asked the Minister for Labour if, in view of recent events, he has any proposals to provide for speedy arbitration in inter-union disputes especially where one or more of the unions involved are not members of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.
2.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Trade Union Disputes.
1.
asked the Minister for Labour if, in view of recent events, he proposes to seek the views of all trade unions on how best to legislate, or otherwise provide for, the transfer of members from one union to another with the intention of minimising disputes; and if he intends to bring proposals before the Dáil.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together. The Industrial Relations Acts, 1946 to 1976, already include provisions for the reference of disputes, including inter-union disputes, to arbitration. The procedures governing the transfer of members between trade unions and the resolution of disputes in this area are matters for the trade union movement itself. I expect that the proposed review body on industrial relations will consider these matters.
Could I get an assurance from the Minister that this review body will not be taken as an excuse by the Minister for in action in these very serious areas? He gave a similar reply to a question yesterday. Does the Minister agree that the unofficial disputes which have taken place not only in the recent past but over the past number of years are the most serious strikes we have had and the strikes that do most damage? If so, does he intend to take urgent action to diminish the likelihood of these strikes?
I agree with the Deputy regarding the seriousness of such disputes. In this connection, I want to endorse the recent statement of the Treasurer of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions when he encouraged the trade unions outside of congress to join or rejoin congress where there are laid-down procedures for dealing with such disputes.
We all know there are procedures within congress. The question here relates specifically to disputes where unions are not members of congress. Unfortunately, in the Ferenka dispute this is the case. There has been a similar experience with the NBU. I am asking the Minister, is it good enough to say this is mainly for the trade unions themselves when the problem is manifestly one of a breakdown between trade unions and one, in particular, of certain unions feeling that they cannot belong to congress? Would the Minister therefore consider setting up some machinery to conciliate and arbitrate in this kind of dispute?
I have given the Deputy my view on the situation and the correct remedy, as I see it. During my term as Minister I will consider any proposals or suggestions. Any proposals in this area would have to emanate from the trade unions themselves and I would be only too willing to co-operate in any way I could to help the situation.
Does this mean the Minister intends to take no action unless the proposal emanates from the trade union movement? Has he any suggestion for an initiative on his own part?
I have already said I would consider any reasonable proposals made by the Deputy or anybody else.
It is all very well for the Minister to consider proposals put to him, but he is the Minister responsible. Does he not consider that there is any room for initiative or proposals being made by himself? Surely that is his job.
I said in my reply that the procedures governing the transfer of members between trade unions and the resolution of disputes in this area are matters for the trade union movement itself. I have outlined clearly in my reply to the first supplementary the correct procedure to be adopted, that is, the encouragement of unions outside of congress to join congress.
Question No. 2 on today's Order Paper asks if the Minister proposes to seek the views of all trade unions on how best to provide for arbitration in this kind of dispute. Will he even take the initiative of seeking the views of the trade unions on how best to provide a remedy for these inter-union or unofficial strikes?
The Deputy is no doubt aware that the Department have a function to investigate these disputes and, of course, I will keep an eye on this situation and any problems that arise in that area.
The Minister is keeping an eye on the situation and it is under review like so much else with this Government, but as I have asked the Minister already, would he even seek the trade unions' views on setting up conciliation and arbitration machinery which could be used when inter-union unofficial disputes take place especially where such disputes involve unions which are not, for one reason or another, members of congress? As the Minister knows, in the Ferenka disputes there are no direct talks going on between the parties, and the strike is now five weeks old. If there was conciliation and arbitration machinery perhaps talks could have started four weeks ago.
We cannot spend all day on these two questions.
Would the Minister ask the unions for their views on the setting up of this machinery?
The Minister will always keep in touch with the trade union movement on this or any other problems.
Is this another example of a do-nothing Government, keeping an eye on things, looking for views, setting up reviews, keeping cards close to the chest? Will the Minister take any initiative himself?
I do not want to appear to be trying to stifle Deputies who are genuinely seeking information, but the same supplementary question has been asked several times.
We have not had an answer. I agree you have been very helpful, Sir, but the Minister has not.
May I ask the Minister——
I am calling the next question.