This morning Greencore announced plans for a €1.1 billion development on the site of the old sugar plant at Carlow. I hope, in principle, that appropriate development will take place there and that it will contribute to the regeneration of Carlow and employment at the site. Last night I had the opportunity to meet the former workers of Greencore who explained to me in respect of the recent redundancy that the company had refused to implement the Labour Court recommendation. They went back three times to the Labour Court for clarification and on three occasions Greencore refused to implement the recommendation. The court has unequivocally set out that the interpretation of the workers is the correct interpretation. Despite that, Greencore has come up with an interpretation that leaves the workers I met last night in Carlow, on average, €25,000 short. A total of €4.4 million is owed to the workers under the Labour Court recommendation. The company has refused to attend the national implementation body and has left the workers hanging.

Is it acceptable that a major public company, which incidentally did proportionately well out of the compensation fund as compared to how growers and workers fared, should plan a €1.1 billion development at the Carlow site while owing €4.4 million to the manual workers at Mallow and Carlow? An argument also exists about why the Government permitted Greencore to shut this plant when it might have been adapted for bio-fuels.

The time has concluded.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle. We ended up paying taxpayer's money to Greencore to knock down the plant and are now going to build a new biofuel plant. Having facilitated this, even the few bob due to the workers under the agreement is not being paid to them. It is utterly unacceptable that a major company such as this should evade its responsibilities to the workforce and trample all over social partnership. Greencore will not even answer the request from the Secretary General of the Taoiseach's Department to attend the national implementation body. I want to know, as do the workers at Carlow and Mallow, what the Government intends to do about it.

Deputy Rabbitte met the workers yesterday and a number of my colleagues met them in the past week. They have been engaged in briefing sessions. They were with the Minister for Foreign Affairs on Sunday morning. A number of Deputies from my party have raised the issue with me also.

I wish to make three points I have previously made on this issue. Greencore did extremely well from the European Union package and the arrangements that were outlined in the agreement on the restructuring of the sugar industry. We had an obligation to fulfil the full terms of that agreement to get the maximum resources. We did that. At the time I made the point, as did the Minister for Agriculture and Food and other Ministers, that Greencore was doing very well, and while many of the farmers and workers involved believed they could get another few harvesting years, the least they could expect was for these issues to be resolved. The Minister and others stated at the time that the arrangement should be completed regarding the redundancy package and that other issues should also be resolved by Greencore.

The State always honours Labour Court decisions. In the decades since 1946, it is very rare for it not to honour cases. I expect any company, especially large public companies, to do likewise. I expect Greencore to do likewise. The officials dealing with social partnership and the trade union movements are very clear on what they feel about this case.

The company expects to carry out a large development and to win support for this in terms of zoning changes and restructuring plans for the plant. I wish the company well in its long-term development plans in terms of trying to generate employment and new action. It is a small price for it to pay to deal with the staff and pay up. As I stated outside the House, the company should do this forthwith. It is not a big deal for the company which is in a good position.

Does the Minister for Agriculture and Food have any say in the matter?

The company is doing well at home and abroad. It has been well dealt with under EU rules and by the Government. I accept some legal issues are outstanding with which I am not familiar. As I understand, the Minister for Agriculture and Food has asked the Attorney General, or at least her own legal experts, to examine these matters. However, this does not take away from the fact the workers have received a clear decision from the Labour Court. The company should deal with it.

It is true that Greencore has done very well from the package. Unfortunately, it is not true that the workers, growers or the economy have done equally well from the manner in which the Government has handled this issue. We are left with a site which has tremendous development potential for the company but not necessarily for the generation of wealth and certainly not for the growers and workers directly concerned. The fact is that there is a Labour Court recommendation. One would expect a major public company to give its allegiance to the voluntary industrial relations system in operation. It is not doing this. The Labour Court has spelled out in crystal clear terms that the workers' interpretation is the correct one:

For the avoidance of doubt the court wishes to again state that it intended in the recommendation that the staff on annualised hours salaries should have their ex gratia lump sum calculated by reference to their full unadjusted salary applicable at the date of redundancy plus 20% as provided for in the company-union agreement.

There is no argument here. The legal issues raised by the Taoiseach arise from the manner of distribution of the compensation fund where the company is arguing that the Minister gave a disproportionate amount to the growers and that it honoured the redundancy settlement. It did not honour the redundancy settlement and growers argue they received too little but the company has the hard neck to go to the High Court to seek a judicial review on the basis that the compensation was intended for it.

The Taoiseach stated the company ought to give its allegiance to the industrial relations machinery but, coming up to Christmas, workers who received none of their redundancy compensation want to know where is their money and whether the Government will vindicate their rights. The workers concerned have done nothing wrong. They did everything by the book. They went to the Labour Court and returned there three times. The Labour Court ruled in their favour three times yet they still have not received the money.

The Deputy's time has concluded.

The workers are owed €4.4 million by a company that, as the Taoiseach himself stated, stands to make extraordinary profits from the development of the site. We stand to lose two factories and we have to build a biofuel plant when the factory in Carlow might well have been adapted for that purpose. The company can buy in developers into its new shareholding structure. The company will make a fortune from the development yet it refuses to pay workers their due entitlement. They asked me to put a question to the Taoiseach, not to seek his sympathy or agreement. The Taoiseach could scarcely disagree. The facts are clear. The workers want to know what he is going to do about it.

Hear, hear.

What the workers asked everybody else was whether we would look at the legal issues in regard to some of the money that has not yet been paid. I mentioned the Minister is doing this, but I do not know the legal certainties of doing that as it is EU money. It is a private company but it has been through the Labour Court. Because the factories are closed it wants to develop the sites and it stands to make a lot of money. Under the 1946 Act, it is not legally permissible for the Government to force somebody to comply with the Labour Court, but it is the voluntary arrangement. The reason it is not legally compelling is that employers follow the standard norm of industrial relations, namely, to abide by the Labour Court and Greencore should do this. I cannot put it clearer than that. Whether we have a legal hold on some of the money as yet unpaid is a matter that will have to be examined. As I understand it, this money is owed to the staff. The Labour Court has made a determination. We will look at the legal issues it but the company should pay up. It stands to make large amounts of money out of the redevelopment of these sites. Our view is that the company has been treated well by the State. I am aware the company and its chief executive does not share that view.