Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I support the amendment. An employer who is found guilty of unfairly dismissing an employee has broken the law. There is legislation in this area in the Unfair Dismissals Act. There can be a very long wait of up to five years to have one's case for unfair dismissal heard. If the employer is found after that time to have been in breach of the law, it is only right and fair that any costs incurred by the State as a result of that breach should be made good. If one were to win a case in court on an insurance or personal injuries claim, the legal costs would be returned to one. While this is not a legal cost, it is a cost to the State when somebody is put out of work due to the illegal actions of the employer. If the person who claims unfair dismissal loses, this does not apply. Should the person win the claim, it should apply.

I was always active in trade unions when I was in normal jobs, unlike this job. I am still a member of a trade union but at one stage I used to teach courses for shop stewards on workers' rights and the legislation covering them. One comes across an amount of cases in which employers blatantly flout the proper dismissal procedures and break the law and where the employee wins. However, the employer can calculate that the maximum that will have to be paid in compensation under the Act is two years' salary. That amounts in many cases to approximately €60,000, which cost employers are often willing to bear to get rid of an awkward employee or to avoid paying the full redundancy entitlement. There are many reasons for this and instances in which it happens. As an extra punitive measure, employers who are thinking in any way of breaching the strict procedures that apply to workers' rights and the procedural agreements in many employments, or who breaches them by accident, should have to pay a cost. The State should not be forced to bear the brunt of three, four and five years' worth of social welfare payments. It should be reimbursed in full by the person or company who breaks the law. That is what the amendment is about. It is sensible, simple to understand and I cannot see why the Government would not support it given the net gain to its coffers should it be accepted.

See this speech in context