Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 18 Jun 1970

Vol. 247 No. 10

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Bank Dispute.

6.

asked the Minister for Labour if he proposes to take any action to resolve the present bank dispute.

An industrial relations officer of the Labour Court had a discussion yesterday with representative of the bank officials' association and he expects to meet representatives of the employers next Monday. I am hopeful that these discussions will lead to a resumption of full-scale negotiations.

Can I take it the Minister will have conveyed to both sides the importance in the public interest of a responsible and co-operative attitude being adopted?

I certainly will.

In view of the serious economic and social dislocation that this dispute has caused will the Minister tell the House if at any time during the course of this dispute he personally has met either of the parties involved with a view to urging them to enter into direct negotiations under the chairmanship of Mr. McDermott who is head of the conciliation service?

No, I have not met either side in the bank dispute yet.

I do not want to reiterate what I have said so often in this House but there is still adequate machinery available to them which has not been used. I was annoyed at the abrupt ending of the last negotiations and we must view this against the whole background of industrial relations and the agreed desire of everybody that free collective bargaining should continue.

In the event of a continued deadlock has the Minister any contingency plan?

I do not want to reveal my strategy publicly. I always have plans in spite of what the Deputy might say.

Can the Minister assure the House that he has a contingency plan in the event of a continued deadlock? Will the Minister answer that?

I prefer not to answer that question.

When parties to a dispute reach a deadlock situation and where, as we fully appreciate, the Minister has no desire to intervene—nor should the Minister intervene in terms of a settlement of the dispute—there is an obligation on the Minister to exercise his option——

The Deputy may not make a speech. Has he a question to put?

The Deputy should have listened to the answer I gave to Deputy Cosgrave's question.

On the occasion of the last bank strike the then Taoiseach met the people involved either on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day.

But if the then Taoiseach had not then met them I wonder how many fewer or shorter strikes we would have had since?

The Minister has said he is reluctant to make public his plan for setting the strike. Would he consider the question as to whether, if he made the terms of his statement public, it might help matters and, if it would help matters, would he then make it public?

This is something which goes far beyond the concept of a political football. It is a serious matter and I do not want to score off anybody. One has to handle the situation with responsibility. I do not want to create a situation where people will know that I am prepared to jump in and settle this dispute by Government direction. That is not on, it has not been and it will not be.

Would it be fair to describe the Minister's attitude as one of masterly inactivity?

The Deputy is an irresponsible pup.

Deputy O'Leary is very good at making these allegations but if he were to consult with some of the people more intimately associated with the Labour movement he would find the advice quite different.

The Minister has a very embarrassing title. He is called the Minister for Labour but he considers his job consists chiefly of minding his own business.

Top
Share