Written answers

Tuesday, 12 April 2005

Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment

Job Initiative

9:00 pm

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 488: To ask the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if he has received a report from the enterprise development officer funded through his Department; if all of the workforce of Comerama, now closed, have found employment or have been offered courses in new skills to assist them in finding new employment as was promised by his Department; if the issue of retrospective payment for these persons only was ever raised by his Department or the unions at meetings of the social partners; if precedents have already been set by the State in closures similar to Comerama; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10362/05]

Photo of Tony KilleenTony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A full-time business development executive has been employed by Kilkenny County Enterprise Board to work with a local employment action group in Castlecomer. Enterprise Ireland is part-funding the cost for a two year period up to June 2005. An inter-agency advisory forum was established to work with the business development executive to progress the employment agenda for the Castlecomer area. The forum is chaired by the county manager. It includes the development agencies and the Castlecomer area employment action group. It is expected that the chairman will issue a report on the work of the forum when the business development executive's assignment is completed in June 2005.

The Comerama facility was purchased by IJM Timber Engineering Ltd., the Monaghan-based timber frame housing company, in March 2004. This project is expected to create 50 jobs over the next 12 months and has the potential to create significant additional employment thereafter.

The total number of employees made redundant by Comerama was 164. Of these, 150 attended for interviews with FÁS. Subsequently, 136 people were called for training and 98 of these attended. Most of this training took place between February and June 2003. Some further training was provided for 35 individuals. Training was completed in 2003 and, at that time, FÁS records indicated that 50% of the workforce who had engaged with FÁS on training programmes had progressed to employment. There have been numerous representations made on this matter by union and public representatives, and many parliamentary questions have been tabled about the Comerama workers over the past two and a half years.

Regarding the question of retrospective statutory redundancy payments, the legal advice given to my Department by the Attorney General was that: enhanced statutory redundancy payments would require legislation to be enacted in order to be brought into effect, and as the payment of a statutory redundancy lump sum is a legal requirement on employers, it could not be imposed on them with retrospective effect. Employers are entitled to due notice, usually approximately two months, of the intention to require them legally to pay enhanced rates.

Unfortunately for the workers concerned therefore, my Department is legally precluded from paying the enhanced rates of redundancy with retrospective effect, as the workers were declared redundant some time before the new legislation — the Redundancy Payments Act 2003 — came into effect on 25 May 2003.

The case was also made on behalf of these workers that if it was not legally possible to meet their claim for payment of the enhanced rates, the Government should consider bringing a scheme to the Oireachtas to enable them to be paid the enhanced rates from the social insurance fund as a special case. This proposal was also considered and deemed impractical. It would mean making a special case for the workers concerned on the basis that they had missed out by being made redundant quite some time before the Oireachtas passed the new enhanced rates into law. Many thousands of other workers are in a similar position and could also make a case for special treatment.

Concerning special retrospective redundancy payments, no precedents have been set by the State with regard to closures similar to that of Comerama.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.