asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will give the history of events leading to the present dispute and strike in the Dublin District Milk Board; and if he will outline the steps taken to prevent this strike occurring.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dublin District Milk Board Dispute.
10.
The present dispute concerns part of the Board's staff—that is, the headquarters clerical and inspectorial staff. Their salaries had been substantially increased as a result of my acceptance of arbitration findings by the late Professor T. S. Wheeler in December, 1961.
On 24th December, 1963, the Workers Union of Ireland served a claim for further substantial salary increases for the staff in question, and it was made clear at discussions between my Department and the Union in February, 1964, that this further claim was in addition to the 12 per cent increase represented by the ninth round of general salary and wage increases. The claim, plus the ninth round, would represent increases of 27 per cent at the minima of the salary scales, and over 35 per cent at the maxima.
Following the meeting with my Department in February, the union furnished, on 2nd March, some information that had been asked for as to the basis of the original claim. On 10th April, the union demanded the immediate payment of the ninth round, without prejudice to the claim served in December last, and that that claim be submitted to arbitration. On 24th April, I approved of a 12 per cent increase, that is, the ninth round, on existing salaries as from 1st February, 1964. On 13th May, the union served strike notice which took effect on 25th May.
The staff employed by the Board on the Leinster cattle breeding service, who are not involved in the union's claim, also withdrew their service as from 25th May.
Would it not be right to say now that the dispute boils down to this: the staff of the Dublin District Milk Board are being refused arbitration machinery in relation to the dispute, and have been refused it? I should like an answer to that.
I am very interested in the Deputy's point of view as expressed in the supplementary question. I thought his Party were rather sceptical as to the wisdom of granting this 12 per cent increase. Apparently some members of that Party now would like not only the ninth round but the tenth round.
That is not an answer to the question.
We forced you into arbitration.
Is it not right to say that the Taoiseach said in this House that there would be no need in future for any dispute to take place because the machinery was there and should be used? Is it not right to say that the staff of the Dublin District Milk Board have been refused the use of that machinery? Is it not further right to say that for the past two weeks no insemination has taken place, that there is an income loss of about £600 a week, that the farmers who used the service now cannot use it, and that nothing is being done to settle the dispute?
As I said in my reply, this claim was originally arbitrated by the late Professor Wheeler——
In 1961.
——in 1961, and the award was accepted and made retrospective to 1st September, 1960. It was a very generous award at the time——
Quite; that is admitted.
Here are the details of the award. Clerks' salaries prior to the award, £305 to £710, and the award was £330 to £930, an increase of £220.
Maximum.
Yes. Supervisors, £503 to £770, increased to £955 to £1,130— an increase on the maximum of £260; inspectors, £650 to £710, and the award was £610 to £940, an increase of £230. That award was, by comparison with similar grades in the Civil Service at the time, £117 more on the maximum than they were receiving. A claim was made for an increase prior to the national agreement on wages, about one month or so before. The national agreement was arrived at and was to cover a period of two and a half years. I implemented the terms of that agreement as far as the staff were concerned. I am quite conscious of what a strike, especially as it affects the AI services, means to herd owners in the Dublin area, but if a national agreement is arrived at in this way and if a small group of people decide to select a time for strike action that will cause the greatest havoc to those affected by it, then if we are to be moved around in our decisions by that sort of approach on the part of employees, it would be a very bad thing indeed. While I do not want to say anything that would aggravate the position, I can at least say that, in my judgment, the people who provoked this strike were very foolish and I would say, having regard to the history of this case, fairly unreasonable.
Would the Minister say whether or not there were any negotiations between the union and his Department? Is it not a fact that when the union officials were at the Department, they were allowed to make a case but received no comment whatever from his officials? Is it not further a fact that three stereotyped replies are all that have been received from the Department in reply to the letter sent in? Is it not further a fact that those people have asked for arbitration which would, if the Minister's case is as strong as he says, find in favour of the Department? The judges have got a substantial increase since and they are now getting another one.
What is the meaning of a national agreement on wages?
The Minister is well aware that the national agreement was made subsequent to this status claim and his officials can advise him on that.
I have admitted that it was. What bearing has this status claim, even if it was made prior to this national agreement which naturally was taken to cover all such claims which were pending?
Did the Minister ever hear of the national teachers?
This is becoming an argument.
Will the Minister agree to have arbitration?
Will the Minister admit that if he agrees to let this case go to arbitration the strike will automatically cease and the staff are agreeable to accept whatever emerges from the arbitration proceedings?
I say that if we were to permit a situation like that to develop after a national agreement has been arrived at——
Before it.
——in the way I have described and in the manner Deputies know, and if we are to go to arbitration every time an employee comes in with a sore toe and says: "I must have arbitration on this claim", I wonder where we would get. For my part, I hope my conception of justice is as keen as that of any man but that is not my conception of what is fair and just, and I deeply resent the fact that 19 or 20 employees will take action at a selected time and force out 40 or 50 important people at this particular season, when in fact they have been treated in a manner about which they could not justifiably complain.
Will the Minister not agree that the essence of arbitration machinery is that the arbitrator decides rather than one section or another? Will he not further agree that if he has the good case he maintains he has, the arbitrator should find in his favour and is the arbitrator not the proper person to decide the issue as he has been nominated for the purpose?
This claim was arbitrated upon and the award covered the eighth round plus, and it was granted retrospectively to the people who are now on strike.
What has that got to do with it?
They now have the ninth round and they want the ninth round plus, and they want me to allow arbitration on the plus——
(Interruptions.)
Question No. 11, to the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
I can only say that as far as I am concerned they will not get this concession in the present circumstances.
The big stick. You are throwing over the arbitration machinery and we know where that leads.