Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

On 12 December 2002, following the announcement of the closure of the Comerama factory with the loss of over 160 jobs, the Tánaiste, together with officials of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, met with a SIPTU delegation representing the Comerama workers. From the official minutes of that meeting it appears that the main concern of the workers, many if not most of whom had already been made redundant six months previously, was that if a deal on enhanced redundancy rates under partnership was made, it should retrospectively apply to the workers concerned.

The official note of the meeting prepared by the official attending stated:

An Tánaiste said the talks were ongoing in relation to the statutory redundancy issue. She gave an undertaking that if the legislation is changed she would do everything she could to ensure that the Comerama workers would be included in any amendment. Following that meeting, legal advice was obtained from the Attorney General effectively stating that the enhanced statutory redundancy payments require legislation in order to be brought into effect, and that if the payment of a statutory redundancy lump sum is a legal requirement on employers, it could not be imposed on them with retrospective effect. Employers are entitled to due notice — usually about two months — of the intention to require them legally to pay enhanced rates. That legal position was communicated to the Comerama workers.

We regret the fact that the workers in theCastlecomer plant lost their jobs. The fact is that 154 of them had been made redundant long before the new rates of redundancy came into effect in May 2003. They received substantially more than the then statutory rate in a settlement with the company. In fact, the amounts they received were in excess of the new enhanced statutory rates. Thirteen workers made redundant by the company liquidator since May 2003 were paid the new enhanced statutory rates by the Department. However, these amounts were less than the settlements received by the 154 workers who were made redundant before the company went into liquidation and received ex gratia payments.

There are no legal provisions for making additional payments from the public purse either to the 154 workers or to those made redundant by the liquidator. The alleged precedents which have been cited as analogous cases have been examined and the conclusion is that the circumstances involved were completely different from this case. The workers in Irish Shipping and in the hospitals trust were State and quasi-State employees who, having given exemplary service over many years, were rewarded a small, extra-statutory payment by their employer, which was the State.