Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 17 May 1977

Vol. 299 No. 7

Adjournment Debate: Irish Steel Holdings.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I should like to thank the Chair for granting me permission to raise the subject matter of a question tabled on 27th April in relation to Irish Steel Holdings. It is the first time I have sought permission to raise a matter on the Adjournment. This indicates how seriously I regard this question. It is strange that this is the second time in successive weeks when we had the Minister for Labour before us on an industrial dispute situation. This indicates the chaotic state of industrial relations and the difficulties we are having regarding industrial disputes. The question of the 27th April was in relation to the industrial dispute at Irish Steel Holdings Limited. I asked the Minister if he was aware that, as a result of an industrial dispute in Irish Steel Holdings Limited, 180 employees were laid off on the previous Friday week, with the possibility of a further lay off, and what steps he was taking to intervene in the interests of restoring and maintaining employment and production at the plant. The Minister's reply was:

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 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.

Since then the Minister has sat back and allowed the situation not only to continue but to worsen. This dispute is now in its ninth week. Nine weeks ago a group of employees, members of the craft union, took industrial action as a result of being frustrated and disappointed in achieving any progress or results over a very long period of negotiation. Because of that action, after a certain period of time the vast majority of workers, members of a different union, began to be laid off until now we have reached a situation where only about 25 per cent of the workforce remain there, and most of them are members of the staff. We are talking about a company employing more than 600 people where about 90 people took industrial action, and more than 300 were laid off as a result. I estimate that by the end of this week, not including overtime, the number of man hours lost will be approximately 120,000. Judging from last year's report of Irish Steel Holdings Limited, and assuming their turnover be of a similar nature this year, I estimate that about £1.5 million will be lost in the period of over two months. Can we afford this loss of production? Can we afford this loss of man hours? The Minister must accept the major share of the blame. This is mainly a relativity claim, and the management were prohibited or inhibited from having a free negotiating opportunity with the people concerned, because of Government restraint.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Would the Deputy clarify what he means by Government restraint?

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I am satisfied that the ultimate offer made would have been accepted much earlier but, because of the hardening attitudes and because of the limitations within which management had to work, this impasse was reached.

This is one of a group of industries in Cork harbour. There must be a certain standard set so that the same type of person in each industry will have the same conditions. This is important for peaceful industrial relations. This industry was built by the late Mr. Seán Lemass, and fostered by our present Leader, Deputy Jack Lynch, under severe criticism at times during his period in Industry and Commerce and later in Finance. Mr. Martin Corry, one of our party warriors, despite opposition from some of the Ministers now forming the Government, often kept Irish Steel Holdings floating in the interests of employment in the area. Compare that with what we see now from a Labour Minister. Is it any wonder that the people who were working in that establishment are disappointed and disgusted with the Minister for Labour standing back and allowing this situation to continue? Unless some move is made quickly emotions and inter-union feelings may develop to such an extent that it will take longer to restore the peaceful harmony that existed.

A few short months ago this Minister introduced a Worker Participation Bill, appointing worker directors to a selected number of State boards. I moved an amendment that this company should be included in the list, but it was refused. This company, because of the compact nature of its operations, would have been an ideal place to introduce worker democracy. The reason that the amendment was refused was that it was not one of the seven industries employing the greatest number of people. This was the Minister's only concern in introducing this measure. The Minister was concerned not about how effective worker participation would be, not what contribution it would make to peaceful industrial relations, but about how many votes he and his party could derive from it. This is the most disgraceful performance we have seen from the Minister.

One must live in the area to realise the frustrations that arise. This industry draws its workforce from three constituencies. I have received a number of phone calls from wives, families and mothers of some of those people. They are disappointed that at a time of the year like this these people should not be at work.

This Minister seems to have contributed more to bad industrial relations than any other occupant of this very important Ministry. Is there something sinister when trade union officials now tell us that, of the three holders of this portfolio in modern times since its re-establishment under a Fianna Fáil Government, this is the one Minister they have found very difficult to meet, unlike his two predecessors, our illustrious first citizen and our deputy party leader, Deputy Brennan? I wonder is there some significance there? Would it be true to say the Minister has lost the common touch, that he has aspired too high and forgotten the ordinary people of Ireland? My party never have and never will forget the ordinary people who are now the victims of this prolonged dispute.

We have heard a good deal about a new monitoring unit being set up in the Department, about its purpose and about the contribution it will make. What have we all round us? We have industrial chaos. We have strike after strike. In this industry the employment is male. I am not saying that is any advantage over having female employment but, in this area, they are the heads of families. Many of them have children who will be doing examinations during the coming weeks. Those young people have enough frustration without the added one of their father having nothing but social welfare benefit. Consider the cost. Who is bearing the cost of much of this strike? The ordinary taxpayer. Some people in the dispute are getting social welfare benefits and others are not. Let us hope they will. They are now an added imposition on the social welfare system, on the Exchequer and on the taxpayer. They do not want it that way. A week or so ago the Minister in a vulgar manner had his photograph in the papers saying "I will give you £20 a week". He cannot keep the people who are working at work let alone get the people back to work. In the interest of the people, in the interest of our steel industry, the Minister should try to end this strike.

Deputy Brosnan, whose constituency is also affected, would like to speak in this debate and I will yield to him. I would ask the Minister, even at this late stage, to intervene as a matter of urgency in this dispute which has been allowed to drag on for too long. If he assumes responsibility for industrial relations, let him be seen to do something, and not interfere with the machinery of the Labour Court when there is no necessity for such interference. I suspect that the type of political interference he has indulged in has damaged the independence of the Labour Court and will have harmful results.

Mr. Brosnan

Deputy Fitzgerald has dealt with the industrial aspects of this strike in great detail and in depth. I hope the Minister will be able to controvert what Deputy Fitzgerald said and to allay our fears and those of the unfortunate people involved in this dispute. I hesitate to go into the pros and cons of the dispute which is primarily a matter for the Minister and his advisers. Apparently he is unaware of what is happening or he does not care about it. A little effort on his part, I feel certain, would resolve this problem. He has made no effort to do so. With his customary cynical and cavalier attitude he has chosen to ignore the matter and to remain insensitive to the sufferings and the hardship the strike is imposing on the people involved.

Perhaps if the strike were in Dublin the Minister would be more exercised about finding a solution for it. If it affected himself or some of his colleagues in Dublin, or even in Cork city, he would be more concerned, but this strike concerns the town of Cobh mainly which is in a constituency where the Labour Party have not got a snowball's chance in hell of getting a seat. I wonder does the Minister know that his protege down there, the Labour candidate in the next election, lives in Cobh. Has he consulted with him about this strike? The Minister is well aware that any effort on his part would be of no political benefit to him or his party. I suggest that is one of the reasons why he is taking things so easy.

We have had a recurrence of the attitude of some of the Minister's colleagues. I wonder does he remember when Deputy T. J. Fitzpatrick, now Minister for Transport and Power, made a severe attack on Deputy Lynch who was then Minister for Finance, when he referred to these industries in Cobh as trivial matters, as being mickey mouse industries and a complete waste of public funds. For the Minister's information I will remind him that that reacted and boomeranged at the time.

Mr. M. O'Leary

What is the Deputy talking about?

Mr. Brosnan

The Minister must know. If not he can find out later on.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

The Minister should ask his colleague the Minister for Transport and Power what he said.

An Ceann Comhairle

The subject matter of this question is the present dispute in Irish Steel.

Mr. Brosnan

It seems extraordinary that the Minister who has members of his own family living in Cobh does not know what I am talking about.

An Ceann Comhairle

There should be no reference to Members' families.

Mr. M. O'Leary

The Deputy is hard up for votes. He is referring to everything that is irrelevant.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Brosnan

On that occasion Deputy Fitzpatrick——

An Ceann Comhairle

We must get back to the subject matter of the question, the dispute in Irish Steel.

Mr. Brosnan

This is relevant.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair decides that.

Mr. Brosnan

I submit it is relevant.

An Ceann Comhairle

I gave permission for a question to be raised in respect of a dispute at Irish Steel Holdings. That is the subject matter of the question. Let there be no straying from it.

Mr. Brosnan

I submit it is relevant. I submit that the attitude of the Government towards industries in Cobh is relevant to this debate.

An Ceann Comhairle

I say it is not relevant. In any event, I must now call on the Minister. The Deputy's time is up.

Mr. Brosnan

May I make one point.

An Ceann Comhairle

Very quickly.

Mr. Brosnan

If this strike is not finished immediately the company will have to seek an importing licence from the Department. The stockists are crying out for materials. This will lead to further unemployment.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister.

Minister for Labour (Mr. M. O'Leary)

I will leave it to the judgment of those who read this debate as to who has been indulging in cynical manoeuvring.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

The Minister should talk about the strike and never mind the fancy stuff.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. M. O'Leary

They will examine in vain the two contributions we had here tonight for any guidance on how the dispute in Irish Steel Holdings is to be resolved. There was not one constructive comment.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

That is the Minister's bailiwick.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Instead we have listened to party drums being beaten, credit being taken for this and that and partisan attacks and political charges being hurled across the floor, using the pretext of this dispute in which, I agree, many good men are out of work. Nobody deplores more than myself the fact that this dispute has occurred. Let me say, if it is necessary to say it, that of course this Government place the highest priority on the expansion and industrialisation of Cork harbour. Any suggestion to the contrary can be treated with the contempt it deserves.

If one wanted to trade responsibility for this dispute, one could say that the issues go back as far as 1972. It is a complicated dispute and it has taken up a great deal of the attention of the Labour Court in striving to achieve a settlement. I will recap some of the history of this dispute to explain some of the complicating factors which have made it difficult to reach a settlement. There was a Labour Court arbitration award in June, 1975, in which a seven-grade structure was created. These discussions followed the installation of new machinery in 1972. It goes back as far as that. I will not deal in the political badinage we have heard here tonight about this Government or that Government because no serious trade unionist has anything but contempt for the kind of comments which suggest that one Government causes this strike and another Government causes that strike. Strikes occur for a variety of reasons. In this case the basic cause is a grading argument among craft workers.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Would the Minister explain what he means by a grading argument?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Members on this side had 20 minutes to make their case and the Minister has ten minutes to reply. I am appealing to the ingrained sense of fair play of Deputies not to interrupt. If Members find it difficult to listen to what another Deputy has to say they have a way out of this Chamber.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I will try to set the record straight and give a brief background to this dispute. During the period November, 1973, to February, 1974, negotiations took place with the unions for an increase in basic rates on behalf of general workers. There was a conciliation conference in February, 1974, and agreement was reached on the general workers' claim on (a) new basic rates of pay, (b) revision of bonus payments and (c) the introduction of a grading structure. This was followed by a claim on behalf of craftsmen for a 20 per cent pay differential over the highest paid non-craft worker. This was rejected by the company and there was an overtime ban by craftsmen and a threat of unofficial strike action. Negotiations took place in August, 1974, under an industrial relations officer of the Labour Court. This resulted in an agreement whereby the bonus payment of £4.20 per week together with the steel plant allowance of £4.16 were consolidated into basic pay.

Negotiations again took place on a new claim in respect of general workers and in June, 1975, a further Labour Court arbitration award created a new seven-grade pay structure for general workers. This had the effect of disturbing once again the relativity between the craftsman and the general worker and in February, 1976, the craft unions resurrected their claim for a 20 per cent differential over the general worker. This claim was submitted to the Labour Court in June, 1976, and the court suggested that the parties should negotiate on the possibility of integrating the craftsmen into the grading structure for general workers. Negotiations commenced under an industrial relations officer of the Labour Court but, as no agreement could be reached, the Labour Court was asked to issue a formal recommendation on the issue. In September, 1976, the court issued a recommendation, No. 4049, which in effect placed the craftsmen in grade six of the seven-grade structure for general workers with effect from 24th February, 1974. In October, 1976, the craft unions notified the company that they had unanimously rejected the court's recommendation and were seeking strike action from their executive councils.

We now come to the present position in which the company has referred the dispute to the Employer/Labour Conference. The adjudication committee issued proposals on the 6th April. I do not have time to go into those proposals but suffice it to say that the craft unions indicated that these proposals were not acceptable and the Employer/Labour Conference again considered the dispute at a meeting on 20th April. The proposals of the Employer/Labour Conference issued on 6th April were in three parts. They were rejected and the Employer/ Labour Conference met and decided that the strike which then took place was in breach of the national wage agreement. Conciliation conferences have subsequently been held on 27th April, 4th May and the 13th May, 1977, and a further meeting is being arranged.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

That is an incorrect statement. The Minister has misled the House regarding a meeting on the 13th May. I defy him to say it is true. Tell us more about the meeting on the 13th May? It did not happen.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order. Deputy Fitzgerald must restrain himself.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Tell us more about the meeting on 13th May.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order. The Deputy has made his point.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I have attempted to give as accurate a picture as possible of the origins of this complicated dispute.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Stay with the truth.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must restrain himself.

Mr. M. O'Leary

In the course of his comments Deputy Fitzgerald made no constructive remarks on how this dipute is to be settled. My only submission is that the Labour Court and the conciliation service have been active throughout in attempting to get a settlement of this dispute and we hope that at a forthcoming conference to be arranged by the officers of the court we can get such a solution.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

When is that conference?

Mr. M. O'Leary

I would appeal to the parties to proceed on the lines suggested by the adjudication committee of the Employer/Labour Conference. That is the constructive way in which this matter can be settled. I would say to the parties that there is a good deal of retrospective pay coming to each man now on strike. I would ask them to come back to the conference table. There is an attempt being made this week to get such a conference going and I appeal to the full-time officials of the craft unions involved to make every effort to be available for that meeting.

I am puzzled about the reason that this Adjournment Debate was sought. I thought I would hear suggestions and solutions for the settlement of this dispute. Instead we had a disgraceful display of cynical manoeuvring in party politics by two Deputies with a constituency interest in this matter.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

And the Minister could not tell the truth in the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, order.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

There was no meeting on the 13th May. Attend to the workers and do not fly too high.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Member in possession is entitled to be heard without interruption.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

The Minister is not telling the facts to the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

There is no reason for these disorderly interruptions at this time.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.00 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 18th May, 1977.