Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 116: To ask the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment his plans to increase penalties for non-compliance with employment rights legislation. [4117/06]

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The issue of increasing penalties for non-compliance with employment rights legislation is likely to be raised in the course of the social partnership talks and will be addressed by the Government in that context. The Government takes the view that penalties should be proportionate in scale and effective in impact.

The imposition of penalties for non-compliance as well as redressing compensation to employees exists in over 14 legislative instruments from the Industrial Relations Acts 1946 to 1990 to the European Communities Protection of Employees and Transfer of Undertakings Regulations 2003. These penalties range from €1,269 to €12,500 for offences that range from failure to pay wages properly, failure to keep proper records, failure to co-operate with or giving false information to a labour inspector, failure to attend, comply with or give evidence to the relevant court, failure to comply with the conditions of employment fixed by an employment regulation order, and to effecting redundancies before the expiry of the 30 day notice given to the Minister.

Apart from penalties imposed under the legislation, redress or compensation is awarded to employees by the Rights Commissioners, the Employment Appeals Tribunal or the Labour Court. This ranges from one week's pay for unlawful deduction from wages to up to two years' salary for unfair dismissals, deterioration of conditions of employment after transfer of undertakings, or discrimination against fixed-term or part-time workers. The value of this redress or compensation increases as wages increase.

The levels of fines or redress are matters for the Rights Commissioners, Employment Appeals Tribunal or the Labour Court to decide on a case by case basis. In many instances the maximum level set down in the various Acts and regulations is not imposed. The labour inspectorate and the Department maintain that escalating penalties, interest charges, punitive damage and other such sanctions would enhance the compliance regime and underpin the general policy approach of our labour inspectorate.

Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am concerned the Government is increasingly using the partnership talks process as an excuse to hold back on urgently needed legislation. We heard it in the response to the previous question, when Deputy Howlin and I were told that partnership talks were being used to negotiate protection for domestic workers. In this case the talks are being used to negotiate harsher penalties for rogue employers. SIPTU describes the penalties for non-compliance with employment rights legislation as "so paltry as to have absolutely no deterrent effect" and I agree.

Does the Minister agree that some employers calculate the savings to be gained by exploiting workers far outweigh the penalties imposed in the unlikely event of being caught doing so? Does he agree there is increased evidence of exploitation, particularly in the past year, that suggests we need to increase deterrents for these rogue employers, including penalties against them?

How many employers were subject to penalties for non-compliance with employment rights legislation in 2005? What was the largest such penalty imposed on an employer in 2005, a year of unprecedented revelations of worker exploitation?

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Generally we agree with the Opposition in that we would like to see an increase in the penalties to act as a greater deterrent. While we are not waiting for social partnership discussions to conclude it will be discussed in that context. We are in favour of strong deterrents to prevent unscrupulous employers from breaking the law.

Our preferred policy, on which we have worked with the social partners, is to move towards a system that seeks and secures redress from employers, by agreement, where it is acknowledged that wrong has been done or the law has not been upheld. Going to court can sometimes be lengthy and is not always as effective as we might like to think. We have a variety of sanctions for employers found guilty of exploiting workers and so on, not least the withholding of work permits in the future.

We are taking a twin-track approach, namely, increasing the deterrents and establishing whether there are better ways to enforce labour law. The most recent and interesting case is Gama Construction in which our officials recouped and retrieved substantial funds and moneys for the workers concerned. The officials also sought assurances from Gama Construction about its future performance.

Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Unfortunately we saw in that case how Gama was rewarded for its waywardness by receiving the contract for the Castleblaney bypass. When will we see the results of this search for new ways of enforcing labour law? Ministers say they are looking at this, studying that or have commissioned a report from the other. When will something be done to change the actions of these rogue employers? There is a growing number of them and workers need to be protected.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have formulated legislation which is going through House. If the Deputy co-operates we can get it through quickly. Committee Stage is scheduled for next week.

Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I told the Minister what SIPTU said.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not scheduled for next week.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will find out soon when it is to be debated. It has reached Committee Stage. That is a substantive Bill to protect migrant workers. There is no point disagreeing. Most people accept it is a substantial advance on the current position.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will debate that on Committee Stage.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is action. An additional 95,000 people worked in the Irish economy last year. The Government has taken plenty of action on the economic front and in respect of the broad corpus of legislation in place.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It would be a good thing to employ inspectors to enforce the legislation.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have passed the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, the Redundancy Payments Act, the Protection of Employment Act, the Unfair Dismissals Act, the Payment of Wages Act etc.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are 31 inspectors for 2 million employees.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I hope the Labour Party supports the new Bill.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do too.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Deputy in favour of the Employment Permits Bill now?