Deputy Dr. J. O'Donovan gave notice he wished to raise the question of the continued closure of the commercial banks.
Adjournment Debate. - Closure of Commercial Banks.
Everyone realises the seriousness of the closure of the commercial banks and that in a situation of this sort nothing should be said which would exacerbate feelings in this matter, though judging by what is happening over the last ten weeks it would be very hard to exacerbate feelings in the matter.
The Irish Banks Standing Committee who, I take it, are the essential people in this case, have at no time during the many disputes and strikes which have occurred since the year 1950 pleaded that they could not pay what the officials asked for. What they have said in effect is that they are paying their staffs adequately for the work the staffs do. This is a problem which it is not at all easy to solve, because who is to determine the answer to this problem? There can be no absolute standards and therefore, as Lady Wootton wrote in her book on wages in Britain: "It tends to be the done thing."
My recollection goes back to the time when in this city the Guinness staff were paid completely different rates from those of other people and it did not give rise to any difficulty. The general attitude of people in other walks of life was "Lucky fellow to be in the Guinness company". There seems to be an attitude nowdays, which comes from an undue importance being attached to the opinions of the Civil Service, that everyone who has the same kind of work, no matter where he does it, must be paid the same amount. This is absolute nonsense. In life if you get the breaks you get a better salary than the other person. Even in the Civil Service, if you become attached as a young man to a Department which expands, you go up with the balloon. Nobody need tell me that is not so because I know it to be the case. Therefore, this is not getting down to the root of the problem.
The insistence of the spokesmen of the banks that if they were to meet the staff demands they would be upsetting wage and salary patterns in industry is a matter of opinion. I am not unaware that it was a major matter in relation to the recent cement strike, which went on for 21 weeks. The bank lockout, to give it its technical name, is ten weeks in existence, and the original forecast, which was commonly heard, that it would go on until September or October looks as if it will prove true.
One of the reasons for the seriousness of the situation is that approximately 50 per cent of the staffs of the commercial banks are women or, as they used to be known in the past, lady bank clerks. The women officials are treated completely differently from the way the men officials are treated. In the first six years they are on the same scale but after that, especially for promotion, the women clerks are submitted to entirely different tests. This promotion is almost automatic now for the men officials whereas some years ago all the posts were filled by people returning from the first world war, and the men who went in between the years 1925 and 1935, on leaving school at the age of 18, had a very tough period. Younger men entering in the last ten years have, on the whole, done well in terms of promotion. On the other hand, the women officials are submitted to extremely severe personality and intelligence tests, and this is quite unfair and unreasonable.
The Minister has not got down to bringing the parties together to negotiate seriously about this dispute. So far it has only been at conciliation level, which is a preliminary level, and this is a matter about which I do know something as a result of a number of years' experience of this kind of work. How long more will this dispute go on before a serious effort to put an end to it occurs? I remember many years ago meeting the late James Larkin in the corridor of this House when there was a serious dispute on and I asked him how it was going. He said: "We are about half way through". I think it would be a common opinion that this dispute is only about half way through. My reason for raising this question this evening is not to argue the case, but this closure of the commercial banks is a very serious matter for the community.
That is an aspect of the case which cannot be discussed on this question. A short time ago I ruled out for discussion a question by Deputy Garret FitzGerald on the grounds that it was too big a question for a half hour's debate on the Adjournment. The Deputy must keep within the ambit of the question.
All right, I shall keep within the ambit of the question. Let me say this, however: the newspapers, I am told, have shown their prejudice in this matter by refusing to publish letters about the dispute. I wrote to them myself when the 1966 strike was on and I could not get any newspaper to publish the letter although I delivered it personally by hand to two of the three editors. One of them said to me: "Do you want to get both of us sacked?" I said that would not worry me unduly. The other man said I was taking a crack at a certain bank director, but this was quite untrue. There is coercive evidence that the directors of the commercial banks are, like the directors of Cement Limited, acting as agents for the Government to try to defuse the inflation in the economy. The last time the bank strike occurred in 1966, there was a considerable addition to the credit in the economy. This time it has been different because, for one thing, the banks closed without notice on 30th April and there are attractions for money that were not there in 1966, 11 per cent rates for moneys and that kind of thing.
The closure of the banks this time is much more serious to many people than in 1966. I think the bank officials have been justified in refusing the offer. It does not matter what I think, but I understand the vote was 90 per cent against accepting the terms they were offered. Of course what they were offered was a 17 per cent increase. This 17 per cent would not meet the cost of living increase which has already occurred since the bank salaries were last fixed. This offer is to last for 21 months, to the 31st March, 1972. One would need to be very green indeed to believe that we are at the end of the inflation which has been present in our economy for so many years. Nobody believes that.
The case made by the bank officials is that they are in competition for lodgings and the ordinary amenities of life when they come to this city with people who are better paid in the Civil Service, the Port and Docks Board and the Electricity Supply Board and therefore they should be paid the same kind of salaries as these people are. They also plead that it takes 22 years to reach the maximum of the scale for any bank official who is not promoted. That is to say, he will be 40 years of age before he reaches his maximum, that is if he goes into the bank at the age of 18. This means that he will be 40 before he will have caught up with a worker who qualified as a craftworker at the age of 21. I am not to be taken as arguing as between the one group and the other, but you have to make some sort of comparison. Scales lasting 22 years are just not sensible. On the whole, people should be remunerated for their work and they should reach the top point after ten years service because they will be as good after ten years as they are ever going to be.
A normal scale would be ten years and shortening the scale would greatly improve the atmosphere between the officials of the banks and the bank directors. I have my own views about the knowledge of banking possessed by many bank directors. I had an interesting experience in this regard about ten years ago. I said to a final year class in UCD "You know there are certain bank directors and they are not too good but I am not prepared to mention their names" and immediately from the back of the class came the names. The names were thrown at me from the back of the class, these young people knew them. We are not such a big community that we do not know what happens, or that if you hit this end of the desk it will not sound at the other end. I am not to be taken as being in disagreement with the way in which this very awkward Department was managed by the Minister for External Affairs, Dr. Hillery, when he was Minister for Labour, but it may well be that it was handled too nicely, too easily and it is just possible that the present Minister may get the backlash.
There was a time not so long ago when politicians settled strikes. Deputy Paddy Burke used be a tremendous operator in that field and the Minister will remember that too. Then came the day when politicians were expected to keep out of this kind of dispute. I do think, however, that the Minister, even though he may be a politician, has a different kind of duty and I would appeal to him in all sincerity, because of the implications arising from a prolonged closure of the commercial banks, to try to push through the remaining stages of this matter. I am as well aware as the Minister is that the votes have not been fully counted yet but it is well known what the result will be. An offer of 17 per cent at this moment which, of course, will not cover the inflation over the next 21 months, is not likely to be accepted by the people involved. I would ask the Minister, with the help of his Department's officials, to try to settle this dispute. The other dispute did end up after 21 weeks and let us hope that this dispute will end up after 12 weeks.
We in the Labour Party are always very loath to ask for direct Ministerial intervention in industrial disputes but such is the degree of economic and social dislocation arising from the bank dispute——
That is an aspect we cannot discuss, as I pointed out to Deputy O'Donovan.
Already the direct loss to employees has been £1 million, if I may quote the quarterly economic commentary of the ESRI. Considerable bitterness has been created between the IBOA and the Banks Standing Committee. Many of the staffs are abroad at the moment and some of them are sending remittances home. In view of the serious features of this dispute it would be appropriate for the Minister to exercise his good offices, bring the parties together and urge them to re-enter into direct negotiations under the auspices of the banks Joint Industrial Council under the chairmanship of that excellent head of the conciliation services, Mr. Dermot McDermott. It is not the function of this House to do for either side what they must necessarily do for themselves by way of direct negotiations. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the amounts involved, or the rejection of them, or to suggest terms, this being essentially an industrial relations matter of a trade union-employer nature, but nevertheless may we on a national basis express our concern to the Minister about the effect of this dispute on the economy, on tourism, on small incomes and so on.
Accordingly, I would urge the Minister to bring the staffs and the managements together to get the matter sorted out and to get the rather shattered state of credit, loans, bills, advances and wage payments back on to an even keel as quickly as possible. I have no doubt in doing so that the newspapers will give due prominence to the duly authorised statements of the parties concerned without any inhibitions on their part.
The negotiations aimed at settling this dispute are being conducted within the Irish Banks Joint Industrial Council. This council is representative of the employers, the banks industrial relations committee, on the one side and the employees, the Irish Bank Officials' Association, on the other side. The chairman of the Joint Industrial Council is a senior industrial relations officer of the Labour Court.
On 30th June the banks staff relations committee prepared a set of proposals and on the 3rd July these were submitted for ballot to the members of the IBOA. The results of this ballot are still coming in and it will be some days before the results are submitted to the JIC who will then further consider the results of the ballot.
If the proposals are turned down— and although I have not had official notification about it, the Deputies inform me that they have been turned down and newspaper reports seem to have anticipated this also——
In fairness, I might say we are going on newspaper reports also.
If they are turned down, I expect the parties would look again at their own agreed procedures for settling disputes. I will quote the relevant paragraph in these agreed procedures, referring to the JIC:
In the event of the Council not succeeding in effecting a settlement of any dispute arising as to the terms and conditions of employment of serving officials, the matter in dispute may be referred by either side to a Tribunal consisting of a Chairman and two other members; the Chairman to be appointed by agreement between the parties or, failing agreement, by the Labour Court. No award of the Tribunal shall be binding on either party unless it is accepted by both parties.
It will be clear to the House that the dispute-settling procedures agreed between the parties have not been exhausted and it would be entirely inappropriate for me to intervene in negotiations which are in progress. Indeed, I should have preferred if this question had not been raised on the Adjournment because there is always a danger of bias being detected in a speaker's approach to the subject. In fact, I think Deputy O'Donovan spoke entirely on the side of the employees and I am not sure that this will make it any easier for future settlement of the dispute if it has not been settled in the ballot which has taken place.
If I may use that currently rather overworked phrase, I must refrain from making any reference that would exacerbate the situation. I can only assure the House and those who have expressed concern about this and other strikes that not only am I as concerned as anyone else but I am more concerned because I consider it part of the work of my Department to ensure that industrial disputes are brought to a speedy conclusion or, in fact, that they do not occur in the first place.
It would not be inappropriate for me to make some reference to this belief that the Minister should get involved in every dispute at some stage —indeed many people consider he should be involved at an early stage. I wish to assure the House that I keep myself fully informed regarding every dispute and I watch carefully the progress of negotiations. However, in this case the people concerned have had their own procedures built in by agreement of all concerned. The procedures are as good as any I could devise or design for them and if they do not use them properly I can hardly be blamed. However, I think they still have all the necessary machinery at their disposal to bring this dispute to an amicable conclusion.
The Minister for Labour is not a party to settling disputes as such in any legislation that has been provided for setting up the Department. One of the points which seem to have been emphasised when the Department was set up was that it would divorce any political action from the procedure of collective bargaining and the settlement of disputes and that it would provide the necessary machinery for settling disputes in all cases. The JIC is available to most of the large concerns in the country. The conciliation side of the industrial relations section of the Department of Labour, the Labour Court, and more recently the Rights Commissioners are also available.
Some people consider that, because something new is not introduced, what is already in existence is not good enough and they want some further institution to which they may appeal. Let us be very clear about every dispute: what is involved is the question of management trying to get off with a settlement on as easy terms as possible and the employees seeking the best possible terms they can extract. You have a war of attrition, a hardening of attitudes, with hopes raised that as much inconvenience as possible to the public service will be caused so that pressure will be brought to bear and people will be dragged in to make a settlement at any cost.
It is all very well for the Press and public commentators to blame the Minister for not getting into the dispute immediately but if this is going to be adopted as regular procedure— and it has not been recommended by the FUE or ICTU—then this whole matter of industrial relations as we know them——
We accept that, but this dispute has been going on for 2½ months——
Order. The Minister has only a few moments in which to reply.
The Deputy is merely confirming what I have been saying. It is not considered to be part of my job to be involved in these disputes. I have repeatedly said, as has my predecessor, that I should like to see the available machinery, which I consider is adequate, being used to the fullest extent. Granted, when a stage was reached in the cement strike, when I considered all avenues had been explored and stalemate was reached, then something outside the ordinary machinery had to operate and at that stage I intervened. However, the bank dispute is far from that stage but I would urge the parties concerned to use quickly the available machinery because with a hardening of attitudes and with recriminations taking place it will be all the more difficult, if not impossible, to keep negotiations going with the machinery at their disposal. If there is anything I can do to ensure that the parties do that, then I shall certainly lend my support.
That is as far as I am prepared to go in this sad affair of the bank strike, which I think is unique to this country. I do not want to make a case in favour of one side, as Deputy O'Donovan did, but many things have taken place in this dispute about which at some other time I would have something to say. I do not think that this dispute, which has continued for far too long, has been conducted in a manner worthy of people one might reasonably consider as being above average intelligence and having regard to their place in society. In the matter of the negotiations, or rather lack of negotiations, they adopted a most unbusinesslike approach and this applies to both sides. I am afraid this dispute has done nothing to improve the image of one of our greatest institutions. I would only hope that when this strike is ended—as end it must—both parties will have learned sufficient from it to set up within the framework of their own procedures some system of examination that will prevent their getting into this kind of situation again.
I have said that it is not the job of the Department of Labour to settle strikes but it is very much our job to watch for the public interest. Management are concerned about the successful conduct of their business, employees are concerned about getting proper terms and conditions, but the Department must watch on behalf of the public in general who also can be seriously affected by these events. This is an attitude to which I should like to give some deep consideration in relation to this particular strike and I shall not comment any further at this stage.
The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 9th July, 1970.