Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move:

That leave be granted to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to amend the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 to increase workers protections under that Act by broadening the categories of workers included in that Act, further protecting workers who engage in industrial action, shielding workers under protected categories from unfair dismissals, and reforming the system of compensation afforded under that Act.

This Bill seeks to make a number of reforms to the Unfair Dismissals Act in order to increase protections for workers who have been unfairly dismissed from their employment. As it stands, any worker in the country who is of average retirement age for their profession or for their employer, is not protected against an unfair dismissal. My Bill would seek to change that by expanding the Act to cover all workers over the age of 16.

I also propose to remove the requirement for 12 months of continuous service with an employer before being protected from an unfair dismissal. These clauses miss a fundamental point at the heart of the Unfair Dismissals Act. Every worker in this country should be afforded the same level of protections under the law, regardless of their age and length of service. A dismissal without just cause is unfair. Employers cannot be afforded right to fire people at will for any reason under the sun, regardless of whether the worker has been in the job for four years or four months.

In the original Act, the grounds for unfair dismissal are listed. These are all the things that everyone can agree on, without question, as an unfair dismissal: an employee's race, sexual orientation, membership of the Traveller community, age, union activity, religion, political opinion, protected disclosures, civil or criminal proceedings, statutory leave or pregnancy. That list, however, is preceded by a completely indefensible clause which provides that "the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal, if it results wholly or mainly from one or more of the following".

We could interpret that clause to mean that a dismissal is deemed to be unfair if it is 60:40 due to the worker's sexual orientation, for example, but not the other way around. I find that pretty odd and very difficult to interpret. To completely remove any avoidance of doubt, my Bill amends the clause to make it clear that any dismissal that stems in any part from the grounds listed would be considered an unfair dismissal.

Reform of the system of compensation for unfair dismissal is sorely needed. As it stands workers who win a case in the WRC or in the Labour Court are entitled to a maximum of two years' pay or five years in the case of a whistleblower. However, the award is based on the financial loss arising from the dismissal. The higher the loss, the higher the award. Those who submit a claim of unfair dismissal are required to try to reduce that loss by actively seeking work but, ultimately, they are penalised if they find it. I want people to find work but I still believe the penalties for employers should encourage a change in behaviour.

Let us take the case of the Ivy restaurant, where two young migrant workers, Julia Marciniak and Lenka Laiermanova, were dismissed due to union activity. Following their unfair dismissal case, Ms Laiermanova received €7,924 while Ms Marciniak received €2,016. The punishment really did not fit the crime. This case highlights the fact that the system of compensation for unfair dismissal is broken because it does not discourage bad behaviour, which is ultimately what we want to do. Ms Marciniak spoke at a May Day conference that we held last year. She told us about the toll it took on her to get the point where she won her case and she also spoke about how little has changed. Cases need to be taken repeatedly to change behaviour and that should not be happening. Other people whom Ms Marciniak knows who are working in the industry are repeatedly subject to the same difficulties and this is the main reason I started working on the Bill. I thank Ms Ellen Casey from my office for assisting me with it.

Many low-paid workers in the service industry can find new jobs relatively quickly after dismissal and with the cost-of-living being what it is, I want them to find work. Indeed, it is good that there is work out there for them. However, just because there is not a huge financial loss associated with their dismissal does not mean that wrong was not committed. It does not mean that workers were not harassed and intimidated for weeks or months before the eventual dismissal. My Bill would ensure that the severity of the actions of the employer would be taken into consideration when calculating the level of compensation that would be awarded. The Unfair Dismissals Act is core legislation underpinning workers' protection in Ireland and it has served us incredibly well. However, there are gaps. Not all workers are properly protected and this Bill seeks to fill some of those gaps.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Bill opposed?

Hildegarde Naughton (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Since this is a Private Members' Bill, Second Stage must, under Standing Orders, be taken in Private Members' time.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move: "That the Bill be taken in Private Members' time."