Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for bringing forward this legislation, which is intended to provide workers with better protection over the course of the collective redundancy process in cases that involve insolvency. There appears to be a caveat in the language of the official briefing, which states that the protections for employees do "not unduly impede enterprises in the conduct of their business". I ask the Minister to expand on that when he is wrapping up. I am not quite sure where the balance will lie there.

While any loss of jobs in any industry is not ideal, it is a reality. We have seen it manifest itself with lay-offs at companies such as Meta, Twitter, Microsoft and Google. Job losses may not be due to poor business performance. Decisions made on a global scale can be locally devastating in this jurisdiction, particularly in the sector I have mentioned which is extraordinarily exposed. At the same time, I acknowledge we have some very good jobs in that sector. In fact, the Financial Services Union, FSU, stated earlier this year that it has had an uptake in representation. The FSU was involved in the representation of just 40 companies in 2018, with this number more than tripling to over 140 by the first half of this year. This is a clear recognition by workers of the volatility of their employment in those industries.

I appreciate that this Bill is, in the main, seeking to implement aspects of employment law that arise in the post-insolvency phase for a company in the context of a collective redundancy. That brings me to the Debenhams case. Following the announcement by Debenhams Retail (Ireland) Limited that it was closing all stores in Ireland with the loss of nearly 1,000 jobs, it transpired that the company would not be paying staff any redundancy payments and they would have to depend on the State for their statutory redundancy entitlements. Most of us remember the overnight announcement and the intention to clear the stock. There were long, protracted protests. Looking back, the staff were very badly treated during those protests. I found this to be nothing short of an abandonment of its corporate responsibility on the part of Debenhams, not to mention an abandonment of decency and a complete lack of respect for the workers who gave the company the opportunity to operate here. This case is a bit of a legacy, along with other examples which are similar to it. Some of the long-serving Debenhams workers, who came to the company by virtue of being employed by Roches Stores prior to that, were there for a very long time and had a long service history. I found the fact that Debenhams behaved in this way deplorable, as did most people in this House. Obviously, there is also the case of Clerys. It is hard to believe it goes back the number of years it does. Not only was there a loss of jobs, but it left a very big hole in the main street in our capital city that still has not really recovered.

Separately, and more recently, the workers at Iceland supermarket were forced to dip into overdrafts and take out personal loans to cover their costs and outgoings following a sudden decision that had an immediate impact. In that case, workers found themselves in the High Court following the Metron takeover of the chain and they were arguing their own case. One worker asked the court to make an order compelling the company, which had cash reserves of €300,000, to settle outstanding wage issues and dismissals. In reply, the judge said that while he had great sympathy for the workers due to the uncertainty they were facing, he did not have the jurisdiction to make the order they sought. While I accept that the judge was correct, it was the ordinary worker who was on the hook here. I see the potential to mitigate future situations such as the one in Iceland, and indeed Debenhams, as a result of the amendment that is being made to the Companies Act. It promises to improve the quality of circulation of information to workers as creditors, for example by ensuring they have access within a reasonable period of time to the company statement of affairs which is filed in the courts. The Bill we are debating today will, I hope, set standards far higher than they have been to date. That is very positive and rebalances power.

There are some points I would like the Minister to clarify regarding some of the provisions contained in the Bill.

Where a liquidator or similar appointee is managing the collective redundancy process in an insolvency situation and fails to comply with their duties under the Act, the WRC may prosecute them with a maximum fine on conviction of €5,000. If the WRC makes such a ruling, presumably that would debar that same actor from future involvements in a similar process because if one does not do that, it is difficult to see how it would not repeat itself if a sanction has been taken. The Bill ensures that collective redundances will be subject to the 30-day notification period before they take effect, including where the employer is insolvent. This removes the exemption from notification requirements in respect of collective redundancies caused by the employer's insolvency. This is a really positive inclusion and I acknowledge that.

The Bill provides for the establishment of a statutory employment law review group, which will advise the Minister on all aspects of employment law. Will the Minister tell us if he has started to assemble that group or what his thoughts are on the make-up of that group, and if his officials have identified the categories of people, rather than individuals, who might be appointed? For the employment law review group to be credible and effective in its work, it would have to include employee representatives. I refer to my opening remarks about not unduly impeding on enterprises in the conduct of their businesses. There has to be a balance. I presume there will be but I would like it to be confirmed.

The review group cannot ever find itself compromised or give a perception that its advice has been lobbied for. It is important that consideration be given to that and when the Minister is notified. My view is that anyone appointed by the Minister should file declarations of interest and a manual return of the same, whether it is nil or not, so that we have transparency for that particular aspect. That is important. Those are the workings rather than the terms of the legislation.

I welcome this Bill. It is a real improvement. It will certainly help in situations like we have seen with some of the examples such as Debenhams, Iceland and Clerys. That has to be welcomed.

See this speech in context