Sinn Féin has proposed legislation to boost the redundancy rights of workers who end up being laid off for lengthy periods, and to create an offence for employers who wrongfully deprive employees of their entitlements.
The party's Enterprise Trade and Employment spokesperson Louise O'Reilly said the Redundancy Payments (Lay-off, Short Time and Calculation of Reckonable Service) Bill was intended to deliver "clarity, assurance and fairness" for workers regarding their redundancy entitlements.
Under current redundancy law, if a person's employment is terminated, periods spent on layoff do not count when calculating statutory redundancy lump sum entitlements.
With almost half a million people laid off at present on the Pandemic Unemployment Payment (some for a full year), and many businesses unlikely to survive the effects of the pandemic, thousands of workers could find themselves losing out by up to €1,200 per year of service when their statutory redundancy entitlements are calculated.
Critics of the current law say that it was never envisaged that workers could end up "in limbo" on lay off for up to a year through no fault of their own, as has happened during the pandemic.
The situation was exacerbated when the government used Covid-19 emergency legislation to suspend the legal right of workers to demand to be made redundant after a certain period of layoff, to avoid them being trapped without work but unable to seek alternative employment without risking losing out on accrued redundancy entitlements.
The Irish Congress of Trade Unions has been lobbying to have the issue addressed, and has raised it at the Labour Employer Economic Forum.
Congress General Secretary Patricia King confirmed today that the government side had said that the issue was complex, and that it was being examined by the Attorney General.
Proposing the legislation, Louise O'Reilly said the bill would ensure that time spent by workers on lay off or short time - including on the Pandemic Unemployment Payment - would count as reckonable service when calculating redundancy entitlements.
She acknowledged this would impose additional cost on employers - but said that where employers could genuinely not afford to pay, the Social Insurance Fund would step in.
She highlighted that many workers were unaware of their redundancy payments rights.
"Some workers are unsure as to whether they can undertake new employment and still be entitled to their redundancy payment, to be paid when the emergency period is over, others have outlined how their employer tried to make them declare themselves as having resigned, and thereby involuntarily forgo their redundancy payment, while a significant number are concerned that they have lost up to a year of reckonable service for the calculation of any future redundancy payment due to time spent on the PUP," she said.
The Department of Social Protection has previously confirmed that workers on layoff may seek alternative employment and preserve their accrued redundancy entitlements provided they remain available to return to the original employer immediately when summoned back.
Ms O'Reilly said the bill would insert a declaratory provision "...to remove any doubt that where, during a period of lay-off or short time, a worker takes up employment with another employer, that worker will not lose their entitlement to their redundancy payment."
"This provision will offer clarity and assurance for many workers who have been offered new employment, but they are afraid to take it in case they lose their redundancy payment."
She said the bill would also make it an offence for an employer to treat an employee as having resigned, resulting in the worker losing out on redundancy payments.
She said she was aware of cases where unscrupulous employers had "duped" or pressurised employees into resigning to avoid liability for such lump sums.
If convicted, employers could face a fine of up to €5,000.
"This situation has been raised with me by some workers, particularly in sectors with low levels of Trade Union coverage. They have outlined how unscrupulous employers tried to con them into making themselves redundant, unbeknownst to them and against their wishes; this would have had the result of these workers losing their redundancy entitlement," Ms. O'Reilly stated.
