Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Company Law

Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 15 April 2014

Tuesday, 15 April 2014

Ceisteanna (99)

Peadar Tóibín

Ceist:

99. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation his views on whether it is acceptable for employers to reduce staff hours, place staff on temporary lay-off or make them redundant while at the same time establishing an identical company under a different name to employ workers on lower wages to provide the same services as their existing company, such as in the case of a company (details supplied) in Dublin and Wexford; and his views on whether the law needs to be changed to prevent employers from operating in this manner. [17739/14]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (8 píosaí cainte)

This question relates to the case of a qualified electrician, John Donnan, who was employed as an electrical fitter by a company called Jackson Power Systems Limited for approximately 15 years. He reached a wage of approximately €40,000. I have been told that as the recession hit his hours were reduced and he was put on temporary lay-off.

I have also been told that a parallel company was set up and that it started to employ staff at lower wages. Will the Minister seek to ensure companies cannot be used to constructively dismiss staff in sister companies?

Ireland has a robust suite of employment rights legislation. In addition, the State’s industrial relations machinery, which is voluntary in nature, can support parties in their efforts to resolve their differences. In this specific case, both sides availed themselves of this machinery in 2012 when the Labour Court issued a recommendation. The court recommended that the parties bring their issues to the Labour Relations Commission for conciliation, and that, if not resolved at conciliation, they could be referred back to the court under section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, by which both parties could agree to be bound by the court’s recommendation. I understand the parties attended the hearing of the commission. The matter was not referred back to the Labour Court under section 20(2).

It is not clear, based on the information available to me, that this is a position of the same employer doing as the Deputy describes. I note that, while there is one individual in common, there are differences in the directorships of the legal entity that has reduced staff and the separate legal entities the Deputy indicates have taken on workers. Under company law, a company has a separate legal identity from its directors and shareholders. Any concern regarding corporate compliance may be brought to the attention of the Director of Corporate Enforcement.

In the absence of specifics, it is difficult to ascertain which employee protections may apply. However, the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 and the Employees (Provision of Information and Consultation) Act 2006 contain protections in the area of transfer of undertakings. A complaint may be brought to a rights commissioner who shall determine whether there was a breach of the regulations. The Protection of Employment (Exceptional Collective Redundancies and Related Matters) Act 2007 addresses the scenario whereby an employer seeks to replace existing employees with new employees working for lower pay or other less favourable terms and conditions. A complaint alleging a breach of this legislation may be referred to the Secretary General of my Department for consideration by the redundancy panel or the Labour Court.

Employees may be entitled to compensation pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2013, which include provisions regarding lay-offs. Where an employer can prove to the satisfaction of the Department of Social Protection that it is unable to pay the statutory redundancy to its eligible employees, that Department will make lump sum payments directly to the employees.

If a firm allows a person to have statutory redundancy on having let him go over a period and then employs another individual to replace him, it is generally regarded as grounds for a case of constructive dismissal and against the law. If the Minister does not want to refer to the particulars in my question, he might simply refer to its spirit. As the law stands, an individual can set up a company and employ an individual to replace a member of staff let go in a parallel company and who was on a higher wage. This is effectively constructively dismissing the person being replaced. If the activity in the first example is wrong, surely the use of company law is wrong in the second example. Does the Minister not agree with me that both sets of circumstances exploit the worker?

I would have to see the circumstances of any individual case. I cannot judge this matter without seeing them. This has not been brought to the attention of any labour relations bodies, such as the National Employment Rights Authority. I have not got a briefing on this. If there is a deficiency in our employment or company law exposed by this case, I will certainly examine it.

Under general law, a company can close, for whatever reason, such as adverse trading conditions, and its owner can start a new business. There is no blanket ban on people involved in a company starting another business on its closure. It is quite right that there should be no such ban. Without seeing a case and determining whether there are weaknesses in legislation, it is very hard to judge.

We discuss general law here all the time without discussing the specifics of individual cases or concrete examples.

I have given the Minister a concrete example but he does not want to refer to that. I am just giving him the example of a staff member being let go and the same owners opening up a parallel company employing a person to do exactly the same job for half the wages. Is that exploitative or not? In my view, it is extremely exploitative. If the logic of protecting the worker's rights is there in the first case, then the logic of protecting the worker's rights is there in the parallel company also.

We had the Companies Bill go through the House. Over and over again, I asked the Minister of State, Deputy Sean Sherlock, to ensure that the Companies Bill was built in such a way as to protect employees' rights but he said employees' rights can be dealt with elsewhere. Absolutely not. This House should ensure that we proof every piece of legislation when it comes to employees' rights. If the Minister agrees with me that there are potential situations for employees to be exploited in the example of a parallel company, will he commit today to creating legislation to prevent that from happening in the future?

The situation is that if a company ceases trading, it has certain obligations to meet as result, in that it has to meet its Revenue obligations, its obligations to pay redundancy payments to workers and so on. If the company is unable to pay, it can apply to the Department of Social Protection to have its responsibilities to workers met from the redundancy insolvency fund. However, there is no general provision that, when a business gets into difficulty and closes down, the person cannot open up a fresh business. There is no such ban and there should not be. Companies can get into trading difficulties and are unable to continue, as has happened.

That provides for a loophole.

That is what I am saying. If it is being used as a loophole, let us look at the circumstances. However, under existing law, such an employer has an obligation to meet the redundancy payments and meet its obligations to the workers under all headings. If it transfers the business to a new unit which is doing the same business, that would be a transfer of undertakings and it has to maintain the same conditions. It hinges on what has happened in the individual case.

Barr
Roinn