Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)

I thank the library and research service for the paper it prepared on this Bill. It was very helpful to me in preparing my contribution for today, as I am sure it was for many of us.

Déanann sí scoth na hoibre chun a chinntiú go bhfuilimid mar reachtóirí in ann ár gcuid oibre a dhéanamh, agus molaim í as ucht a cuid iarrachtaí.

Ar dtús, ba mhaith liom leagan amach céard ar mhaith liom díriú air inniu. Ba mhaith liom labhairt ar an easpa soiléireachta agus cosanta d’oibritheoirí i gcomhlachtaí nach bhfuil ag trádáil ach nach bhfuil ar scor. Ba mhaith liom labhairt ar rochtain ar cheartas dlí d'oibritheoirí nuair a stopann comhlacht ag trádáil mar seo. Ba mhaith liom labhairt ar pholasaí poiblí maidir le dócmhainneacht.

I will speak today about the clarity that has long been denied to workers in situations where their employer has ceased trading without formally winding up; access to justice in situations of insolvency for employees; and also the wider public policy aims of insolvency law, which often go under the radar.

I am supportive of the aims of this Bill in seeking to further protect employees in the event of their employer's insolvency. There are few people who know how truly vulnerable one's livelihood is than workers who have faced involuntary redundancy and the sharp end of corporate bankruptcies or a cessation of trading. It is not simply one's wages and a chance to get back on one's feet that one fights for - it is recognition of the thousands of hours, the commitment and the personal cost of one's job being pulled out from under one through no fault of one's own.

The Glegola judgment highlighted that while there were certain mechanisms whereby employees could seek the money they were owed, our legislation had a significant gap for companies that did not fit the restrictive definition of "insolvent" under the Protection of Employees (Employers' Insolvency) Act 1984.

The insolvency payments scheme is a vital safeguard to employees. Where other processes may leave them in the lurch, unpaid and unprioritised, it ensures that they are able to recoup some of the money they are owed that has been denied to them. I welcome the prospect of employees who have previously been left in a legal limbo as to their entitlements now being assured that they have grounds to claim their wage arrears, holiday pay, payment in lieu of notice, and other payments due to them in a clear process under the scheme.

When it comes to ensuring that these employees are truly able to receive what is owed to them, simplicity of the process is key. Access to justice in situations like this is often thwarted by opaque rules and long and difficult processes that individuals are expected to navigate. It is something we not only need to enshrine in legislation, but also to ensure that it works in practice, especially due to the significant time period covered by this new provision due to the delay in transposition of the directive.

There are some provisions I believe could be addressed on Committee Stage. First, on the onus to serve notice to the employer in respect to an application, it is hard enough to keep track of an employer from five years ago but, in some cases, for an individual 40 years ago would be almost impossible. An employer who is difficult to find should not be a barrier to employees getting the money to which they are rightly entitled.

Second, while sole traders are not going to be the main employers who are brought under the scheme in this Bill, it is important that the new section 4G(a), to be inserted in the principal Act by the Bill's section 6, does not unfairly disadvantage employees who may not have the address of their former employer, especially when this is information that may be available to the State.

I will now discuss the wider public policy implications of insolvency policy, to which this Bill relates, and which we need to address as a State if we want to provide secure, high-quality employment to all workers. In this country, we have seen countless examples of workers being left behind in insolvency proceedings. It is vital that we do all we can to protect employees and their incomes in an insolvency.

The Bill is a positive step in this regard, but we must not forget that there is a huge lack of responsibility being taken by employers for the people who in many cases have given their lives to working in companies that may go into liquidation. The protection of assets through transnational corporate structures is a tangled web, but it is one that we must try to unpick as a matter of public policy. Debenhams' workers faced total dismissal, and violence, and fought for 406 days for their right to a fair redundancy. The parent company of Debenhams decided to stop funding the Irish operation and to cut its losses. These losses included the livelihoods of countless workers, mainly women. This subsidiary had few assets and was allowed to go bankrupt, all while the parent company had assets and profits to pay them a just redundancy but no legal framework that could help the employees to get a fair deal. Prior to this it was the Clerys' workers whose company did not pay them redundancy, leaving the State to provide some relief to workers who had given many years of their lives to their workplace, all while that very company held on to some of the most valuable commercial real estate in Dublin.

In a time when a company seeks the aid of the courts and the State in allowing it to escape the repayment of debts and to wipe the slate clean, and when public policy is assisting a corporate entity to escape its commitments and liabilities, it is difficult to justify why the workers affected by this are most vulnerable. It was not the Debenhams workers who made the company go into liquidation. It was not the fault of Clerys' workers that they woke up one morning to find their jobs were gone. As a matter of public policy, we should make it a priority to recognise this reality in how the State supports workers, but also in the duties we impose on employers to support them as well.

If we are considering insolvencies and liquidations as matters of public policy, which I believe we should, we must be able to look at the situation in the round. While it is very tempting to think of insolvency as something that is solely between the creditors and the debtors, by seeking the assistance of the courts and of liquidators and receivers in the first place, we have before us an admission that this is no longer a private matter. This places to the forefront the duty of the State to support workers when their employer becomes insolvent. It is also important to ensure that we are imposing responsibilities on employers.

I feel that we are more comfortable with setting up a State support than taking on a change in the duties of employers, particularly with regard to large companies in this country. However, in a context where we, as a State, are willing to take more responsibility for the protection of people’s livelihoods, it is nonsensical to shoulder that burden alone and allow companies that have already failed in their responsibility to remain solvent, to such a degree that they become bankrupt, to then also not take responsibility for the human cost of their mistakes. If we want a more equal balance of power and responsibility that does not lead us into such damaging and high-profile bankruptcies, as we saw with Clerys and Debenhams, this is something we have to address.

Tá sé thar am go bhfoghlaimeoidh muid ó na botúin agus na cásanna crua atá tar éis teacht romhainn. Caithfear níos mó suim a chuir sna fáthanna agus an teoraic ar a bhfuil ár corais dócmhainneacht tógtha.

We need a wider conversation on the hiding of assets in a warren of corporate structures while employees walk away empty-handed. We also need to give serious thought to the theoretical underpinning of a bankruptcy policy that leaves those with the least amount of leverage and advantage in their negotiating relationship with a business - those being, the employees - with the most vulnerability in bankruptcies.

See this speech in context