asked the Minister for Labour if he is aware of the protracted negotiations between the oil companies and their tanker drivers and the resultant breakdown in these negotiations; and the steps he took to secure a settlement prior to the strike.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Oil Tanker Drivers' Dispute.
14.
I am aware of the protracted negotiations which took place between the oil companies and the tanker drivers and the resultant breakdown in these negotiations. As to the steps taken by me to secure a settlement prior to the strike I must inform the Deputy that prior to the strike, the conciliation service of the Labour Court intervened with the aim of securing a settlement. Naturally in the absence of fore-knowledge that a strike was about to take place it was not appropriate for me to intervene while both parties were engaged in negotiations.
Would the Minister like to avail of this opportunity to tell the House what hopes there are for an early settlement to this dispute? Would the Minister enlarge on the statements he made on television last night of the steps he will take to bring in some remedial measures?
The Deputy has a good deal of experience of problems in industrial relations and he will appreciate that all the efforts of the Government side, and the industrial relations agencies, such as the Labour Court and conciliation service, are bent towards getting a solution which will provide for an early resumption of work. Beyond saying that efforts are even now proceeding to restart negotiations to be accompanied by a resumption of work the Deputy will appreciate that in the national interest it would not be helpful that one should start going into speculation at this delicate point in this very difficult dispute.
Would the Minister not agree that, as this dispute has been going on for six months, as Minister for Labour it was his job to endeavour to avoid the chaos that has resulted from this dispute? He should have intervened without being asked.
I accept the Deputy's sincerity but if I were to intervene in negotiations which are always proceeding in the strategic industries in the country—one could list at least a dozen strategic industries—I would receive no co-operation and very little welcome from both sides engaged in such negotiations. The whole health of our system depends on good relations between employers and worker representatives and were the State to intervene clumsily in all the negotiations going on around the country it would not be helpful and would not lead to the kind of happy result which I know the Deputy would like to see brought about.
No Deputy on this side of the House would suggest a clumsy interference by the Minister, or anybody on his behalf, but surely the Minister would agree that the system which presently appertains in strategic industries like this one can leave us in a vulnerable situation? It can leave many thousands of employed people in a vulnerable situation. Several months ago I asked the Minister about investigating the possibility of some type of early warning system. I appreciate that the Minister cannot be aware where something is likely to break down in such an industry but we should have a system whereby the Minister would be brought in at a vital time in a dispute, not in 12 disputes all over the country because that would be ridiculous. The Minister should select the strategic industries and ask that he be kept informed when negotiations are reaching a serious stage. The Minister must be more positive about a recurrence of this sort of disturbance.
Vague statements about being more positive and exhortations of that kind are easy to make.
The Minister made a lot of them when he was over here.
My only criticism at any time was rank laziness on the part of persons holding this job.
It can be returned now.
In this instance negotiations have been proceeding and the Labour Court was involved in those negotiations. The action taken by the workers' representatives concerned could not have been foreseen; it is of an unofficial nature and one would have needed a crystal ball to foresee it. The same kind of thing could happen in any vital industry tomorrow. There is no miraculous remedy in the hard area of industrial relations. We are working hard to get a resolution of this very serious dispute. I am in touch with the Labour Court and the other agencies involved to bring about this positive response on the part of the men concerned. I believe the Labour Court in its recommendation has all the potential for a peaceful settlement of the dispute, conceding the anomaly and the productivity in the men's claim and the obtaining of a resumption of work by a peaceful resolution of this dispute. The contest at present is not with their employers but is between a section of workers and the rest of the working community. I feel sure that some Members, if not all Members of the Opposition, support us in our efforts to get a solution to this dispute.
Everybody supports the Minister in his efforts to get a solution. Would the Minister like to elaborate on his statement last night as to what measures the Government will take to provide for emergencies should the need arise? Is it not right that the Minister for Labour should inform the House of any such plans the Government have?
The Government have at all times to keep faithful to their final responsibility of keeping essential services going should this be necessary and we propose to discharge that responsibility.
Would the Minister give details?
Not at this stage.
In the past two years there has been a lot of disruption in essential services and during that time the Minister promised an examination would take place of essential services. Would the Minister indicate what examination has taken place? Would the Minister consider the introduction of worker participation in order to bridge the communication gap between workers and employers?
I will be introducing legislation under that heading very shortly; I hope this session.
Did the Minister say he will be introducing the legislation this session?
Perhaps that would be a bit hopeful. Certainly, I hope it would be this year.
I do not wish to prejudice anything the Minister may be doing but he said the Government would not shirk their responsibility in the face of any crisis and I should like to know if the Minister visualises calling in the Army?
Beyond saying that the Government as a whole would not shirk their responsibilities, on what action would be taken by the Government as a whole, I do not think it would be helpful to add anything to what has been said. The public understand what the Government have said. I have been working hard with the other agencies concerned to arrange for a resumption of work because that is the only entirely satisfactory solution to this problem.
In view of the fact that the Minister pressed for so much information when he was on this side of the House does he not think it fair that the Opposition should be kept informed in a vital industrial dispute such as this? We share the Minister's concern in the present situation but he should keep the Opposition informed and au fait with the situation as it continues.
I will always be ready to listen to any constructive suggestions from the Opposition spokesman as to how any dispute may be settled.
The Opposition are fully behind any measures that will relieve the hardship caused by the strike and we are sincere in our approach to have an equitable settlement. Was the Minister kept informed of the possibility of a breakdown in negotiations?
The prospect of a breakdown is an ever-present possibility in any negotiating situation. What I would point out to the Deputy is that one could think of a number of industries where the possibility of an unofficial dispute breaking out at any time is always present.
Question No. 15.
That is no answer to this situation which is very serious. I do not have to ask the Minister's attitude to strikes——
It is a pity the Deputy should spoil his contribution here today by a lapse into a partisan political stance.
Mr. G. Fitzgerald rose.
I have given Deputies the fullest possible latitude on this matter.
Very briefly. Is the Minister not concerned about the prolonged nature of the negotiations that took place with a multi-national oil company particularly in view of the fact that now it has been established that an anomaly exists? Would he not be concerned about that situation dragged on I understand by a multi-national oil company since September of last year——
We cannot debate this matter today.
——and concerned with regard to imports of petrol coming across the Border?
The Deputy would need to make up his mind what he wants to ask me.
I asked the Minister two questions—one in relation to the protracted nature of the negotiations and, secondly, about imports across the border.
I do not have any details on what is coming across the border.
Let not the Minister nor anybody else deny me the right to ask questions in this House. I have been elected just as has been the Minister.
I was under the impression the Deputy had asked me a question and that he wanted an answer.
As a matter of fact, the Minister may not even be re-elected if what I read is correct.
The Deputy must be reading The Cork Examiner. Let me reply to the Deputy's question about the protracted nature of the negotiations. The Deputy mentioned an anomaly clause—certainly that has been conceded in the Labour Court recommendation but there is also a productivity element. The productivity agreement was drawn up originally in 1967. It is very complicated with many implications for the companies involved and for the rest of the economy. Therefore, in that situation, the negotiations could not be described as over-protracted. They were proceeding. But impatience in the pursuit of any particular claim is an understandable human sentiment. Presumably that is what did overtake the people involved on the striking side. Again, I would appeal to them in this House—as I did last night—to look once more carefully at the recommendations made by the Labour Court which concede them all that is genuine in their case. They should permit these agencies now after careful consideration to come up with a cash figure which goes with both the anomaly and productivity acceptance. I am sure all Deputies in the House would agree with me in that hope and wish.
We do.
Question No. 15.