asked the Minister for Labour if he is aware that as a result of an industrial dispute at Irish Steel Holdings Limited 180 employees were laid off last Friday week with a possibility of a further lay-off; and the steps he is taking to intervene in the interests of restoring and maintaining employment and production at the plant.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Irish Steel Holdings.
8.
I am aware that a number of employees of the company were laid off on Friday, 15th, and there were further lay-offs on Friday, 22nd.
The adjudication committee of the Employer-Labour Conference considered this dispute at a meeting held on Wednesday, 20th April, and issued its findings to the parties to the dispute on Friday, 22nd April.
These findings are being considered by both sides and I understand that an industrial relations officer of the Labour court has arranged for a conciliation meeting to take place today between the parties.
Is that not a result of a Dáil question? It does get action. Might I ask the Minister, in view of the fact that there are now approximately 300 employees laid off as a result of the dispute, if he would not now agree that disputes such as this, costing the Exchequer so much money by way of social welfare payments and man-days lost, creates industrial unrest and industrial chaos throughout the country? Is it not true to say that the early warning system in his Department has been an absolute failure and could he now not look at ways and means of rapid intervention before a strike situation escalates to the point where 300 jobs have been lost by now and if it is not settled by the weekend there will be further losses?
I am afraid the Deputy is extending the scope of the question.
No, I was asking the Minister if he would.
If I would what?
If he would now agree that the early warning system has been an absolute failure.
It is a separate question.
It is not.
The Chair must be the guide in this matter. The question deals with a dispute at Irish Steel Holdings.
It is amazing the treatment I get in this House when one considers the way Questions Nos. 2,3 and 4 were handled earlier today. In view of the Minister's reply regarding the interventions of the 20th and 22nd April, which occurred since the question went down to him—although three weeks had elapsed in the dispute at that stage and it was obvious to all concerned that there would be lay-offs —could he not now ensure that there would be a re-intervention by his Department in a dispute of this nature where a majority of employees are not at all concerned with the strike situation?
It is an extension of the question on the Order Paper.
Perhaps the Minister would like to comment.
I will comment to the Deputy that I am fully satisfied when he refers to the early warning unit of my Department—by which I presume he means the monitoring unit of my Department—that it has proved of solid assistance since its inception and I am totally satisfied with its workings. Of course in the case of each dispute, as the Deputy knows, it is a question of judgment whether it is wise on each occasion that the Minister for Labour of the day should intervene in a dispute. In most cases it is preferable to see negotiations proceed through the appropriate channels, and this is what is happening in this case. With an officer of the Labour Court intervening today the whole dispute has been seized on by the Adjudication Committee of the Employer-Labour Conference and is being dealt with between that body and the Labour Court.
Is the Minister aware that his statement regarding the monitoring unit would not be agreed to by any side of the social partners to which he referred?
I have no criticism of the social partners.
The Minister is working among them.
That is a disgraceful allegation to make of civil servants who are working very hard in an important part of the Ministry of Labour.
Civil servants appointed by whom?
They came through the normal appointment channels.