While I fully understand the desire of Deputies to be informed concerning the position which has arisen in consequence of the strike at the sugar factories, I consider it desirable to preface my remarks by explaining my position in the matter. The adjustment of the wages and conditions of employment of the sugar factory workers is ordinarily a matter for settlement by negotiation between the company and the trade unions representing the various classes of workers employed by the company. In the event of failure to agree, the services of the Labour Court are available to the parties. The determination of wages and conditions of employment, or the negotiation of a settlement, is not a function of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The main change which was effected by the Industrial Relations Act, passed by the Dáil this year, was to transfer from the Minister for Industry and Commerce to the Labour Court all his functions regarding conciliation in industrial relations.
This dispute which has arisen at the sugar factories is not, however, an ordinary industrial dispute. The product of the industry is, as Deputies are well aware, a necessary of life. There is at present no other source of supply of sugar. The public is, therefore, vitally concerned in the dispute and in its early termination. I do not think it is unreasonable or unfair to assume that, if the commodity involved was not essential or if alternative supplies of that commodity were available, the unofficial strike at the factories would not have taken place. It is because the workers feel able to dictate terms to the community that they have responded to the advice to try it, ignoring the advice of the responsible leaders of their unions who fully realised the gravity of a stoppage of work at the factories at this season, and who endeavoured to make arrangements which would protect the interests of their members and, at the same time, had due and proper regard to their obligations to the community.
There is, however, some reason to believe that the unofficial strike is due to a considerable misunderstanding amongst the factory workers of the course of the negotiations between the company and the trade unions and of the outcome of these negotiations. I would like, therefore, to give a short outline of the history of the negotiations and of their results. In November, 1945, the company proposed the making of new agreements to the trade unions catering for the various classes of sugar factory workers. The company recognised that there were many inequities and inequalities to be remedied, and desired also to have a new and comprehensive wage agreement to come into operation when Emergency Powers (No. 260) Order was revoked. After inter-factory discussions, the next stage was the submission of proposals for a comprehensive agreement in writing to the company by the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union. Subsequently, the company's proposals for a new agreement were submitted to the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union on the 28th August, and to the Irish Engineering Industrial Union on the 6th September. Correspondence continued with the unions until the end of October. Negotiations were complicated by some difficulty in securing agreement between some of the engineering unions to negotiate together.
On the 1st November the Labour Court was informed that certain workers at the Mallow factory had gone on strike, while other workers there had announced their intention of going on strike but were continuing at work under instructions from their unions. That dispute at the Mallow factory related, apparently, to matters affecting the employment of fitters. After a conciliation meeting at Mallow on the 2nd November, at which a conciliation officer of the Labour Court presided and which was abortive, the Labour Court decided on the 4th November to hold a sitting of the court to investigate the dispute which at that time had spread or seemed likely to spread to other factories. The court met on the 6th and 7th November. The meeting of the court was attended by representatives of all the trade unions concerned, including workers from all of the four factories, as well as by representatives of the company.
Having heard a statement concerning the sugar supply position, which emphasised the importance of getting manufacture under way as soon as possible, a temporary agreement was reached under the auspices of the court. The stated purpose of that temporary agreement was to ensure that the manufacturing campaign would be started at the earliest moment at all factories and that there would be no stoppage during the campaign. The most important clause of the temporary agreement provided (1) no stoppage during the campaign; (2) reference to the Labour Court for settlement by arbitration of any differences which could not be settled by negotiation; and (3) the immediate commencement of negotiations under the auspices of the court for a comprehensive agreement for the regulation of conditions of employment, taking account of the proposals previously made by the company and the counter proposals of the unions. The court intimated that arbitration on any question as to whether particular work should be confined to a skilled craft union, which was one of the initial causes of dispute, would be carried out by a person with proper technical qualifications. That temporary agreement was arrived at with the unanimous concurrence of all the representatives present.
The terms of the temporary agreement were, of course, known to the representatives who attended at the meeting of the Labour Court from the four factories and those representatives, presumably, made the terms of the agreement known to the workers at the factory during that week-end. The negotiations for a comprehensive agreement were begun at once and took place under the auspices of the Labour Court on the 9th — which was a Saturday — the 11th, 12th and 13th of this month. These negotiations resulted in unanimous consent upon the drafting of a new comprehensive agreement. The text of the draft agreement deals with all matters affecting conditions at the factories, including the engagement of workers, the termination of employment, promotion, hours of work, meals, clothing, annual leave, public holidays and special leave, travelling allowances, rates of pay, overtime, allowances and bonuses, and methods of settling differences with the company. The agreement provided for increases in pay and bonuses for all grades of workers and there was a provision also that the new rates would be subject to revision on the initiative of the unions, any disagreement to be referred to the arbitration of the Labour Court. The union representatives participating in the negotiations expressed their intentions to recommend the new agreement to their members, the agreement to come into effect from November 12th. However, while these negotiations were in progress, on Monday the 11th the workers at the Tuam factory announced that they refused to work, while remaining in the factory. The trade unions intervened and the Tuam workers resumed operations. On the 13th November, when the negotiations were almost completed, the workers at the Mallow factory informed the management of their intention to cease work. The unions again intervened but without success. The result of the precipitate strike at the Mallow factory is that the new comprehensive agreement was not signed. It was to have been submitted to the workers at the four factories with the unions' recommendation for its acceptance, but the fact that the workers rushed into strike action before they saw the agreement prevented its completion.
The main issue which arises in the present dispute is not whether the sugar factory workers have grievances, or have a legitimate demand for higher wages, but whether an unofficial strike can get better results than the regular process of trade union negotiation. It is not denied that there were grievances and that conditions required readjustment in some respects. Nor is it denied that there is a just claim for higher wages. These things are conceded by the company. These were, in fact, the matters which were the subject of negotiation between the company and the trade unions and which, in the opinion of the trade union representatives participating in the negotiations, were satisfactorily settled by the draft agreement. If there are causes of discontent not covered by the draft agreement, or if there is a desire to amend the draft agreement, such matters can be discussed and settled by negotiation between the trade unions and the company. There is agreement that if they cannot be settled by negotiation they will be submitted to the Labour Court, whose findings the company will accept. That is the proper and responsible way of dealing with such issues, but it cannot be availed of while this irregular and unofficial strike is in progress. I do not know if there is any use in appealing to the more responsible elements amongst the men on strike to exert their influence on their fellow workers. Their action has raised grave danger of a shortage of a vital commodity. Even if work is immediately resumed there will be loss. The employment of thousands of other workers is jeopardised. I cannot believe that the sugar factory workers are so completely selfish as to wish to inflict such grave injury on the whole country and, particularly, on the farmers who grow beet and on the workers in other industries to whom the resumption of sugar production means continued employment.
Neither do I believe that the majority of the workers on strike want to break up their trade union organisation and the machinery of collective bargaining. They can gain nothing by their action. The issues raised by their action are more important even than the supply of sufficient sugar and they cannot win on that. I would ask them, therefore, to conform to the agreement which was made by their representatives. That agreement involves the commencement of the manufacturing campaign and no stoppage during the campaign. If they carry out that agreement, the new draft comprehensive agreement made with the trade unions will be submitted in the normal, regular way for their acceptance. If they decide not to accept it, in whole or in part, there can be either resumed negotiations or submission to the Labour Court, but any such resumed negotiations must be conducted through the trade unions. That must be understood—there can not be negotiations on any other basis. If the workers have legitimate grievances and demands, it is all the more important that they should be settled by the regular method of negotiation through the trade unions than by methods of anarchy.
It may be that there are, amongst the sugar workers, some men who like disturbance for disturbance sake, or for some other reason. The majority of the workers cannot be of that mind and, when they realise that persistence in their present course can bring no benefit to themselves and can do the most injury to the country's interests, they will undertake to work the campaign.
This year is going to be a much more difficult one in respect of many foodstuffs and some other supplies than any of the war years. Our supplies of wheat are more precarious, our supplies of butter are less, and our turf stocks are lower than at any stage of the war. If we are to have added to these difficulties a year without sugar, or with insufficient sugar, due to the reckless continuation of an unofficial strike, it would be an act of supreme folly.
I suggest, therefore, that the men on strike should decide, and meet forthwith to decide, in consequence of this explanation of the position which I am now giving, (1) to adhere to the unanimous agreement made by their representatives to start the campaign with no stoppage during the campaign; (2) that they should renew their contacts with their trade unions to receive and consider the comprehensive agreement which has been made with the company and (3) that they should agree that any difficulties arising out of the agreement and grievances not rectified by the agreement should be submitted to the judgment of the Labour Court. On that basis the factories can be got going again, the threat of a sugar shortage can be averted, the employment of workers in other industries can be safeguarded, and the conditions of employment of the sugar factory workers can be satisfactorily adjusted. If that basis is not accepted, we will have a period of very great difficulty which the public will attribute to undue selfishness. Neither in the short run nor in the long run can the sugar workers gain by persistence in their present course.
It has been suggested in the Press that a main cause of the dispute is the employment by the company of some ex-Army men in positions which were vacant. As the House is aware, the Government has appealed to all employers to employ ex-soldiers whose services with the Forces during the emergency denied them the opportunity of obtaining civil employment which others continued to hold. The Government could not agree that men who served their country as soldiers during the war should be denied the opportunity of employment in this country at anyone's behest. If there are legitimate grievances arising out of that matter, the company will no doubt examine them; but if there is a view that ex-soldiers are not to get employment with the sugar company, it would be an extraordinary state of affairs which nobody would be prepared to tolerate.
The sugar manufacturing industry was started in this country by decision of the Government for the purpose of giving employment to the workers who are engaged in it, to give a new outlet for farm produce and to secure essential supplies during such an emergency as that through which we are now passing. The workers in the industry owe an obligation to the community. In the pre-war years we could have imported sugar much cheaper than we could make it ourselves. For the benefit of those workers amongst others we paid a higher price for sugar to keep their employment going. Possibly in the post-war years we will be again able to import sugar cheaper than we can make it. Whether we do or not will be decided by the Irish public and their decision may well be influenced by their experience in this year.
It would be ironic, indeed, if this important industry were to be destroyed by the very men for whose benefit it was established. It would be equally ironic if, at the time that it is most vital to the country that the industry should work smoothly, its operation was disrupted by reckless action. It is in consequence of the obligation which the men on strike have to the public of this country as workers in the sugar industry that we can expect them now to show some appreciation of the public needs. Whatever their sense of grievance, whatever pressure is being put upon them by the organisers of this unofficial strike, they have a duty to their country also.
If that sense of obligation and duty is not strong enough to induce them to get the factories working without delay, it may well lead us to despair for the future. However, I am not without hope that when the men realise the consequences of persistence in their present action on the country as a whole, on the employment of other workers, on the prestige of Irish trade unionism and on the future of their industry, they will decide to return to work.
