Niall Collins (Limerick County, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Fianna Fáil fully supports the general principles in this Bill and will support its passage to the next Stage. We also look forward to carrying out some detailed scrutiny of it when it comes before us on Committee Stage. The Bill puts forward proposals to existing company and employment law in collective redundancy cases, as we saw with Clerys. It would apply where there are suggestions an employer is insolvent and it incorporates some of the suggestions of the Duffy-Cahill report. That Government-commissioned report examined the controversial closure of Clerys in 2015, recommending legislative changes aimed at giving better protection to employees affected by insolvency cases, including tactical insolvencies. The Duffy-Cahill report recommended an amendment to employment legislation to include a mechanism for enhanced redundancy payments while highlighting how "it is not desirable to create a special class of redundant worker with legal rights that go beyond those of the generality of workers who lose their employment in circumstances of redundancy".

The Bill is well-intended but it is vital to ensure all existing employment and company law provisions are fully implemented, tested in the courts and enforced as good regulatory practice. The scrutiny we will undertake on the Bill will surely consider this. The findings of the Duffy-Cahill report, as well as the Company Law Review Group's examination into ways company law can be amended to better safeguard employees and creditors, must be carefully examined by this Oireachtas.

As we know, staff at Clerys were informed on 12 June 2015 that the shop had been sold and would be closing with immediate effect. The way staff were treated by the new owners was appalling and unacceptable, and we should do everything in our power to ensure that can never be allowed to arise again. The fact that staff were not consulted or kept informed of the ongoing negotiations was disgraceful. The Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and the Workplace Relations Commission are currently involved with a court action seeking to prosecute several entities responsible for the sudden closure of Clerys. It will be interesting to see how these play out and it will surely inform us as legislators about the gaps that exist in the legislation.

OCS Operations, which ran Clerys until 12 June 2015, and Natrium, the consortium which bought Clerys that same day, are facing charges under the Protection of Employment Act 1977. We in Fianna Fáil support the courageous campaign fought by the Clerys workers and welcome the significant compensation package the workers secured from the current owners in March 2017. This followed a deal brokered among the former workers, owners Natrium and Dublin City Council. There are plans for a €150 million redevelopment of the site to include offices, retail outlets and a hotel, and some of the workers will gain access to training to seek re-employment in the new development after due recognition will be given for their former service. There will also be training and employment opportunities in the north-east inner city, and an understanding has been reached on fair working conditions. Most people would agree that what happened at Clerys was completely unacceptable, and most find the use of the law to create a tactical insolvency repugnant. People are right to pressurise us to bring about a situation where it will not happen again.

I wish to give my thanks and appreciation to our friends and colleagues in the trade union movement who wrote to all of us in the Oireachtas on this matter. I received correspondence today from John Douglas of Mandate and from the Unite trade union who made the point that while legislation in the area of company law can often necessarily incur differences of an ideological nature, this is not the case with this Bill. Fianna Fáil does not approach the issue of employment law from any ideology but from the point of view of what is fair, in the public interest and in the interests of employees.

The Bill would enshrine the right to petition the High Court to transfer back assets to the liquidator. This is a very good way of trying to protect what is due to employees, but we need to look at it in detail and amendments may be needed. We may need to look at whether it is wise to transfer assets back to the same liquidator. I would have a question mark over a liquidator who would act in such a way and be part of a tactical insolvency which deprived employees. We are happy to support the Bill.

See this speech in context