asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he is aware that a dispute in a firm (name supplied) in Limerick has resulted in a grave shortage of cement in the south of Ireland; that this dispute arose from the dismissal on short notice of seven electricians and four fitters; and that many efforts to resolve this dispute have been unsuccessful; and whether in view of the vital importance of the cement industry to the economy of the country he will consider taking steps to nationalise the industry.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Limerick Firm Dispute.
74.
The Government has made provision for adequate machinery for the settlement of disputes of this kind, and the conciliation services of the Labour Court and the court itself are available in the present case.
I have already announced that licences are available for builders and merchants for the importation of cement, free of duty, to alleviate the shortage. I have no proposals for the nationalisation of the cement industry; such a course would not in any event prevent the occurrence of industrial disputes in the industry.
Bearing in mind the Minister's interest in the ordinary worker, I would ask the Minister is he not aware of the fact that there is no dispute, good, bad or indifferent, in connection with this particular industry but, because the man who runs the industry has close associations with the FUE, he has seen fit to close the industry, an industry on which the whole country depends? In view of this arrogant approach and the dictatorial manner of this particular individual— he has refused both at the labour level and at the higher ministerial level to meet anybody to discuss the problem and reopen the industry—is it not incumbent on the Minister, bearing in mind the responsibility he has to the nation generally, to bring people such as this individual to heel? The only way to do that in this particular industry would be by nationalising the industry and putting it on the same basis as Aer Lingus or the ESB.
I am not to be taken as agreeing with all the descriptions used by Deputy Coughlan——
They are all true.
—— in his supplementary question, but I think I should say that I endeavoured, by intervention with this firm before this lay-off took place, to prevent such a lay-off. However, the firm did not see its way to agreeing with my request. I have made it clear in a public statement that I disapproved of the firm's action and, as I said in reply to the Deputy's question, I have done what was open to me to try to alleviate the position by allowing cement to be imported free of duty. I would point out again to the Deputy that nationalisation of this industry would not obviate industrial disputes.
This is a most important industry and the fact that the Minister is allowing cement to be imported free of duty does not make any difference good, bad or indifferent because the imported cement will not be handled; it will be blacked by the workers. That is No. 1. Secondly, I know the Minister did everything possible to try to settle this dispute. We all know in Limerick that the Minister did everything a man could do to try to get this man to see reason and bring him to heel. The workers are well aware of that and they appreciate what the Minister tried but failed to do. The Minister having done all that, we are now faced with the position that an industry such as this, in which there is no dispute of any kind with maintenance staff, have locked out the staff and have continued to lock them out and will starve them into submission, if necessary, in order that this individual will gain his own ends because of his close relationship with the FUE. Bearing all this in mind, is it not incumbent on the Minister now to move in and introduce legislation similar to the legislation that was introduced in the thirties in connection with foreign insurance companies?
Question No. 75.
Let the Minister nationalise the industry and that will solve all our problems for the future.
Is the Minister aware that it was an instruction given by the FUE in January to all firms involved to dismiss all members of two unions that has caused this trouble and, in view of that, would the Minister consider now that the FUE should be asked to withdraw that instruction immediately?
I am dealing only with this particular problem in this particular question. I would point out that in any industrial dispute there are two sides and, under the system that we operate of free collective bargaining and the right to strike, people may do unreasonable and irrational things. If we stand over the right to strike and free collective bargaining, then we are standing for that too: we are saying people have the right to do irrational and unreasonable things and, if we suffer as a result of that—most people are suffering at the moment—we have to recognise that that is because we have decided, so far at any rate, as a people to have this kind of system and, if we want to avoid the consequences of this situation, then we will have to change the system.
Would the Minister agree that it was, in fact, as a result of an instruction given by the FUE that this firm did what it did and, if that is so, would the Minister not consider that the FUE should be asked —they might be more reasonable than the particular individual—to withdraw their instruction? That would have the result of settling the dispute.
I am not aware that that is so, but I am not denying that it may be so.
Would the Minister inquire?
May I point out again that the conciliation services of the Labour Court are available to settle the dispute?
That is a different thing altogether. There is no dispute. This is carrying out an instruction.
There are two sides to it and the employers' side is that it is part of the dispute; the workers maintain it is a separate dispute.
Surely the Minister must realise that, if this attitude is persisted in, there will be a national strike? If the employer locks out people who have nothing at all to do with the dispute, surely he must realise that every worker in the country will react in the only way in which he can react? In order to avoid that, I appeal again to the Minister to ask the FUE to withdraw that letter, which had no effect except with the one firm.
I will undertake to consult with my colleague, the Minister for Labour.
That satisfies me.
Is the Minister not aware that Cement Ltd. refused to meet the men at discussion level? Is he aware that there is no dispute on one side and there is no dispute on the other side either? This situation has been brought about because of this man's close association with the FUE. Surely to heaven, before ever a strike takes place in any industry, there are discussions between management and labour. In this instance this arrogant man, who is in receipt of over £30,000 a year to do his job, has refused to discuss the matter with his workers and locked them out. Will the Minister stand for that kind of conduct? Will the Minister give me an answer?
I have nothing further to add to what I have already said.