Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sure the Minister of State is aware that 491 jobs are in the balance at the moment. Liquidators have been appointed to the Arcadia group, which runs shops such as Topshop, Topman and Wallis, as well as concession stores.

I am sure the Minister of State will agree the first objective must be to save these jobs and to do so to the greatest extent possible. I join Mandate, the workers' trade union, in calling on the Government today to ensure we do not have a Debenhams mark 2. What steps will Minister of State take, in the first instance, to safeguard these 491 jobs?

They are people who will work throughout Christmas, when their future is very uncertain. I am sure the Minister of State will join me in feeling for them. It is okay to have a job, but not knowing whether one will still have it in January must be harrowing.

The second objective is to prevent a Debenhams mark II. These workers have a collective agreement that governs redundancy. They are very anxious, as is their union, that theirs will be a case similar to Debenhams and that they will find themselves in the same circumstances as the Debenhams workers whose employer walked away. They are appealing to the Government to take action.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have an interest in what has happened with Arcadia and the provisional liquidators that have been appointed because almost 50 workers in Mayo have been affected. I, too, am asking for the Government to do everything it can to facilitate the saving of those jobs. That is imperative. These workers are all going in over the Christmas period to work really hard, but the uncertainty is causing them such anxiety and worry because they have lives and many of them have mortgages. I ask that the Government do everything it can. In the event of redundancy, it is crucial that the collective agreements that have been made be stood over in respect of the redundancy that has been offered and that is the entitlement of these workers. We do not want another Debenhams-type situation, as my colleague, Deputy O'Reilly, noted.

Paul Donnelly (Dublin West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When I was on the picket line with Debenhams workers in recent months, many of them indicated that even if they did not get what they were due from the agreement they had made with the company, they wanted to ensure that no other workers would be put in a similar position. They were talking about what would happen post Christmas. They did not really expect a company the size of Arcadia to go just before Christmas. In the constituency of Dublin West, Topshop, Dorothy Perkins and Burtons face potential closure, while Miss Selfridge and Topman have already closed, along with Debenhams. Workers have asked me why we are still allowing businesses to trade when they behave in such a cold way. That is borne out of the frustration of what they see in the case of the Debenhams workers. They ask why staff members' redundancy agreements are not being protected even after the Debenhams workers being on strike for such a long period. We know what the issues are because this happened previously with Clerys. They are puzzled, annoyed and angry that they have been left in this position, in the same way the Debenhams workers have been.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Joint provisional liquidators have been appointed by the High Court to the four Irish operating companies that are part of the UK fashion group Arcadia. It is a real worry for the workers in all of these stores, who are in danger of losing their jobs. I fully appreciate, as do the Government and the Department, how difficult this is for those involved and their families, not least at this time of year and given the difficult year it has been with Covid-19. This is not the news they wanted. We all know about the pressure on the retail sector, along with other sectors, but we remain hopeful that we can minimise the number of job losses in that sector as a whole in the months ahead. That will be the aim of the Government, without a doubt.

While these are worrying times and this is worrying news, it is hoped to procure the sale of the Irish operations as part of an overall sale of the Arcadia group and that the Irish stores will continue to trade through Christmas in order to maximise the value of the stock. I accept that this will be very difficult for the employees, who are turning up every day to work long, hard hours without knowing the long-term status of their jobs. There is a hope, shared by everybody, that a buyer will be found for these shops and businesses to keep these jobs alive. The Government hopes a suitable and sustainable buyer can be found and that any potential job losses can be avoided. Beyond this, it is difficult to comment on specifics just yet, given that the matter is before the courts and, as such, is sub judice. The process is still at a fairly early stage.

The Protection of Employment Act 1977 imposes obligations on employers that propose collective redundancies, including obligations to engage in an information and consultation process with employees’ representatives and to provide certain information relating to the proposed redundancies. Where an employee believes the employer to be in breach of those obligations, he or she may pursue a complaint with the Workplace Relations Commission. There is also an obligation on employers proposing a collective redundancy to notify the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. I am advised that, up to yesterday evening, no notification had been received.

It is the responsibility of the employer in the first instance to pay statutory redundancy and other wage-related entitlements to employees. However, the Social Insurance Fund provides a safety net for employees to ensure they receive statutory entitlements in circumstances where the employer cannot pay due to insolvency. This issue was raised in the House in the context of other companies as well. The State steps in to cover all statutory entitlements, whether redundancy, due wages, holiday pay and so on. Where the compensation goes beyond that in regard to further arrangements with employees in respect of collective agreements and greater entitlements, it is generally a private arrangement with the company. The State does not guarantee such agreements and is not in a position to do so. Entitlements covered under the insolvency payments scheme include arrears of wages, holiday pay and sick pay. In all the previous cases that were mentioned, the State paid out and always does, because that is what a State guarantee is about and that is what the Social Insurance Fund is there to do. One hopes that will not be needed in this case and that the fund will not be drawn on. To reiterate, there has as yet been no formal application.

High-street retailers have been under pressure for some time and Covid-19 has challenged the sector further. The Government is working in a co-ordinated way and has committed unprecedented levels of financial supports to help businesses through these difficult times. We will of course work with the company in question and all companies to protect jobs and the sector. We know the importance of the retail sector and of the workers in that space. It employs more than 300,0000 people and many of them are highly skilled, with long careers in the sector. We want to develop that and to recognise those skills in a more formal way, but also to develop people's skills to deal with the challenges of the future. Retail is a challenging sector but there is a great deal of opportunity to sustain and create jobs in the sector if we make the right investments. The retail forum is held weekly to work with the sector to try to secure its future long term because it is a massive employer.

Reference was made to Mayo. The regional spread of jobs in the retail sector is well recognised and of utmost importance to the Government. We will do everything we can to protect jobs in this space. The expectation is that a buyer will be found in this case. We also hope that a purchaser will also be found in the UK to protect the jobs in the parent company.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That reply was very disappointing. The Minister of State said the Government would do all it can to protect the jobs, but is it going to do anything, however small, to protect the workers' collective agreement? Of course, we all hope that it will not come to it and that the jobs can be saved. We all recognise, as the Minister of State pointed out, that high-street retail is under pressure. That is nothing compared with the pressure these workers will be under working through the busiest time of year in a crowded setting, during a pandemic, when at the end of the season, they will not even know whether their collective agreement will be honoured. They fear that they will end up as Debenhams mark two. They are appealing to the Government to intervene and to do everything in its power to assist them in achieving the terms of their collective agreement. They are very anxious.

One would need a heart of stone not to have sympathy for those workers going in to work at the busiest time of year without knowing whether they will have jobs in January. Worse again, they do not know whether their collective agreement, which they have worked under and which was negotiated with their trade union, Mandate, will in fact be honoured. We cannot keep shrugging our shoulders and saying we hope there is not another Clerys, TalkTalk, La Senza or Debenhams. Successive Governments cannot keep letting down workers like this. They want to hear more than sympathy from the Minister of State. They want to know what the Government will do to protect their collective agreement.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

While I accept that the Minister of State said he hopes a buyer will be found, if one is not found, the very minimum that needs to be done is that these workers should have an assurance that their collective agreement will be honoured at the end of the season. That would be of some consolation to them.

These are really important jobs to Mayo, as the Minister of State said.

There is a further issue with some of these workers who volunteered to go in to get the shops in Ballina and Castlebar ready before 27 December and then they were cut off from the pandemic unemployment payment, PUP, even though they had the number of qualifying weeks, etc. I ask that the Minister of State would look at this. It is mean-spirited to cut them off from the PUP payment, particularly on a day former politicians received an extra €16,000 pay increase on top of their €130,000 per year pension entitlement. It gives out the completely wrong message from Government. I ask the Minister of State to extend the PUP payment to them as well and give them the assurances that their collective agreement will be honoured. That would go some way towards fulfilling his obligation toward these workers.

Paul Donnelly (Dublin West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We all hope - the workers more than anybody else - that their jobs will be secure and that a buyer will be found for those shops, particularly, as I said, in Dublin 15, in Dublin West, in the Blanchardstown Centre, where we have three of those shops and, potentially, hundreds of jobs. However, we also have to prepare for the possibility that they may not be bought. Unfortunately, from what I have heard so far, because I asked the Taoiseach these same questions last week when I raised the same issue, is that the workers were given the same answer, which is, as a representative of Deloitte had said to them, they will only get the statutory redundancy if the company closes. They need to hear more than that from the Minister of State. They need to hear that the Government will stand up for them against these companies which think that they can let the workers down - make an agreement and walk away from it. They have done it with Debenhams and we have had people on strike for eight or nine months now.

It is disgraceful and unfair after that length of time, another set or workers is facing that. I am disappointed to hear again that those workers will only be entitled to statutory redundancy if the worst comes to the worst. The Government needs to step up to protect workers.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will try to respond to some of the questions. The PUP entitlements is not an issue I was aware of. It is certainly something I can check out, if Deputy Conway-Walsh wants to give me the details. I will certainly discuss that with my ministerial colleague behind me, Deputy Humphreys. We can certainly look at that, if there is any issue with PUP entitlements and unfairness. In fairness, that Department has responded strongly throughout Covid regarding PUP entitlements. I note the Deputy is nodding in agreement. If there is any issue there, we can work on that. There has been a strong response from that Department and from the Government as a whole when it comes to those payments right throughout the system and we recognise the various sectors as well.

It is important that all of us in this House are honest with people in this situation and tell them the truth. The truth is a collective agreement is a third-party private agreement made between employees and companies. It is not a State agreement. It is not something the State has given statutory backing to and, therefore, I cannot say that the State will pay out on that. The State, through the Social Insurance Fund, which is a fund put together by taxpayers and by workers, pays out on statutory entitlements, which is two weeks' redundancy, holiday pay, wages due, etc. That is what it is. It is wrong, and slightly dishonest, to say the State can or should pay out on a third-party agreement. It does not do that, and it has not in the case of Debenhams and in this case as well.

We are not at the redundancy stage here yet. There has been no notification of it yet. We all hope to avoid that. Without doubt I hope, for all those employees' sakes, we can avoid that.

I can confirm that the State, of course, will step in and make sure statutory entitlements are paid. That is what the State does for everybody, and rightly so, but the company has the first responsibility to pay out on that. If this ends up in a full liquidation process through the courts - it is not at that stage yet - the various assets of the company will have to be looked at by the liquidators in view of the courts to deal with who gets paid what after that. The State steps in for statutory entitlements and will not be found wanting - I can confirm that to the employees - for their statutory entitlements.

The Debenhams case was mentioned. The Minister, Deputy Humphreys, has processed at this stage more than 1,600 applications to two funds to recognise the workers' statutory entitlements in Debenhams as well.

I reiterate that there is a connection being made here with this company and Debenhams' company and other companies as well. Every situation is a little different but it suits some Members to constantly try and draw a connection to Clerys. I say again that I have not seen the evidence to say that the Debenhams or Arcade Group cases are the same as Clerys, yet Members keep bringing that up here on a regular basis. Connecting the two adds to the dishonest conversation for all these employees who are in a vulnerable and difficult situation. If there is evidence to say they are the same, I ask Members to bring it forward because I have not seen it. There are laws and protections there.

I met the Debenhams workers and I gave a strong commitment that I would work with them and others, specifically, with Gerry Light of Mandate, to strengthen the legislation. The Minister of State, Deputy Troy, and myself, on behalf of the Tánaiste and the Department, met and said to Debenhams that we will strengthen the workers there and that if we can identify areas of weakness in the law in respect of insolvency and redundancy, we will strengthen that. There are working groups doing that work. It is an ongoing process. They are linked back there. If we can find in that process - the committee is doing the same - areas where we can strengthen that, we will do that. That is different from trying to draw a link with Debenhams or Arcadia Group to Clerys. If the Deputies believe that, I ask them to show me the evidence and bring it in. It would certainly help me do my job and it would certainly help other Departments do their job as well. However, to constantly draw that link and make the connection is unfair to the workers of those different companies.

As the Minister of State with responsibility for this area, I will go to great lengths to strengthen legislation when I can prove it will be effective and worthwhile. There have been reports of that in the past. Where we can make changes, we will do that. That commitment was given to the Debenhams workers.

Deputy Conway-Walsh is correct that they had two asks in their campaign. The first was that the company would pay out on the collective agreement they had made. That is what they want and they are out protesting to get that entitlement. They are entitled to chase that up, demand that and look for that. The second part of their campaign was that we as a Government would change legislation to strengthen it to prevent such cases in the future. Their ask is probably related to an assumption that Debenhams is the same as Clerys. I said that regardless of what the connections are with any companies, we will examine the legislation to make it stronger and better, if we can, to protect their entitlements going forward. However, I have to also be honest. There is a difference between statutory entitlements and private agreements through collective bargaining. We are looking at that area as well. The programme for Government does that. The Taoiseach and Tánaiste said it as well. We recognise that too. However, they are two separate issues and they are not always recognised as separate in this House. For employees, of course, they want to pursue all their entitlements as much as they can, and rightly so. They should do that.