Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Perry, to the House.

Denis Landy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I too welcome the Minister of State to the House. On Monday, 27 August, management at the Gleeson Group terminated the employment of eight workers, the majority of whom are active SIPTU trade union members. It was claimed that the job losses were part of a redundancy issue and that they were not sufficiently skilled for the work that they had been doing for the previous number of years. The next day, when the workers finished their jobs, management hired agency workers to take over their roles in the company. As of today, management has repeatedly refused to meet union representatives and has declined an invitation to attend the Labour Relations Commission to discuss the matter.

People have a constitutional right to join a union and it is defended under unfair dismissals legislation. SIPTU has said that the Gleeson Group had unilaterally reduced wages without written warning in breach of the Payments of Wages Act. As a Labour Party Senator and a lifelong supporter of the trade union movement, this kind of disregard for workers' rights must be challenged at every turn. I have been told that the Gleeson Group has refused to meet SIPTU representatives and ignored any attempts to discuss changes to terms and conditions of employment with the union or the Labour Relations Commission. That is unacceptable behaviour from an employer. It is incredible, as we approach the centenary of the Dublin Lockout, that we still have people being marginalised and discriminated against. We must be careful, as citizens and politicians, and ensure that the recession is not used by employers to attack workers' wages and conditions unilaterally without a proper cause or explanation. The Gleeson Group's refusal to recognise SIPTU and to allegedly sack workers for organising to defend their rights and entitlements reminds me of the days of William Martin Murphy.

I ask the Minister of State if his Department is aware of the situation faced by these workers in Ballyfermot. Is the Gleeson Group, their employers, in breach of the Payments of Wages Act? Has the Gleeson Group sought a rebate of the statutory redundancy payment made to its employees? What stage has been reached in the plan to reform workplace relations structures? When will the plan be implemented?

John Perry (Sligo-North Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator for raising this important matter on the Adjournment. It concerns a dispute between the company and eight employees regarding the selection criteria used for making them redundant. The workers concerned have been engaged in a protest outside of the Cherry Orchard depot in Ballyfermot since 24 September. I understand that following a contract loss the company made 12 of its employees redundant on 27 August.

The redundancy payments scheme was established to compensate workers, under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 2011, for the loss of their jobs by reason of redundancy. It is the responsibility of the employer to pay statutory redundancy to all eligible employees. An employer who pays statutory redundancy payments to its employees is then entitled to a rebate of a portion of that amount from the State. Where an employer can prove to the satisfaction of the Department of Social Protection that it is unable to pay the statutory redundancy to its eligible employees the Department will make lump sum payments directly to those employees and will seek to recover the debt from the employer. To prove inability to pay the employer must submit documentary evidence to confirm that this is the position.

Rebates to employers and lump sums paid directly to employees are paid from the social insurance fund. In order to qualify for a redundancy payment, an employee must have at least two years continuous service; be in employment which is insurable under the Social Welfare Acts; be over the age of 16 and have been made redundant as a result of a genuine redundancy matter meaning that the job is no longer available and that he or she is not replaced.

Under the Redundancy Payments Acts an eligible employee is entitled to two weeks statutory redundancy payment for every year of service plus a bonus week. Compensation is based on the worker's length of reckonable service and reckonable weekly remuneration and is subject to a ceiling of ¤600 per week.

The Senator has asked if the Gleeson Group has sought a rebate of the statutory redundancy payment made to the employees. Responsibility for the processing of claims under the redundancy payments scheme transferred from the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation to the Department of Social Protection in January 2011. I have made inquiries of that Department and I have been informed that it has no record of receiving any claims against the Gleeson Group. It also has no information regarding recent redundancies or dismissals by the group or concerns employees or former employees may have on same.

I understand from newspaper and media reports on the matter that the employees concerned in the protest feel that they were selected for redundancy because they are members of a trade union. The company has issued a statement that this is not the case. An employer when selecting an employee for redundancy should apply selection criteria that are reasonable and applied in a fair manner. People are entitled to bring a claim for unfair dismissal if they consider that they were unfairly selected for redundancy or consider that there was not a genuine redundancy matter.

The Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2007 provide protection for employees from being unfairly dismissed from their jobs by laying down criteria on which the fairness or otherwise of dismissals can be judged and by providing an adjudication system and redress for an employee whose dismissal has been found to be unjustified. The Acts also specify a variety of instances where a dismissal would be deemed to be unfair.

Section 6(2) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 deems a dismissal to be unfair if it occurs for one of a variety of reasons, including if it results wholly or mainly from the employee's trade union membership or activities, where the times at which the employee engages in such activities are either outside working hours or are at those times during working hours when permitted by the employer.

The Acts provide a system of redress whereby complaints may be referred either to a rights commissioner of the Labour Relations Commission or, if such a hearing is objected to by either of the parties, to the Employment Appeals Tribunal. No complaints of this nature have been received by the Labour Relations Commission with regard to the Gleeson Group.

I urge the parties involved to have regard to the availability of the industrial relations dispute resolution bodies to assist them in seeking a settlement in this dispute. Even what often appears to be the most intractable of disputes is capable of resolution where both sides engage constructively and in good faith in the voluntary process. The principle of good faith implies that both sides in a dispute make every effort to reach an agreement and endeavour, through genuine and constructive negotiations, to resolve their differences.

Ireland's system of industrial relations is voluntary in nature and responsibility for the resolution of industrial disputes between employers and workers rests with the employer, the workers and their representatives. The State provides the industrial relations dispute settlement to support parties in their efforts to resolve their differences.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Landy may ask a brief supplementary question.

Denis Landy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for his reply. By way of clarification on a number of matters in his reply, I understand that no redundancy payments have been sought by the Gleeson Group from the Department of Social Protection. Would the Minister of State agree that the fact that the Gleeson Group has not sought the portion of redundancy payments that a company in normal circumstances would be entitled to, in itself, is an admission that it is wrong in what it did. Under normal procedures, the group would have applied in the normal way for the money and would have been given it without any questioning. Given that we have highlighted this matter, through the Minister of State's Department, to the Department of Social Protection and the facts surrounding this case, I sincerely hope that the relevant Department will not pay any portion of the redundancy payments until such time as this case goes in front of the Employment Appeals Tribunal, an application for which has been applied for by the workers' union. I seek clarity on those two issues. The matter has been sent for hearing and I ask the Minister of State, through his office, to ensure no payment is made to this company. Putting it bluntly, it would be a slap in the face to every trade union member in this country and every taxpayer who funds the payments if the Gleeson Group was allowed to get this 15% of the redundancy money by allowing it to apply after sacking these workers because they are trade union members. I ask the Minister of State to watch that space for me and those involved and ensure that nothing happens until the appeal has been heard at the Employment Appeals Tribunal.

John Perry (Sligo-North Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The reply states that the Department has informed me that it has no record of having received any claim against the Gleeson Group to date. No doubt the Minister will respond directly to the Senator on this issue as well. That is the current position.