asked the Minister for Labour if he will take all steps open to him to normalise relations between the Board for the Employment of the Blind and their employees.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Employment of the Blind.
22.
I am informed that a meeting between the parties has been arranged for tomorrow. A Labour Court conciliation officer is in touch with the parties.
Would the Minister understand, in relation to the meeting between the parties tomorrow, to which he refers, that there is a very serious position here? The Board for the Employment of the Blind is completely unrepresentative and is in the hands of one or two people. There is to be a march through the city this evening by blind workers in the employment of the Board. What is called for is an immediate meeting to reconstitute the Board. Would the Minister for Labour immediately consult with the Minister for Social Welfare on the matter so that such a necessary meeting will no longer be delayed? It will require more than tomorrow's meeting to solve the issues in dispute.
Is the Deputy saying that a meeting between the parties cannot solve the dispute?
The Board is completely unrepresentative at the moment. The problem is now so grave that it would need the reconstitution of the Board to solve the situation. A meeting has been requested between the union representing the workers and the responsible Minister. The most essential thing at the moment is a meeting between the Minister and the League of the Blind with a view to doing something about reconstituting the Board.
It is natural that the Deputy should put it that way. I would hope that the meeting tomorrow will find a solution. I should not think in terms of an inquiry or anything like that.
Between whom is the meeting tomorrow?
I think the less said about it the better—the workers and the management.
Would the Minister agree that the Board for the Employment of the Blind have, in fact, threatened the Labour Court? They threatened to go to a higher court of law. Surely that should suggest that that Board is very dangerously constituted and certainly is not a basis for peace in this area?
The Minister for Social Welfare is not at all sympathetic to the idea of questioning the authority of the Labour Court or of not supporting an award made by the Labour Court. This is his decision in the matter. Therefore, there need be no worry about the Minister's attitude towards a questioning of the authority of the Labour Court to hear this case or meeting the award made.
Be careful, now.
There is no need to be careful.
Is it not a fact that the Department notified the League that, since it was a social service, they would be prepared to agree to similar types of increases to those granted to social welfare recipients? Are they not the author of their own misfortune?
The Minister for Social Welfare has taken the decision to honour the Labour Court award.
I am not aware of any such notification.
Hear, hear.
The Deputy may take it that the Government would not support any questioning of the Labour Court's right to examine this case. The Labour Court itself did, in an earlier situation, say that it was not entitled to examine but when it did decide to examine the dispute and make an award, as I have often told the people on the Labour Benches before, we would naturally like the Labour Court award to be accepted.
Would the Minister——
Question No. 23, Deputy Eugene Gilhawley.
Would the Minister——
We cannot have a speech on this. There are other questions on the Order Paper.
Would the Minister agree that there is to be a march in the city streets by blind workers——
I have called Question No. 23.
(Interruptions.)
Is it true that the Minister for Labour, who is a professional man, is now asking the Minister for Social Welfare, who is not a professional man, to diagnose what is wrong between these two associations and the Department of Labour? Surely it is for the Minister for Labour and his Department to diagnose what is wrong.
The Minister for Social Welfare accepts the Labour Court's jurisdiction——
He is withdrawing his previous instruction to the Labour Court.
——and he will honour the award. If the Deputy sees anything strange in that then it is a good thing the Christmas Recess is coming.
It is the Minister for Labour's job and not the job of the Minister for Social Welfare to diagnose what is wrong. The Minister is just passing the buck to the Minister for Social Welfare.
Question No. 23. We cannot have speeches.
There is no question of passing the buck.
The Minister is passing the buck to his colleague, the Minister for Social Welfare.
Question No. 23. Deputy O'Leary may not continue making speeches.
(Interruptions.)
All I can tell the House is that we would like all disputes to be settled by management-labour meetings.
Do not be transferring responsibility now from one Minister to another. This is the Minister's job.
The Labour Court decided it has jurisdiction; we accept that. It has given an award; we accept that. If the meeting does not find a solution then we will have to find some other solution.
(Interruptions.)
Question No. 23.