Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Mar 1969

Vol. 239 No. 2

Committee on Finance. - Adjournment Debate: Dismissal of Maintenance Craftsmen.

It is my duty to raise this matter on the Adjournment, even if it may cause some inconvenience, but we must bear in mind our responsibilities in this matter.

I am very closely related to the people concerned in this dispute and, for the Minister's benefit, I wish to let him know briefly of the hundreds of people who are directly involved in the lay-off in this industry which is completely monopolised and of the indirect connections that were involved in the industry. Bearing these things in mind, it is about time something was done or that a full detailed investigation was held by the Minister, particularly because of the hardships involved on account of the lockout of these workers. Eleven men were involved who had no connection whatsoever with the dispute in question but because the chief of the firm in question was a member of this octopus organisation — the FUE — and because he was closely connected with it, these people were involved.

That is unjust and unfair; in fact, it is inhuman and I would go so far as to say that it is bordering on illegality. These men got seven days protective notice and when the seven days were up they had to get out; naturally, their fellow-workers, skilled and unskilled, had a duty to respect the livelihoods of these men and, consequently, they put a picket on the premises of Cement Ltd, in Limerick.

There were firms engaged in this dispute who were in keen competition with overseas industries and who were trying to export and who had orders and obligations outside of this country also. Because of the closure of certain industries in this country, advantage was taken of the wholesale dumping which was carried on to the detriment of some of our local industries but Cement Ltd knew that no matter what happened they would not lose custom because they had no competition and they took advantage of this fact to help to crush the demands which have been now acceded to. They also took advantage of the position to ridicule Ministers and the Labour Court as we saw in this morning's papers.

I do not know what service the FUE is giving to this country because one cannot possibly legislate nationally for any particular industry. These things must be done locally but Cement Ltd took advantage of this and held the country up to ransom. Were it not for the fact that we had sensible people in the city of Limerick, organised craftsmen, who were prepared to take their time and who were not in any way rushed into making decisions, this strike would have continued. However, because of the goodwill and the commonsense of the people, sanity prevailed, as the Minister had requested that it should, and pickets were withdrawn from Sunday night.

The FUE and Cement Ltd have refused on many occasions to negotiate with these men but the men bore this with patience and intelligence and they did not rush into any rash decision. They met this afternoon and, while a final decision has not been reached, it is expected that such will be reached some time tonight. At the moment, the matter is being discussed in Limerick, the men having gone there tonight from Dublin.

The case I wish to put to the Minister is that these things should not be allowed to continue and people who have a monopoly in any particular line ought not to put a lock on their gates, as it were, in so far as the workers are concerned. In view of the hardship that has been caused to the workers, skilled and unskilled, in this industry, I am asking the Minister to have a full and detailed inquiry into the action of this firm with particular reference to compensation to these men for the loss of work involved. If the Minister will assure me that he will set up an inquiry and if he will institute a full and detailed investigation with particular reference to Cement Limited and the action of the management there, I will be happy and the people concerned in Limerick will be happy because we know that our case is right, we know that there has been victimisation of these people and that they had not hand, act or part in this dispute. There are bigger things involved. If the Minister does this now, not alone will he be setting a headline for others but he will bring to heel the certain employers, whom he mentioned here last week in his speech, that they should show responsibility to their workers and that they should treat their workers as human beings like themselves, with their own domestic lives and all the troubles that go with them. By doing what I am suggesting he will show the country at large that never again will we have a repetition of what happened in Limerick and Drogheda.

The information I have on the case is that the factory concerned employs 65 maintenance craftsmen and all except 11 of those are covered by a house agreement. This remaining 11 are not covered by the house agreement for various reasons, such as the fact that they are not long enough in employment and not established. At the outbreak of the maintenance strike the 11 men not covered by the house agreement were given one week's protective notice and were let go from their employment on Friday, 7th February. Work continued at the factory on the 8th and 9th February and on Monday, 10th February the maintenance workers, who are, in fact, covered by the house agreement, did not report for work and pickets were placed on the factory. This resulted, excluding the clerical workers, in a work force of 416 people being out of work. The FUE maintain that the severance of the 11 maintenance men was part of the general maintenance strike and its implications. The union side maintain this was a separate issue. They maintain that the dismissals were a separate issue. The picketing continued throughout the strike and it was continued to be treated as part of the general maintenance strike by the FUE. I understand that letters to the various unions repeated in writing that when the strike was fixed and the pickets withdrawn the craftsmen would be reemployed immediately.

This morning my information was that the general workers resumed work at midnight, 10th-11th March, and the following morning, after the lifting of the pickets, the company contacted the 11 maintenance workers to say that work was available for them and five of them were working this morning with the other maintenance workers. It seems to me that everybody is back apart from anyone who may be sick or not otherwise available. The FUE, representing the company, is having meetings with the unions at present.

This is one of the many irrational and unorthodox causes of hardship. I do not know whether everyone has a full idea of the total hardship caused by the various effects of the maintenance strike. I think, too, that it was regarded as a free-for-all battle and those who regarded it as such made full use of the "free" part of the idea. I am satisfied that to investigate any one area would not give a balanced view. I have decided that the whole maintenance dispute should be the subject of a searching inquiry which would have to be comprehensive and cover all areas involved. I hope to set it up to-morrow or after and I do it with the intention of exposing to everybody concerned the ill-effects of the abuses of freedom in this type of free-for-all behaviour. The only balanced way is to examine the whole situation comprehensively. Perhaps then we may gain something from such an examination. I have hopes that we will.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.50 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday 13th March, 1969.

Top
Share