asked the Minister for Labour if, in view of the recent state of unofficial strikes, he will state (i) his attitude to these strikes (ii) the action his Department take to settle these strikes and (iii) the proposals he has to diminish the likelihood of these strikes; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Trade Dispute.
26.
As regards the first part of the Deputy's question my attitude to unofficial strikes is that, where management and trade unions have agreed on procedures for the conduct of industrial relations these procedures should be observed by both sides.
In regard to the second part of the question I must refer to the role conferred by statute on the Labour Court. However, the monitoring section of my Department keep me informed of developments in all dispute situations as they occur and, on occasions, avail themselves of any opportunities to advise parties as to possibilities for settling a dispute.
As regards the final part of the question, about any proposals for reducing he likelihood of unofficial strikes, it is my firm view that the best prospects of success lie in initiatives that come from the trade union movement. The proposed review body on industrial relations will, I hope, prove a suitable forum for examining the difficulties in this area.
Does the Minister agree this is the area of most acute concern and most damage to our economic prospects, the area of unofficial disputes, and that it is also the area least amenable of a quick solution? If he does, would he not consider at least talking to the unions about how best to cope with the situation in the future?
I share the Deputy's concern about unofficial strikes. This situation is serious for all sides of industry, for the Government and for the people. As I said, I believe the initiatives must come from the trade union movement. Of course, at any time I will discuss and support any initiatives they may suggest.
In the event of an unofficial dispute taking place in a company, what services are available from the Minister's Department, or through the Labour Court, to bring the parties together where they refuse to come together in the first instance because it is unofficial?
I think the Deputy is giving a false lead here because the encouragement of unofficial disputes, as one could gather from the question, would be very serious for everybody concerned. As the Deputy is well aware, the services of the Department are available in normal circumstances in official disputes. As well as that, the monitoring section to which I referred avail themselves of every opportunity to advise parties as to possibilities for settling a dispute.
I categorically reject the Minister's inference as to the content of my supplementary question. Is the Minister aware that, in the event of an unofficial strike taking place, this is a great source of serious further unrest unless the sides are brought together? The proper agencies to bring the sides together are the Labour Court or the Minister's Department. I am asking if there are any services under the Minister's aegis which could allow the parties to be brought together in these unfortunate circumstances. I do not promote these circumstances. I wish to reject the Minister's statement in that regard and I ask him to withdraw his remarks.
I accept that and I am happy to hear the Deputy say it. The Deputy will realise that the proper procedure should be through the official channels which can then be handled by the agencies of the Department. On the other hand, those agencies will always keep in touch with a situation and can be made available for talks, but there is the danger, and the Deputy will appreciate it I am sure, of an unnecessary or undesirable encouragement for an unofficial strike which would seriously harm our entire structure.
Deputy O'Keeffe.
Is it not a fact that the Labour Court will not intervene in unofficial strikes?
This is a decision taken and an agreement reached between trade unions and employers as to the rules and functions of the Labour Court in an effort to create harmonious industrial relations. As I said already, the agencies of the Department keep in close touch with every dispute and, in certain cases, this monitoring section avail themselves of the opportunity to advise the parties on the possibilities of settling a dispute.
In view of the considerable difficulties which have arisen in relation to recent unofficial strikes, and bearing in mind the comments of the Supreme Court in a recent court case, would the Minister not consider whether the time has come to review the terms of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, and introduce amending legislation to cover the whole problem?
I am sure the Deputy is aware of my intention to set up a review body to look at the industrial relations scene in general. At this stage that would be the best way to review industrial relations and, having had a recommendation from that review body, we could look at all desirable ways and means of encouraging better and more harmonious relations and trying to eliminate unofficial strikes.
Could the Minister further enlighten the House as to how far advanced this review is and when the action may be expected?
I have already announced my intention to set up this body and I hope within a very short while to invite both sides of industry to nominate people to the body and I will also be nominating some myself of course.
In his attitude to unofficial strikes, does the Minister differentiate between strikes which take place in the public sector and those which take place in State or semi-State organisations which, relatively speaking, may enjoy a monopoly in the service type industries and in which perhaps his influence and initiative might have an impact for good? In other words, does he differentiate between commercial companies and State and semi-State organisations in his attitude to strikes? Does he feel he has a particular responsibility for State and semi-State organisations?
We are getting away from the original question.
This is vital.
I should explain that the functions of the Department of Labour are not specifically concerned with the public sector but with the private sector.
Would the Minister be prepared to consider a much more active and positive role for his Department and for the Labour Court in intervening at an early stage in disputes of an unofficial nature in particular? Will the Minister accept that usually intervention comes after strikes have done untold damage and have lasted far so many weeks? Would the Minister consider using his powers and the powers of the Labour Court under the Industrial Relations Act to take the initiative in disputes of an unofficial nature in order to reduce the man-hours lost and to achieve the harmonious industrial relations we all want to achieve?
An overemphasis on the unofficial strike may be dangerous for many reasons. I dearly wish to see harmonious relations but, as I said, I would prefer to see both sides coming together and reviewing the problem and reporting on ways and means by which we can have better and more harmonious industrial relations. Unofficial disputes are serious and they are also undermining where the official trade union line has been ignored by people.
The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.