Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Feb 1979

Vol. 312 No. 3

Redundancy Payments Bill, 1979: Report and Final Stages.

Minister for Labour (Mr. G. Fitzgerald)

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, after line 30, to insert the following:

"(3) When making regulations under subsection (2) of this section, the Minister shall take into account any changes in the average earnings of workers in the transportable goods industries as recorded by the Central Statistics Office since the date by reference to which the sum specified in subsection (1) of this section was last determined.".

This amendment refers to the regulations in the lump sum ceiling and to the point which was raised by Deputy Ryan on Committee Stage. I should like to point out that the question of earnings in transportable goods industries is not the only factor that I would have to take into account in regard to any change in the regulations. For example, I would have to have regard also to the level of contributions, the level of redundancies and to other possible changes in the scheme.

Mr. J. Ryan

As this amendment is similar to the one I tabled for Committee Stage, I accept it and thank the Minister for meeting our point.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 6, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:

12. Where—

(a) a dismissal (or termination of employment) occurred before the commencement of this section,

(b) the employee concerned would have been entitled to redundancy payment if section 10 or 11 of this Act had been in operation on the date of dismissal or termination of employment, and

(c) the employee concerned had appealed to the Tribunal before the 1st day of January, 1979, but a decision relating to that appeal had not been made before the commencement of this section,

the Tribunal shall, as soon as practicable after the commencement of this section, make a decision relating to that appeal as if sections 10 and 11 of this Act had been in operation on the date of dismissal or termination of employment.".

This amendment refers to a problem that has arisen in the application of the original Act. As I said last week, I am not unsympathetic to trying to solve the problems created for a small number of people. Consequently, I am submitting this amendment to the House. It extends from four weeks to 52 weeks the period during which a person on non-statutory short-term employment—for instance, a three-day week—may continue on such short time while preserving the right to claim redundancy. Decisions are awaited in respect of a number of cases that have been held up for a considerable time. Because of the uncertainty of the situation I consider it only just that the tribunal be entitled to avail of the new provision in reaching a final decision. Therefore, I am accepting the suggestion made last week by Deputy Ryan concerning the payment of moneys directly from the fund. The existing provision will cater for that situation.

Mr. J. Ryan

This amendment meets the point I made in this regard last week.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 8, in column (2), in the reference opposite schedule 3 in column (1), after the amendment of paragraph 4 to insert the following:

"The insertion after paragraph 4 of the following paragraph:

`4A. Notwithstanding anything in paragraph 4 (and anything in clause (b) of the definition of "date of dismissal" in section 2), the period of notice due to an employee under section 4 (2) (a) of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973, but not given by the employer, shall, where the Tribunal so orders, be allowed as continuous service for redundancy purposes where, but for the failure of the employer to comply with the provisions of that Act, the employee would have qualified for redundancy payment.' ".

This amendment is fairly simple and I expect it will be acceptable to the House. On Committee Stage I undertook to consider certain aspects of the minimum notice provision. I was not entirely happy with the Committee Stage amendment. I was concerned about a particular area. This was the position of people who failed by a very narrow period of time to become entitled to redundancy payments. On the basis of an examination I have carried out I am suggesting now that a period of notice which an employer failed to give under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973, be allowed as reckonable service for redundancy purposes.

A problem can arise if a person is slightly short of the required period of 104 weeks and fails to receive the statutory entitlement by way of notice under the 1973 Act. The amendment takes care of such cases by allowing the appeals tribunal to hold that the period of statutory minimum notice not given to such an employee shall be included as continuous service for the purpose of entitlement.

Mr. J. Ryan

Again, this amendment is similar to one I tabled for Committee Stage.

Mr. Mitchell

The Minister's amendments improve the Bill. However, my major concern is that the Bill fails to deal with a major problem in the area of redundancy, that is, the temptation on the part of some workers to go so far as to conspire towards their redundancy. This is a very difficult question and I am not sure of how it should be coped with. One can visualise a situation in which for instance a father whose oldest child was being married would find a lump sum of, say, £3,500 to be very tempting. Unfortunately, the jobs that are lost in this way are very often much more productive than some of the jobs being created by the State.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has made his point but he will appreciate that he may not pursue the matter now.

Mr. Mitchell

I am merely putting the point forward for the consideration of the Minister because the matter constitutes a serious gap in the redundancy legislation.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill received for final consideration and passed.