Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 69: To ask the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if he has responded to the letter handed to him recently by workers (details supplied) and members of Mandate in Dún Laoghaire, Dublin, who have been on strike since April 2010 following their dismissal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36055/11]

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 81: To ask the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if he has responded to the letter handed to him recently by workers (details supplied) and members of Mandate in Dún Laoghaire, Dublin, who have been on strike since April 2010 following their dismissal and the failure of their employer to abide by Labour Court rulings or pay moneys owed to the sacked employees; if he intends to introduce legislation to prevent such treatment of workers by some employers in the future; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36052/11]

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 69 and 81 together.

This issue involves a dispute that resulted from a decision by the employer in 2010 to cut pay and working hours of the workers. The issues in dispute were referred to the Labour Relations Commission by the workers. Separate exploratory talks involving the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission and the employer and workers' representatives took place in June 2010, where all possibilities were explored with both parties in an effort to reach a mutually acceptable agreement to settle the dispute. Unfortunately, the Conciliation Service determined that it was not in a position to assist the parties achieve a settlement of the issues in dispute.

I understand that the workers referred claims regarding alleged breaches of their employment rights under a number of different pieces of legislation to the Rights Commissioner Service and to the Employment Appeals Tribunal. I am advised that the Rights Commissioners and EAT found in favour of the workers in all cases, and made appropriate awards in favour of the workers concerned. I understand that the employer failed to attend at any of the hearings.

There is in place a comprehensive suite of employment rights legislation through which disputes can be pursued. In this context, all employment rights legislation provides for mechanisms through which the decisions of Rights Commissioners and the Employment Appeals Tribunal can be enforced through the Courts. I understand that the enforcement of some of the decisions made in relation to the claims arising from this dispute has already been put in train. In other related instances the specified date by which the decisions or determinations were to be carried out has not yet been exhausted.

The mechanisms provided to ensure compliance with the provisions of employment rights legislation have been shown to have been fully utilised in this instance and to have resulted in a series of decisions and determinations which can now be enforced in the appropriate way. Accordingly, I have no plans to introduce further legislation in this regard.