Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)

The cases referred to specifically by the Deputy relate to a range of circumstances for which several legislative provisions exist.

In the cases of Vita Cortex and Lagan Brick, the issues at the heart of the disputes fall primarily in the industrial relations sphere. While I remain concerned the issues at the centre of these disputes have yet to be resolved, I believe the parties to each of them should be capable themselves of finding resolutions drawing, as appropriate, on the experience and expertise of the Labour Relations Commission and the other dispute resolution services of the State.

The difficulties that have arisen with La Senza and Jane Norman relate mainly to the means by which the intentions of both companies were communicated to staff. Such a failure to keep employees adequately informed of developments and to provide adequate notice of redundancies worsens an already difficult situation.

The Protection of Employment Act 1977 places an obligation on employers to consult employees' representatives on proposals to create collective redundancies. It also places obligations on such employers to supply specific information on these redundancies as a means of providing an opportunity in which to consider the capacity to avoid or lessen the effect of any such redundancies. The Act also places an obligation on such employers to inform the Minister in writing of their proposals to create such collective redundancies.

Both Jane Norman and La Senza were placed into administration by the UK courts. In this jurisdiction, certain exemptions from the collective redundancy obligations of employers are provided for where they arise as a result of an employer's business being terminated following bankruptcy or wind-up proceedings or for any other reason as a result of a decision of a court. I have asked my officials to examine, together with the Office of the Attorney General, whether these exemptions should continue to apply.

See this speech in context