asked the Minister for Labour if he has received a report on the developments which led up to the recent dispute which caused the breakdown of electricity supplies; and if, on the basis of any such report, he proposes to take action to secure improved industrial relations within the ESB so that the public will not again be deprived of electricity supplies.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Electricity Dispute.
34.
I was kept advised on a day-to-day basis of developments, as they arose, in the recent ESB dispute, by the monitoring unit of my Department.
I am sure that the Deputy appreciates that there is no single legislative action which can usefully be taken which will guarantee that disputes will not arise either in the public or private sectors. Industrial legislation before the House at present should contribute to limiting the area of disputes in industry.
Although the Minister has available all the structures he has inherited and developed, these disputes still occur. The public are conscious of the inactivity of the Minister in these disputes.
I am waiting for a question.
Old people in this city were——
Statements or speeches are not in order at Question Time.
Has the Deputy any legislative proposals that will prevent strikes? If so, I would be glad to hear from him.
Would the Minister point out in greater detail how he believes the legislation before the House could or will in any way prevent the type of hardship or inconvenience caused by those disputes?
My honest answer is that there is no legislative action open to me that will guarantee that strikes of the kind which broke out in the ESB or CIE would not occur again. In the industrial legislation at present before the House, certain Bills will undoubtedly assist in lessening the number of disputes. I refer particularly to the Bill we discussed yesterday, the Unfair Dismissals Bill and the Bill we were discussing this morning, Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Bill, which should assist the State industries in ensuring that there will be a lessening of friction between workers.
Does that mean that the Minister, in effect, is stating that CIE and the ESB have in the past been guilty of unfair dismissals and that that is what caused these last strikes?
No.
That is the implication of what the Minister has said.
That implication was not made by me. The legislation before the House will assist in eliminating unnecessary disputes both in the ESB and in industry generally. I referred as an illustration of that to the legislation we had yesterday evening, which was the unfair dismissals legislation and to the legislation we have today, the worker participation legislation. Managements in the semi-State companies concerned are convinced that the worker participation legislation will have as one of its valuable by-products the improvement of industrial relations in those companies.
Will the Minister acknowledge that the only reasonable interpretation of his statement that the unfair dismissals legislation will prevent strikes in CIE and the ESB in the future is that these organisations have been responsible for unfair dismissals in the past which have caused strikes?
We are now having repetition. Next question, please.