Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)

I ask the Minister of State to address the broader issue. Perhaps this can be done in the context of the consolidation of labour legislation, on which work has commenced in his Department. I believe he is familiar with what has happened both in west Limerick and at Comerama, which has been discussed in this House. The net issue concerns a group of workers who co-operate in the restructuring of a company, which will be the feature of Irish industrial relations as we adjust to international globalised competition. I refer to the scenario in which although some workers take early redundancy in good faith with enhanced extra-statutory provision, within a short period of time the restructuring effectively does not work for whatever reason. In the case of the Castlemahon factory, there is some suspicion this is rather opportunistic on behalf of the plant's owners or perhaps its primary customer.

Either way, this pertains to a group of workers who sat down with their partners over the kitchen table in the evening to decide whether to stay or to go, to take the enhanced lump sum or to continue working. Such workers make a strategic decision in all good faith and do so at the behest of and following the leadership of their union. This is an essential part of social partnership, which is something that employers frequently disregard. Such leadership is difficult to deliver because given the choices facing an individual worker with limited alternative employment prospects, he or she may well decide to continue working. However, when such people continue to work, through no fault of their own and notwithstanding enhanced and changed working practices, within a period of time a decision is taken over which they have no control. Consequently, because such people are back out in the middle of the pitch, so to speak, less than 12 months after the redundancy voluntary package was offered, they end up with just the minimum statutory entitlements.

This is not impossible to fix, although I do not suggest that it will be fixed in this legislation. The issue is more complex and I understand the political constraints within which the framework of this legislation has been drafted. However, this has been dome previously, many years ago, in respect of the insolvency legislation, whereby workers were left at the end of the queue of creditors when a company became insolvent. They were obliged to take their place after a host of creditors and in some cases ended up getting very little — in terms of a percentage in the euro — of what they would have been entitled to. On foot of an EU directive, the insolvency legislation gave them priority status together with the Revenue Commissioners and others such as banks and debenture bondholders.

While this will fall to the next Administration, in the context of social partnership I invite the Minister of State's colleagues in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to begin to review the position in this regard. We are not obliged to wait for a European directive on this matter. The funding of such an enhanced package would come from the redundancy and insolvency fund and would not necessarily be a charge on the plant. That is what the insolvency and redundancy fund is and if Members have been informed correctly by the Government and the Department of Finance, it is in substantial credit at present.

Some mechanism must be found whereby if a voluntary redundancy package in lieu of, or in return for, a reduction in labour costs and perhaps enhanced work practices with greater efficiency has been availed of within a period of time of a certain number of months or years and a company subsequently goes into liquidation, the terms and conditions of that voluntary package would apply to the residual workers who found themselves confronted with this scenario, having made the choice between taking the lump sum and going, or alternatively, taking the exhortations of the company and others to make a final attempt to see whether it could be made viable. If such a sense of justice is not achieved, the Minister of State has confronted the Comerama workers and knows exactly the sentiment that informs this issue. He knows what Mr. Kelly, the regional secretary for the Amalgamated Transport and General Workers' Union has been confronted with in west Limerick. Indeed, my colleague Deputy O'Shea, who represents Waterford, has brought this problem to my attention. There is no legislative mechanism in place at present to deal with it.

We need to examine how we can maintain the co-operation and collaboration that has been delivered by social partnership in difficult times, for example against the background of the adversarial confrontation that existed in the past. There is a need for change and adjustment in the globalised world economy. If people agree to take a lump sum or accept adjusted work practices but it does not work out, we need to ensure they can feel secure. If their next-door neighbours or brothers have been given statutory payments equivalent to four, five or six weeks' wages for every year of service, they should not fall through the net and have to avail of the minimum statutory payments. Not only can a person take a financial hit on foot of the significant difference between the sums paid in such circumstances, but he or she can also develop a sense of grievance that can sour his or her sense of justice in the workplace and his or her sense of how such justice is obtained. That is not good for us as we move through the early decades of this century. We need to show solidarity with people who have to make choices of that nature.

The attempt Deputy Hogan made to make a suitable provision in this regard has been ruled out of order. I do not dispute that decision. If an offer that is made in this House is ruled out of order on a technicality, that does not invalidate its legitimacy or the intention behind it. I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to take note of Deputy Hogan's proposal. I do not think it will be possible to introduce a simple consolidated Bill in the House in the traditional manner. It seems to me that a new labour relations Bill will be required. If I have any hand or part in that process, I will try to make some other changes as well. I do not think such a Bill should be drafted outside the House by the social partners — while they should have a big input, they should not have a veto or a monopoly. Decisions on such matters are to be made on another day and perhaps by another Administration.

I ask the Minister of State to take on board the points I have made. I am sure there are many other individual cases, like the Comerama and Castlemahon cases, with which we are not familiar. Such cases are sufficiently significant to warrant the putting down of a marker and the addressing of the issue. If we fail to do so, we will make it more difficult to obtain future social partnership agreements.

See this speech in context