asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce when it is proposed to increase the number of conciliation officers in order to minimise delays in the Labour Court conciliation service.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Labour Court.
36.
The question of increasing the number of conciliation officers is at present under consideration.
37.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he is aware that the Labour Court, although working in two divisions, is operating months behind an acceptable schedule; and if, in view of the decision announced in Dáil Éireann on 3rd November, 1965, which will operate to reduce the Court to one division for four months, he will introduce a one section Bill to increase the membership of the Court.
I am not aware that parties bringing disputes before the Labour Court are finding that the Court is operating months behind a schedule acceptable to them. If the Deputy will furnish details of specific cases, I shall look into the matter.
I do not propose to introduce a Bill at this stage to increase the membership of the Court.
The Minister must be aware that there is very considerable delay in having a case heard before the full Court even though the Court is working in two divisions and in view of the fact that the proposed salary-freeze commission will be using some of the personnel from the Labour Court does it not follow that the position will become progressively worse? Will the Minister not make some inquiries from the Labour Court about this matter and see if it is necessary to introduce the legislation which has been suggested?
I have already made all the inquiries I need make. There are very few complaints from unions about delay and there are no delays of the length the Deputy suggests in the question. As to the use of personnel of the Court, I understand from the Minister for Finance that he intends inviting representative members, not the chairman and vice-chairman, of the Court. So that, since the main burden of work and investigation and formulation of recommendations falls on the chairman and vice-chairman it is not expected that the absence of representative members on other work will aggravate delays already existing.
The Minister is aware that there are only six members —two chairmen, two employers and two workers—who sit on the full-time Courts. Will he not agree that delays of six to ten months in the fixing of a date for important cases affecting thousands of workers are delays which should not occur?
The Deputy's information is quite different from mine. My information is that the average time is six to eight weeks from conciliation to the fixing of a date for hearing.
I am not giving the Minister hearsay evidence. I am giving facts which I know to be true. I know of a case affecting local authority employees which was reported to the Court in February of this year and a date for the hearing has not yet been fixed. There are 15,000 employees involved.
From the information supplied to me, which is not hearsay either, the investigation takes place six to eight weeks after the termination of conciliation.
The Minister will appreciate that if there is delay in having a case heard before the full Court there is a certain amount of frustration caused which may lead to industrial dispute. If there is any foundation for the allegation of delays, as there must be—I accept what Deputy Tully says—the Minister should take appropriate steps to rectify the situation.
My information is from the Court and the Court regulates its own procedure. My information is that the Court meets once in two weeks to fix what they will do in that time. They are quite free to change the order of business in any case which may seem to them to be of particular urgency but they have very few complaints from unions about delays of this kind. If the Deputies will give me more accurate information rather than hearsay, in regard to cases, I shall deal with them.
Deputy James Tully and Deputy Cluskey rose.
There are two Deputies on their feet.
Would the Minister not agree that quite a number of the strikes which have occurred over the past six months have been caused because of the fact that there was no offer made by the Labour Court to settle the dispute in the normal way?
I am sure there are many other considerations in that question. As to arranging a time of hearing, the Labour Court is quite free, if it considers urgency exists, to bring forward an urgent case.
Is that not the point I am making, that because of the fact that cases are brought forward, urgent cases are getting precedence over other ones?
I am quite prepared to deal with any specific cases the Deputy may give me.
Question No. 38.
The Minister will appreciate——
I have called Question No. 38.