Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

This is very good legislation. There is something incredibly sad about the fact it has become necessary as a result of the many cases that have arisen regularly, where workers have been victims of tactical insolvencies throughout the State. We should call them victims because they are victims. The most famous case has been Clerys. The conduct of that employer shocked everybody. Even people who would not normally be affected by these situations were deeply affected by what happened there. If any good can come out of that terrible event, I hope it will be in the passage of this legislation and Members owning up to our responsibilities to make sure it does not happen again.

I am glad the Government will not block the Bill. It is interesting that the new Taoiseach spent a considerable amount of time and energy attempting to deal with welfare rogues. As we know, it turned out there was only one example of a welfare fraud case this year. It is fair and relevant that we would concentrate on corporate rogues who consciously rip off workers and the taxpayers. In that sense, the Bill absolutely seeks to do this.

It also is important to say the need for a Bill such as this has arisen because of real cases where employers have behaved in a cynical way to asset strip companies, to hide assets and to wind down companies leaving their workers without redundancy entitlements. This behaviour is premeditated and acts to deny legitimate, legal and statutory entitlements to the employees. As Deputies have pointed out however, these actions often have a knock-on consequence to the rest of society such as the cost to the Exchequer of social welfare provision and so on.

Obviously, when workers face problems and employers threaten their working conditions, it is an incredibly stressful time. I spent all of my working life as a shop steward but thankfully I have only ever had to deal with cases of voluntary redundancies, which of themselves were quite stressful. They were, however, nothing like the stress that comes from a forced redundancy situation or a liquidation. The loss of a job is traumatic. On top of this, if people are cheated out of wages they have worked for, out of redundancy payments they are legally entitled to, it will really rub the salt in to the wounds. For a person to have such a scenario foisted on them and to see his or her employer - in cases of a profitable employer - getting away with that behaviour is absolutely disgraceful. At the end of the day, companies such as Clerys should be reminded that a lot of their success is due to the contribution of their workforce. Employers need to be reminded that workers are also customers. This should also be borne in mind.

I welcome that the Bill makes a genuine attempt to prevent this type of behaviour from happening by giving powers to the courts to return the transferred assets into the hands of the liquidator, essentially making the employee the preferential creditor and thereby putting employees first in the queue. I believe that employees should be first in the queue because the workers in companies are in general the people with the least to fall back on and need it the most. This applies particularly to people who have made their contribution, worked their hours and so on. This is absolutely appropriate.

The Bill also calls for a compulsory consultation period with workers in the event of a winding down of a company. I believe the measure to be a good one, which leans in favour of the worker, but it could go a bit further in favour of the worker. The reference to the consultation period should specifically mention and recognise the role of workers' representation through their trade unions. We must be honest about this. In cases of tactical insolvencies - that generally happen in smaller companies - even where there is a consultation period, the dynamic between workers and the employer can be very imbalanced and problematic, in particular when workers are young or inexperienced. In this case, the role of the union representative is of powerful assistance - despite the fact that many unions have strayed with regard to their combative approach to defending workers' rights. Nonetheless, this is necessary and we need to move to rebuild it.

It is telling that money cases, or money cases involving employers and businesses, can go to the High Court but when it comes to workers' rights, employees must settle for the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, and the Labour Court. While I understand that those organisations are put forward as making the courts more accessible for workers, it is problematic that the findings of the WRC and the Labour Court are not binding. Employers have hidden behind this. Even when workers win their cases, those bodies do not have the powers to take back the money or to ensure the judgment is enforced. This is what the Bill is about.

I am delighted the Bill was brought forward and I genuinely congratulate Deputy Cullinane and his office, not just for this Bill, but also for a series of Bills aimed at protecting workers. It is very good but there are areas that could be amended on Committee Stage. I look forward to having the opportunity of doing that, hopefully sooner rather than later.

See this speech in context