Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
JUST UNDER 500 retail workers employed by Arcadia Group’s Irish outlets, which includes the likes of Topshop, Evans and Miss Selfridge, are to be made permanently redundant.
It’s understood that liquidators from Deloitte Ireland told Mandate trade union officials today of the 490 permanent losses.
Arcadia had provisional liquidators appointed to four of its Irish companies in November. It followed the collapse of its UK parent into administration, throwing the future of 13,000 jobs across the two islands into jeopardy.
Over a dozen stores continued to trade in the run up to Christmas, but shut again following the reimposition of Level 5 restrictions.
Speaking last month, Mandate national co-ordinator Jonathan Hogan said that it was “too early to say” if the situation might deteriorate into a dispute akin to the row over the liquidation of Debenhams’ Irish business.
“But we’re hoping it’s not going to be and the first indications from my conversations with Deloitte are that they’re committed to an open and transparent process. We’d be hopeful that we can work through this process.”
In a statement this evening, Sinn Féin’s Louise O’Reilly urged the government to step into ensure it didn’t become “another Debenhams situation”.
She said: “The news that 490 workers from Topman and Topshop, and many other stores, are to be made permanently redundant is an incredible blow to these workers, their families, and their communities. Indeed, it is a massive blow to the retail sector in Ireland.
“Given the unfortunate situation that has arisen, it is important that the government inform the liquidators that they expect the workers’ collective agreement to be honoured and a fair redundancy package paid.”
This was echoed by People Before Profit TD Bríd Smith.
She said: “Like the Debenhams workers these workers have a collective agreement providing for enhanced redundancy payments of four weeks per year of service, inclusive of statutory redundancy. Like the Debenhams workers they should be paid their 2 plus 2.
“In these extraordinary times the government has taken extraordinary measure to support businesses, some of whom remain profitable. I am now calling for a fund to established to pay these workers what they are due.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Terrible for the workers
The law guarantees statutory redundancy. Maybe if the looney left would be a little less looney and more proactive they would be in government where they could make a difference but easier to throw stones from the sidelines.
@john s: I hope that all those who loose their jobs get others as soon as possible horrible situation for those effected
@john s: Perhaps you’d like to enlighten with respect to what the left are too looney for apparently someone like yourself to vote for such interests which you seem nonetheless to consider important.
@john s: “lose”
@john s: Hi John, hope your week is going well, mine is ok, looking forward to the weekend to be honest. I have to ask, what in god’s name is your comment about? I don’t understand the context? I don’t understand the point your making? 490 people are unemployed and your contribution is this. 490 people John.
@john s: Perhaps people should vote left if they want to protect workers!
@Sarah Connor: vote left tax companies out of existence, then blame management when the money runs out. No for me thanks. Already many many laws that protect workers including statutory redundancy.
@john s: Yesh those poor unfortunates forced to work in terrible conditions in the likes of the Meat Plants are so protected, people on zero hours contracts and the so called ‘gig’ economy are so protected too ..
@john s: Must be cold up their on that high horse of yours. What goes around comes around.
@john s: Problem is statutory redundancy has not been met for the Debenhams workers, a lot of reform needed with regard to both human and workers rights.
@Sarah Connor: yes it has, because it’s statutory so the minimum they will get is that amount.
@Sarah Connor: not true statutory redundancy has been met
@Da Dell: 0 hour contracts are illegal
I believe there is a fund there already Brid……oh but wait an “enhanced redundancy fund” I see ..well our national debt is up to 238 billion,might a well keep going sure that will never have to be paid…..
@David cotter: it won’t
@David cotter: where does it say there is an enhanced redundancy agreement that the state must pay?
@Fr. Fintan Stack: how can the company pay it their bankrupted……who do you think will end up paying out this new “enhanced redundancy “.
@David cotter: you obviously don’t know what an enhanced redundancy deal is or who it is between.
Very bad news indeed for all the employees, their families and external contractors connected to this Company. Unfortunately I believe it is only the beginning of a long period of closures to a lot of businesses over the coming years.
I am really sorry for all those affected by job losses in this latest retail liquidation. It is hard enough in the times we live in but to have the rug pulled from under your feet with job losses on this scale is so upsetting for all involved, really terrible news.
I wonder were they claiming the full €350.00 for their staff under the EWSS scheme last year? Most of the staff in their shops are technically permanent employees, but part time staff, which means that when the shops were closed due to CoViD-19 they were only getting the equivalent of their part time hours in payment, based on their contracts. However, by being permanent employees, Arcadia could have claimed the full 350 per employee per week. I dont think many of the staff would earn that much in the week, at least not those at floor level.
@Joe_X: do not think that is correct, it is only a portion of their wages they can claim ewss for. Certainly cannot claim more than they are passing on to employees. If they did not get the ewss they might have closed sooner
@john s: That particular issue about the 350.00 and part time staff was rectified with the introduction of the TWSS, however, as far as I know, the EWSS allowed for 350 for everyone regardless of type of employment. As for whether or not they would have closed sooner without it, well quite likely they would have, but I don’t particularly want to see them profit from that situation either.
@Joe_X: suppose if they were making profit they would not be closing
@Joe_X: the EWSS scheme is only for business dropped at least 30% compare same time last year, not all business can claim that for their staff, don’t think that company sales dropped that much before and during the Xmas time, also the company still have to the rent and insurance, they are not reduced, even reduced, it is still lots
@john s: I may have phrased it badly, but if they were claiming more from EWSS last year than what was being paid to staff, what would you call it. I suppose profiteering would be a better term for it. There were talks of the company closing in Ireland before CoViD-19, and with places closing due to the pandemic I could never understand how they did not do so during the first lockdown when they would have a “decent” excuse and then waited until just before christmas when they announced it to the staff, a month or so after the change from EWSS to TWSS.
@Ní neart go cur le chéile.: I understand that, but for the summer and autumn months, they were fully closed, and if memory serves me right, they only opened about 2 months before christmas, so they would be well down for the 30% rule for those periods. It wasn’t until they reopened coming into the christmas period that they notified staff that they would not be reopening after christmas.
@Joe_X: I don’t know what is the reason for their bankruptcy, from business point of view, the business would have to look into long term, 2021 won’t be good for all the business as well, even with CRSS, it depends on business, still hard to survive, because CRSS won’t be there for ever
By the way, they can’t claim more than paying staff, their payroll would show how much they pay staff, then they can claim EWSS 4 tiers back, so they can’t make profit or take advantage from EWSS, for small business maybe doing something dodgy, but not for big company
@Joe_X: what are you on about. It was the TWSS that came first and was replaced by the EWSS. Only for the first 3 weeks was a payment of 410 made for each employee regardless of salary. After that it was a percentage of you weekly wage.
@John Buckley: my apologies, you are correct, it was The TWSS that came first and it was the EWSS then. But as far as I know, everyone was entitled to the payment regardless of the type of employment for the duration of the first one and then the percentage system came in for the second one.
@Joe_X: no, that is wrong. As I stated, it was only for 3 weeks until proper legislation was drafted. Why don’t you look it up instead of spreading incorrect info
@Ní neart go cur le chéile.: I dunno, big companies seem to do more dodgy stuff than the small ones if you ask me. I just find it strange that they were able to tell staff, nearly as soon as they reopened, that once they closed for the christmas break, that they would not reopen afterwards and the timing between the change over of the wage subsidy schemes.
@John Buckley: I made the mistake between the names of the schemes, and as far as I am concerned, that is the only error I made. My best freind’s wife works for them, part time. She knows what she was getting payment wise, she also knows that they were claiming the maximum they could for her and other part time staff. Any excess they have claimed should be paid back to the government, which is the point I am making.
@Joe_X: changeover of schemes was 1 Sept, think some retailers held out in the hope of a bumber xmas period? Every ER who claimed TWSS had to report to revenue on it, a random selection with proof of payment to EE. Any overpayments in Mar/Apr have to be returned to revenue – there was a 31 Oct deadline for ERs to report payments to revenue for reconciliations, not sure if the payment corrections are yet completed. EWSS has an oddity, under the revised Oct rates EEs on 203-299/week result in sub of 250/week, thus being better in some cases for ER. However if ER changes staff levels/ pay rates to improve their claim they can be prosecuted/fined/etc.
There will always be chancers but they are going to be lying in writing to revenue if they do and will risk being found out.
@Joe_X: how would your friends wife know what they were claiming for her? You have been wrong on everything. Do you actually think a scheme would go for 6 months before someone noticed. At the end of March they brought in emergency legislation because they didn’t have time to draft a more appropriate legislation. They corrected it on 16th April, 3 weeks later. This is all available online but you are either too thick or stubborn to look for it
@Joe_X: That is incorrect, the €350 is given across the board full time or part time. This is why the system wasn’t implimented fairly. It was implimented in a panic.
Why do opposition TDs come out with such comments? The Arcadia staff like the Debenham’s staff will get statutory redundancy not their enhanced redundancy because of government inaction again. It is political posturing and achieves nothing. These large companies do what they want. Mandate have also failed to represent their members again. The Arcadia situation is the exact same as the Debenham’s situation. Today is another extremely bad day for the high street with 490 job losses and the knock on effect from these job losses and store closures will be catastrophic.
@Wayne Logan: SF and PBP will come out with this rubbish because it’s populist tripe and some voters will swallow it. Asking the government to “step in” isn’t an option when it comes to liquidation and arrangements between a private employer and their employees. Workers are only entitled to statutory no matter what way the lefties distort the facts. Are they expecting the state (tax payers) to pay the workers additional redundancy above statutory? Fishing for votes.
Terrible
@Mick Hunt: thanks for that Mick
Louise O’Reilly, Brid Smith and Mick Barry are being very cruel to Debenhams and Arcadia workers raising expectations for enhanced redundancy payments. These companies are being liquidated because their Liabilities exceed their assets and to continue to trade would be illegal, simple as. Debenhams and Arcadia had very little assets, they did not own the properties they operated from, stock was paid for after it was sold to end users however the stock remained the property of the wholesaler until they paid for so they did not even own that. Their business model was to work on the margin they made on sales without actually owning anything to sell just like an auctioneer or a bank. Because they had no assets they are very vulnerable to market conditions and that is why they failed so quickly and dramatically just like the banks in 2008. just like then we the tax payers will pick up the tab yet again paying the statutory redundancy payments just like when we had to bail out the banks. The only difference we got back a lot of the money we bailed out banks with by later selling the equity we acquired when we bailed them out.
Mid end retail is dead, this just accelerated the process. Low end retail will survive because of the convenience factor. High end retail because making the purchase online is risky for certain high end purchases. The writing is in the wall for the retailers with no real differentiators.
How many more ?
have your say