Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)

I suppose 15 minutes seems like a long time, but it is probably longer than the notice many employees received that they were to lose their jobs. I have talked to people who worked in Waterford Crystal, La Senza, TalkTalk, Lagan Brick, Vita Cortex, Game and Wilson Publishing and used this Chamber to publicise their cases. The Minister of State, Deputy Sean Sherlock, is one of the people who replied to my queries and tried to make sense of some of the decisions taken by the employers of these workers. All of the workers involved in these closures were angry and frustrated. In many cases, they had met their job targets and worked extremely hard. They had worked for profitable companies, the finances of which were, in some cases, exported abroad, yet they were told there was no money for redundancy payments. They asked us what we could do to help. As legislators, we raised these anomalies with the Minister and the Minister of State on a number of occasions and asked how some employers could get away with this sort of thing in today's world.

Other speakers have reminded the House that this is May Day. I think of the 1913 lock-out. What was it about? It was about workers trying to secure basic rights such as the right to join a trade union and have basic working conditions. Those workers were of a different generation and did different jobs and we like to think conditions have improved since, yet many of today's workers are in the same situation. Some were informed by telephone or email that they were being made redundant. Some heard it in the media, while others were informed by heavies. One young woman told me she had been surrounded by guys as she was opening the shop front and told the business was closed. That is how she was officially informed that she had lost her job. She was trying to keep the shop shutters down, thinking the men were about to rob her employer's business. She was trying to protect her employer's stock and premises. When she telephoned head office, she was told, "Yes, your job is gone." That is not acceptable and I do not believe anyone in the House would disagree with me. People listening at home do not want to see that type of society emerging. That is why Sinn Féin drafted this legislation.

The Minister and others have said it is a waste of time or does not go far enough. Perhaps the Minister is working on legislation. When I raised this issue on a previous occasion, I said this was not just an Irish issue. It is a European issue because many of the companies involved cross frontiers. We need a joint response from reasonable people in power in Europe or who work in the area of workers' rights. We need to come up with responses to this issue.

Sinn Féin was asked by people who had been made redundant if it could do something to improve the position. Some cases have been successfully resolved. Other people are still trying to secure their basic rights and redundancy payments. They said they did not want waffle but to see legislation. That is what we tried to do. There is an onus on all of us, as legislators, to come up with solutions to this issue. To rubbish our attempt or dismiss the Bill without an explanation is a retrograde step.

Will the Minister of State explain to those waiting more than 76 weeks for an Employment Appeals Tribunal hearing why there is no value in holding the Department or the Minister to account for that delay? Is that acceptable? I realise there are huge difficulties and that many are becoming unemployed, but if the waiting time is 76 weeks, clearly the tribunal needs more resources. People should not have to wait that length of time. Perhaps the Minister of State might tell workers who have been given four weeks notice of redundancy that a longer notification period would be of little value. Can someone explain this?

The purpose of the Bill is to enhance and enshrine the rights of workers by ensuring anyone who is made redundant could have his or her claim for entitlements dealt with quickly and processed without undue complications. Most Members of the House would share that aspiration.

It is important to remind ourselves that the significant profits made by companies during the so-called boom years were further boosted by the tax incentives and generous grants made available to encourage businesses and multinationals to establish a base of operations in Ireland. This should not be forgotten when we examine the fate of workers during these harsher times.

When people ask how companies can get away with what they do, they look to other things people seem to be getting away with. When people see houses being repossessed, they ask who got us into this mess and if they are being brought to book. When someone loses a job, the effect is felt by his or her children, in his or her relationships and by the security of his or her home. The Bill is about helping and supporting those who find themselves in that difficult position.

I am not talking about something that is abstract and that I have not experienced. Like many others in this House or listening at home, I was made redundant, but I did not get just five minutes notice. My employer followed due process. I was made redundant approximately 30 years ago. Surely the conditions and rights of workers should improve not disimprove with time, which is what seems to be happening. The evidence is clear given the frequency with which groups of workers come to the Visitors Gallery to give us their story. They go to all Members seeking answers on how this can happen when it did not happen in one's father's or grandfather's time. One could ask how we can allow this to happen. The purpose of the legislation is to improve the conditions of workers and their families. It is clear that the law is not adequate if hardworking staff can be sacked with immediate effect, have wages withheld and be offered no redundancy. That is the message we are sending from this side of the House.

If the Government does not accept the Bill we have introduced the challenge lies with it to do something. Other speakers have indicated that they hope the Labour Party or Fine Gael does this or that. I do not care who votes for the Bill but I do want to see a framework emerge from the discussion and that we will not go back but go forward in order that conditions for workers improve, not disimprove. Likewise, I wish to see wages improve, not disimprove. I realise we are in difficult times but I wish to see improvements in the situation of workers.

The most recent figures available indicate there is a backlog of approximately 29,000 statutory redundancy claims, yet the Government tells us that claims submitted after October 2011 will be resolved within six weeks. No deadline has been set to resolve the existing backlog and, to compound matters further, where cases are contested the average waiting period for claims to be heard by the Employment Appeals Tribunal, EAT, is 76 weeks in Dublin and 80 weeks elsewhere. One could ask whether that is acceptable for one to be in such a position. It is necessary to resolve the situation in order for redundancy packages to be made available. I accept there are difficulties and pressures but we must adapt and seek to invest extra resources in order to speed up the processing of claims. I look forward to the Minister's reply to the debate to hear what exactly will be done to resolve the current unacceptable and scandalous delay in processing claims by the State's statutory agencies.

The purpose of the Bill is to enhance and enshrine the rights of workers by ensuring anyone who is unfortunate enough to be made redundant can have the processing of his or her claim and entitlements done quickly and without undue complications. The Bill would also ensure that workers who have been made redundant by a company which has been declared insolvent can claim their entitlements under the insolvency fund.

It is important to remind ourselves that the significant profits made by companies during the so-called boom years were further boosted by the tax incentives and generous grants that were made available to multinationals. Companies have come to this country, used the available resources and supports and then treated their workers in the manner described. That is the big scandal in this regard. Many workers have met the targets of the company and worked long hours, which led to the accrual of big profits. Some of the companies in the retail sector that were mentioned closed just after Christmas. Their staff worked long hours and did hard work. During the Christmas period in particular there is a lot of pressure on staff. They saw the money coming into the stores they were running. Many of those made redundant were not just workers, they were involved in the management of the stores and knew the profits that were being made, yet they were met by the heavies on the door.

We must be clear that regardless of the difficulties business faces in these harsh economic times, there is simply no excuse for Irish workers to be treated in this way. If hard-working workers can be sacked with immediate effect, have wages withheld and be offered no redundancy it is clear that the law is not adequate. The challenge for the Government is to act and ensure there are no more cases such as La Senza, Vita Cortex or Lagan Brick. I have met with groups of workers from most of those companies. I presume the Minister of State, Deputy Sherlock, and other Members of the House have done likewise. Those workers are seeking answers. With all its faults, the Bill can contribute to the debate. I pay tribute to all those involved in framing the legislation.

It is significant that we are discussing the Bill on May Day. It is not insignificant that many years ago workers went on strike in this city to prove their rights. They would not be ground down. Many young people who have been through this process have emerged bitter and frustrated but they have also seen another side of the remains of the Celtic tiger. Clearly, they are not happy with the situation and not impressed with our lack of answers on how we can improve their situation. The downside of tonight's debate is that we will perhaps see others going through the motions in terms of what will be done. Timescales must be forthcoming from the Minister. We must be able to deliver. I do not wish to see another group of workers arrive in the House in a similar situation. Their presence would give rise to sympathy for the terrible effect on such and such a family and wonder as to how a particular family would be able to retain their house. We would say how terrible it is that they will have to wait 56 weeks and suggest we might reduce the wait to 50 weeks. The situation is unacceptable. Extra resources must be made available. Other aspects of the Bill must be examined to improve the lot of workers.

See this speech in context