Mr. Vernon Hegarty:

It flies in the face of those with outstanding debts that cannot be accessed and who have no recourse in law to recover those debts. That is particularly aggravating and degrading to the employees involved.

Understandably, this comes as a great surprise to workers affected. The cost of pursuing a company which effectively only exists on paper is prohibitive when balanced against the award they will have received from a third party in respect of unpaid wages - minimum notice, unfair dismissal claims, etc., as outlined. Many members will also be aggrieved that their employer can start up another company somewhere else, very close by or even in the same building, as has been pointed out. This contrasts sharply with the situation for redundancy payments as well as for insolvency situations provided for in the Act. On receiving a payment from the State in these situations, the State stands in the shoes of the worker and can pursue the company for monies owed. The Protection of Employees (Employers' Insolvency) Act 1984 and the European directive to which the Act give effect both envisage insolvency situations other than those currently provided for under the Act, that is, liquidation, receivership or the death of the employer. As the Act also provides for the pursuance of employers and companies by the State in an insolvency situation, there does not appear to be an insurmountable barrier in dealing with a company that is insolvent in these situations thereby protecting workers against such behaviour by employers and placing the debt back on the employer where it should properly reside. We submit that this is the just amendment that needs to be made. It has been suggested prior to this by ICTU that section 4(2) of the Act empowers the Minister to make just such an amendment by regulation. That would be the swiftest means by which these workers who have remained without these protections many years could be helped. If members have any further questions, I would happy to take them.