Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

While I do not propose to accept this amendment, I acknowledge that Deputy Ó Snodaigh has raised a valid issue. There are potential consequences arising from the proposal which would have to be examined in regard to payments currently being made to workers who have been unfairly dismissed. Under the Unfair Dismissals Act, which is not within the remit of my Department, a case may be taken to the rights commissioners service of the Employment Appeals Tribunal if a person feels that he or she has been unfairly dismissed from employment. Where an unfair dismissal case is upheld, redress can take the form of an appropriate reinstatement, re-engagement or compensation for the financial loss involved.

The Deputy is proposing that the wrongdoer, namely, the employer, would be obliged to compensate all of those impacted by that wrongdoing. This would involve the employer having to provide redress not only to the unfairly dismissed employee, but also to the Minister for Social Protection for any costs incurred as a consequence of the wrongdoing. Broadly similar arrangements are provided for under the new recovery of benefits arrangements that apply in regard to personal injury claims, as provided for in sections 13 and 14 of the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2013. It is not exactly the same situation but there is a parallel. These arrangements, which are due to come into operation on 1 August, require the compensator to refund the Minister for Social Protection any relevant social welfare benefits that were paid as a result of personal injuries up to the date of the award of compensation.

The recovery of benefits arrangements avoids double compensation being paid to the injured party in respect of the same personal injuries through compensation for loss of earnings and the payment of social welfare benefits. As I understand it, the Unfair Dismissals Act specifically precludes the reduction of any awards for financial loss arising out of an unfair dismissal in regard to social welfare benefits paid as a result of the dismissal. This contrasts with the treatment of earnings from employment in the case of a dismissed employee who subsequently gets another job in calculating the financial loss arising out of an unfair dismissal. In such circumstances, the Rights Commissioner or the Employment Appeals Tribunal can offset the earnings from that job. Therefore, any proposal to oblige employers to reimburse social welfare payments paid as a result of an unfair dismissal would also have implications for the continuation of this double compensation being paid to certain dismissed employees. I presume the Deputy is aware of that.

As the operation of the unfair dismissals legislation is the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, the impact of any proposals along the lines envisaged in this amendment would need to be examined by his Department in the first instance. I will undertake to communicate with the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at a formal interdepartmental level and get the views of the Minister and the Department on the proposal. As I said when the Deputy raised this on a previous occasion, the Department of Social Protection took over the payments arising from redundancy and insolvency and, as a consequence, we have upgraded the IT platform. Deputies will be aware that the waiting period in regard to redundancy and insolvency claims has been vastly reduced. It is now possible to process them quite quickly. However, we are only responsible for the administration. The legislation rests with the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation but I am open to examining it and I will undertake to communicate with the Minister.

Perhaps the committee might arrange a further discussion and invite in the Minister or the officials from that Department to give their views on the issue. Perhaps it could do that in the autumn to give them some time to have a look at the background to this. I will also look at the comments made on financial costs and so on because there is merit there but I am not in a position to accept the amendment for the reasons I stated. However, I am happy to come back to it in the next general social welfare Bill.

See this speech in context