asked the Minister for Labour the role he sees for his Department or the Labour Court for settling industrial disputes to which a Minister is party.
12.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Industrial Disputes.
11.
asked the Minister for Labour the efforts being made by his Department or the Labour Court to bring about a settlement of the postal dispute.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 29 and 30 together.
The resolution of disputes whether they be in the public or private sector is a matter, in the first instance, for the parties directly concerned. As I have emphasised many times in this House, it is important that all the agreed procedures be used to the full in order to achieve the settlement of disputes. In situations where such procedures have been fully used and have proved incapable of resolving a dispute in areas of serious public concern, I would be prepared to consider any initiatives open to me to help settle the matter in dispute.
As regards the postal dispute referred to by the Deputy, I am very concerned about the hardship and the difficulties for industry and the public arising from this dispute. It is a matter of regret that the action being taken by the union concerned breaches both the conciliation and arbitration scheme—to which the union is a party—and also the national wage agreement.
The Government cannot condone action of this kind. While the Government are anxious that a settlement should be reached as quickly as possible, a settlement will have to be one that, as well as being equitable, ensures the continued use of orderly means of resolving pay claims in the Civil Service.
Would the Minister not agree that here is a case in which there is a conflict of interest in his office in that he has to stand by a colleague in the Government and yet he has a duty to try to resolve disputes? Certainly the Labour Court which is under his aegis has that duty. Would the Minister therefore agree to give the Labour Court that independence which it ought to have so that it can involve itself in bringing about settlements of disputes of this nature?
The Deputy will appreciate that services do exist. As my colleague, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, said in this House the essential point is that the Department are quite prepared to continue negotiations under agreed procedures at conciliation or, if the union wishes, the issue can be assessed by the independent arbitrator.
It is a fact that the dispute is now continuing and causing great inconvenience to everybody. But the Minister and his Department are compromised because another Minister is party to the dispute and no action whatever is being taken by the Department to resolve the dispute. Is the Minister satisfied that such a situation should be allowed to continue?
I said in my reply that the action being taken by the union concerned breaches both the conciliation and arbitration schemes to which the union is a party; it also breaches the national wage agreement. The Deputy must be aware of that. The union had talks last week with the Congress of Trade Unions and the Deputy will appreciate the situation that arose on that occasion when they were actually told that they were in breach of the national wages agreement.
While I accept what the Minister has said, that does not bring about a resolution of the dispute with which the House must be concerned. Whatever about the rights and wrongs as outlined by the Minister, is there no role for the Labour Court in bringing about a resolution of this dispute?
That is a repetition of the question. I have already explained to the Deputy the procedures that are available.
Is the Minister saying that the Minister for Labour and the Labour Court are irrelevant in serious disputes like this?
That is not the case.
That is the case and that is what the Minister is saying.
13.
asked the Minister for Labour if he will make a statement on the efforts being made by him to settle the Dublin dustmen's dispute.
The settlement of this unofficial dispute is a matter for the parties directly concerned. I understand that, arising from discussions between the parties, proposals for settlement were recently put forward by the Dublin Corporation. However, these proposals were rejected on 14th instant by the workers concerned. I understand that the trade unions and the corporation are at present considering the position.
What part has the Minister played in trying to bring about a resolution of the dispute?
The Deputy must be aware or should be aware that this is an unofficial work-to-rule and not a strike. A number of settlement efforts have taken place. As late as yesterday a decision was taken when the proposals put forward by the corporation and the trade union concerned were rejected by 236 votes to 189. Both the corporation and the trade union are at present considering the situation and, surely in an unofficial work-to-rule situation, the Deputy must agree that this is the way to leave it to see if the parties directly concerned can reach a settlement.
Is the Minister making the case that the Minister or the Department of Labour have no role in bringing about a resolution of industrial disputes whether it is a work-to-rule or a strike? Is the Minister saying he has no intention of trying to bring about a resolution of the disputes which are causing great inconvenience to the public?
The point I am making is that an unofficial work-to-rule of that nature is probably best handled by the parties concerned and that the Deputy is being irresponsible in making some of the statements he has made.
Will the Minister accept that he made precisely the same statement in relation to another unofficial dispute, namely, the Ferenka dispute and that at the eleventh hour he appointed a conciliation officer and it was too late.
That is not true.
Is the Minister going to adopt the same attitude in regard to all disputes?
(Interruptions.)
Order, please.
14.
asked the Minister for Labour if, in respect of each of the past ten years he will give the percentage in the public sector, of the total of man-days lost due to strikes.
The Central Statistics Office is the official source of statistics relating to industrial disputes. However, the figures published by that office do not differentiate between disputes in the private and public sectors.
My Department estimate that 36 per cent of man-days lost through strikes during 1978 resulted from strikes in the public sector. Statistics relating to any earlier periods are not available to me.
Is the Minister aware that his colleague, the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy, told this House some weeks ago in a debate that the figure was 80 per cent? If so how has the inconsistency arisen?
I have been asked a question by the Deputy which I have replied to and if he wants further elaboration the monitoring unit of the Department of Labour set up by my predecessor has, over the period since its establishment in 1976, been keeping more and more detailed statistics in relation to industrial disputes. I can give the Deputy some further information on strike numbers which relate to the three previous years. I cannot, as I said in my reply, give him the statistics for the period immediately prior to 1978 but I will be able to do so in the future. For example, in 1976 the total number of strikes in the private and public sectors was 199 of which 42 were public sector strikes; in 1977 the total was 232 of which 54 were public sector strikes; in 1978 the total figure was 170 of which 45 were public sector strikes.
The Minister's most recent reply did not refer to man-days lost. I asked him how the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy was misled in stating that 80 per cent of man-days lost was due to strikes in the public sector?
That does not relate to the question.
It arises out of the question. Can the Minister indicate how this confusion has arisen?
I have heard the Deputy make so many statements in this House that need to be clarified afterwards. It is not my function to answer him in this House but it is something that he can of course raise if he wishes.
Dr. Fitzgerald
He is raising it now.
I am raising it now. How did the Minister's colleague get his figures wrong?
I cannot be responsible for that. I have heard Deputy Mitchell, despite the interventions of his leader, make so many statements in this House that just do not stand up that I cannot be sure when or where my colleagues made the reference that he has just referred to. I am also saying that I cannot answer for him. The Deputy asked me a question and I have given the reply to the question that he asked.
Dr. Fitzgerald
In the event that two different answers come from two different Ministers—and it is a matter that can be established by examining the record—how can a Deputy establish the truth of the position except by asking each of the two Ministers? It sounds a bit like a two-card trick.
If Deputy FitzGerald would give me the exact quotation I will clarify it for him.
To straighten this out, perhaps we could raise this on the Adjournment and get the appropriate quotation in the meantime?
I will communicate with the Deputy.