure their rights are fully protected and their wages are paid? Has he instructed the company to pay the workers the wages they are owed?
I thank Deputy O'Callaghan for raising this issue with me as a follow-up to our discussion last week, which included Deputy O'Reilly. Constant engagement on this is necessary from all sides in the House.
My thoughts are with the employees of Iceland in all of their stores as well as those mentioned by the Deputy. I completely understand that this year has brought a great deal of uncertainty for the workers, their families and friends. As we previously discussed, I met representatives from Iceland prior to the food recall and appointment of the examiner. Our discussion covered many areas, from grocery prices to the temporary business energy support scheme, TBESS, and energy prices. I made clear that I and my Government colleagues absolutely expect every company operating in Ireland to comply fully with its legal and statutory obligations to its employees.
A robust suite of employment rights legislation is in place to protect employees. I emphasise that workers have statutory rights under a broad range of employment rights legislation. Where employees believe their employment rights have been breached, they have the right to refer complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission for an adjudication and possible redress. The WRC is independent in the performance of its functions.
Ireland has an existing strong legislative restructuring framework for companies. Examinership is overseen by the court and is the main corporate recovery process for companies in Ireland. The process is available to insolvent companies that have a reasonable prospect of survival. The examiner is an officer of the court and must act independently. The Government therefore cannot intervene or comment on this court-supervised process, which has commenced. The Government's key role is to ensure that a strong framework of legislative protections for employees is in place and provides a suitable mechanism for them to seek redress where appropriate. I understand from media reports that some employees may have made complaints to the WRC. Therefore, I must respect the independence of the WRC in making its determination in these cases, so I do not want to get into too much detail in that regard.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I express my full solidarity and support for the workers who are staging sit-ins in Coolock and Talbot Street, and indeed all the Iceland workers. The issue here is that low-paid workers are the backbone of companies like Iceland and they simply cannot afford not to have the wages owed to them paid in a timely manner. One worker is owed almost €1,000. Workers have bills to pay and families to feed now, so an elongated process simply will not work for them. The Taoiseach said yesterday that the law might need to be strengthened to protect workers against wage theft. Does the Minister of State agree the law needs to be strengthened in this area to protect workers? What will he do to protect workers in the here and now who are struggling and have wages due to them now that need to be paid?
As I laid out, two issues are widely in operation in the context of this discussion, namely, the examinership process as well as cases before the WRC and the ability of employees to bring further cases to the WRC. They are the two most important structures through which the company may be able to ensure it has a viable future and, equally, through which employees and their rights are protected and their wages paid in a fair and timely manner. I listened intently to the Taoiseach's comments regarding how the law might need to be strengthened, which is something we in the Department will reflect on. The Taoiseach spoke about that having previously been a Minister at this Department. I will be more than happy to work with the Deputy if he believes we can work on it to strengthen existing legislation. We absolutely need to reflect on this on foot of current events.
I thank the Minister of State for the response. The Taoiseach indicated the law may need to be strengthened in this area and the Minister of State is saying he is open to reflecting on it, which is welcome, but yet again, workers who are due wages have not been paid. This could set a precedent other companies follow. It is completely wrong that people would turn up to do their work, with a store able to sell goods and cash from the sale of those goods going out to the company, while the workers who turn up that day to ensure those transactions happen do not get their end of the bargain. We are talking about low-paid workers who do not have a cushion of savings or anything else to be able to deal with delays on this. We need more than reflection, and perhaps the law needs to be strengthened. If the Minister of State is conceding that there is a case to be looked at, I urge him to get on with that, and we will certainly work with him in that regard. Any further talks on that would be welcome.
It is important to stress we are dealing specifically with a unique case relating to one employer, albeit a large one with a presence in much of the country. Moreover, the case is going through two distinct processes, namely, examinership and the WRC, that we as legislators should not intervene in or directly comment on.
The Government is always open to reflecting on legislation that can be improved. I do not necessarily provide any concessions, but the events that are ongoing certainly provide a challenge to the Government to look at this in more depth, and that is something we will take away. We will get into the detail with officials over the summer recess, and in the meantime, if the Deputy has any thoughts on the matter, we can sit down with any Deputies, in government or in opposition, and will be more than happy to proceed in that manner.
5. Deputy Louise O'Reilly asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment his views on strengthening the redress available under section 7 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 to employees unfairly dismissed from their employment. [31680/23]
What are the Minister's views on the redress available to workers who have been unfairly dismissed according to the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977? To be fair, the Act is nearly as old as us, although I do not include the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, in that, and it is definitely due a re-examination.
I thank the Deputy for making me feel old this morning.
I said "as us". I was including myself.
The Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, is not far off it either.
Ireland has a robust suite of employment rights legislation to protect employees. Where employees believe their employment rights have been breached, they have the right to refer complaints to the WRC for an adjudication and possible redress. The Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015 provide that where an employee has been unfairly dismissed, an adjudication officer and, on appeal, the Labour Court may make an order for the reinstatement, re-engagement or awarding of compensation to the employee. It is a matter for the adjudication officer and, on appeal, the Labour Court to determine which form of redress is appropriate, having regard to all the circumstances.
If the redress is an award of compensation and the employee has incurred financial loss attributable to the dismissal, the adjudication officer may, where it is just and equitable, award compensation of up to two years' remuneration. Where the unfair dismissal involved a protected disclosure, an award of up to five years' remuneration may be made. Where the employee has incurred no financial loss attributable to the dismissal, an award of up to four weeks' remuneration may be made.
Although the WRC does not track or record adjudication decisions under the Unfair Dismissals Act by the sum awarded, in 2020, a review of WRC adjudication decisions and recommendations was carried out on a once-off basis. That review showed that the second highest number of claims had been made under the Unfair Dismissals Acts. Of those, 180 awards had been made, totalling €2.07 million in compensation for unfair dismissals, a significant portion of the total sum of awards of just over €5 million made by the WRC that year.
The Unfair Dismissals Acts strike a reasonable balance between the interests of workers and employers. Ireland’s current system of unfair dismissals is comparable to similar systems in other jurisdictions. In my follow-up response, I will address what we are going to do regarding reviews of legislation.
My problem with the redress available under the Unfair Dismissals Acts is that some employers, especially large ones, can dismiss workers if they see them as troublesome, awkward, annoying or whatever, and they can take a chance because they know the likelihood is that, at a time of full employment, the employee will be re-employed and all the employer will be on the hook for is four weeks' pay. It does not operate in the interests of workers. The employment market at a given time is what determines what happens. If a person is likely to be re-employed and is re-employed, he or she will have mitigated the potential loss of earnings.
There is nothing to compensate the workers. It is traumatic to lose your job in an unfair dismissal. I know because I have taken such cases, which are notoriously difficult to prove. Furthermore, the award made against the employer does not act as a deterrent. Big employers with big pockets can go to the WRC and the likelihood, in a time of high employment, is the person will have been re-employed, bearing in mind the Act came into being at a time of high unemployment. As a result, the employer that has unfairly dismissed the worker will be on the hook for only four weeks' pay, which is just not a deterrent. There have been cases where people have been unfairly dismissed and the employer has more or less openly said it knows it is going to be on the hook for only a couple of weeks' wages and it is almost worth it, but that cannot be the case.
In any review or consideration, the Minister has to look at the deterrent as well as the award. The law has to act as a deterrent to employers that would seek to dismiss a worker unfairly.
I accept the principle that there has to be a real deterrent to prevent unfair dismissal. That is the point of having industrial relations machinery that deals with that. Nevertheless, we have to try to get the balance right between, on the one hand, protecting workers and making sure there is not unfair dismissal, with an appropriate deterrent in that regard, and also having a proportionate response in the context of potential income loss, other job opportunities and so on. I accept the point.
I am sure the Deputy is aware my Department is working on the establishment of an employment law review group. Proposals in respect of the Unfair Dismissals Act can, of course, be considered as part of that future work programme. It would be useful for interested parties or case studies and so on to be submitted to that review group. I am certainly open to it but the current system, by and large in terms of industrial machinery to manage the relationships between employers and workers, has worked reasonably well in Ireland. I think the numbers I outlined regarding payments made in 2020 show some evidence of that, but that is not to say we are not open to review or to updating the legislation.
That is welcome. If the Minister is looking for case studies, he could look at the case of the Murphy 4, who were dismissed from Murphy International Limited in Limerick in circumstances they say arose from their trade union activities. It is my opinion that if the redress under the Unfair Dismissals Act had been more appropriate, that could have acted as a deterrent in this instance and perhaps these workers would be still employed. They face a lengthy wait. The Minister and the Government talk a lot about the industrial relations machinery. It is great, but people have to wait. It is a bit like the health service: it is great when you get in, but you have to wait a long time to get in. For a worker who has been unfairly dismissed, it is a long wait with the likelihood of getting just four weeks' pay at the end of it, and that is if you manage to prove it.
As I said, it is hard to prove. There is no deterrent currently. It was a deterrent when it was put in place because the likelihood was that the worker would not have been re-employed quickly. Now that the likelihood is that the worker will be re-employed quickly, there must be a deterrent element. I draw the Minister's attention to the case of the Murphy 4 and ask that he looks at it in the context of any review.
I do not want to talk about any individual case on the floor of the Dáil but I want to make it very clear that it is unlawful to dismiss a person from his or her job simply because he or she is a member of a trade union. Nobody should lose his or her job because he or she has chosen to join a trade union in Ireland. It is important to say that.
I take the Deputy's point in terms of the strength of the jobs market at the moment but we have to pass legislation for all circumstances. Who knows where we will be in five years' time or even two years' time, given the extraordinary disruptions to which we have had to respond over the past five to seven years from Brexit to Covid to the impact of the war in Ukraine? Who knows what the future holds? You cannot legislate for a full employment situation and you certainly should not be legislating on the basis of significant unemployment either, so we need to get the balance right in terms of upgrading legislation. Any legislation that dates back as far as this does needs to be reviewed. We are setting up a process to do that.
