Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

214. To ask the Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government if his Department intervened in the ongoing refusal of a State-supported company (details supplied) to honour a Labour Court finding in relation to workers made redundant; if his Department has instructed this company not to use State funds to honour the findings of another State agency; and if he will intervene in this matter to ensure the workers involved receive their just payments. [28059/16]

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

215. To ask the Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government the reason funding is made available to a private company (details supplied) by his Department while this company is refusing to obey the judgment of a State-appointed body in regard to its workforce. [28060/16]

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose to take Questions Nos. 214 and 215 together.

I am aware of the Labour Court recommendation in the case in Question.  The position is that neither my Department, nor the former Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs, was the employer referred to in the Labour Court recommendation. My understanding is that the individuals were employed by an independent company, limited by guarantee, and had employment contracts with that company. Therefore, any employment matters are solely for the board of the company. There could be no role for my Department in such a case.

Section 2 (3) of the Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2007, provided that: "The Minister shall not be, or be deemed to be, an employer, within the meaning of the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts 1994 and 2001, by virtue of the provision of funding to a person or persons under any scheme".

The company in question was and continues to be in receipt of state funding for the administration of a number of schemes and programmes.  The delivery of these programmes remains separate to any employment matters, which, as stated, are solely for the board of the company.