Before I call on Deputy Lawlor to resume I want to mention a matter brought to the notice of the Chair regarding arrangements between the Whips. It has been agreed that the concluding speaker from the Labour Party will be called not later than 3.45 p.m. and the concluding Fine Gael speaker not later than 4 p.m. The existing arrangement stands regarding the concluding Government speaker, who will be called at 4.15 p.m.
Public Sector Industrial Relations: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by the Minister for the Public Service:
That Dáil Éireann takes note of the present state of industrial relations in the public sector and supports the Government's efforts to ensure that disputes in this sector are processed in accordance with negotiated and agreed procedures instead of being made the subject of industrial action.
Debate resumed on the following amendments:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following: "deplores the failure of the Government to implement their promise in the 1977 General Election Manifesto in relation to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to `promote better labour relations which are of vital importance where such a large work force is involved' and Dáil Éireann further deplores the economic and social hardship and dislocation which has been caused to the community at large by this failure of the Government."
—(Deputy J. Ryan.)
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:—
"(i) expresses deep concern with the atmosphere created within the public sector as a result of Government mishandling of its own labour relations:
(ii) deplores the resulting disastrous economic and social consequences; and
(iii) without causing further undue delay calls for a 6 months truce in all public sector disputes to allow time for negotiation on all the issues in a new atmosphere of industrial peace."
—(Deputy Mitchell.)
On a number of occasions it has been requested by the trade union movement that they should have equal prominence in the future in pay negotiations and other problems which affect their members. In a major step forward this Government recognised that request in the national understanding. It is a recognition that democracies can have a dilemma and that there must be co-operation and partnership with the elected members of other organisations who have a part to play in the economy. In a democracy no Government can bring about the solution of problems without co-operation. It was in recognition of that fact that the Government sat down with the responsible elected members of various organisations and put together the national understanding. It is disturbing that the same attitude is not forthcoming in this House. In a matter so important and fundamental, the Opposition should not try to secure cheap political points, especially when there are such serious consequences for the future of this country.
We have taken major strides forward since resuming office. We are faced in a number of areas with very extensive percentage claims, particularly from the public sector. A number of employees feel generally aggrieved, but to put right what they feel are wrongs will take a little longer than some of them have shown they are prepared to wait. We should examine how these anomalies were allowed to develop. During the term of the previous Government not only was there not an understanding but in one wage agreement there was actually a clause regarding inability to pay. One could not foresee any such arrangement being available to this Government, but because of the progress we have made a number of people in various sectors feel they are not getting what they believe to be a fair figure.
People in sheltered employment in the public sector during the period of the former Government did not get the ongoing increases to which they were entitled, particularly in the light of the steep rise in inflation. During the discussion on the Estimate for the Department of Labour in 1976 one of the national newspapers carried the headline "We're Broke". The financial malaise which had developed meant that public sector employees did not get their fair and just increases. These people now feel they are far behind the pay norm.
One such group within the public sector are probably the postmen. The Minister has gone a long way in endeavouring to redress the imbalance in his suggested solution to the present problem. We all appreciate the responsible job which these men do. Possibly it is only now that we fully realise the importance of that service. Recently local authority employees who are working in the elements have received recognition that this type of work deserves special treatment. The Minister responsible for those employees has agreed to honour an independent assessment of that claim at arbitration.
In the light of these commitments from the Government we should be able within the public sector to move forward in a controlled and co-ordinated way. There are other anomalies in that sector which have already been conceded. In regard to telephonists the Minister quickly rectified what was deemed to be an anomaly.
That is known as fire insurance.
At least it was a solution to a problem which had been neglected under the former Minister for Labour. I do not think any member of this party ever stooped as low as the former Minister for Labour in endeavouring to seek headlines by picketing outside a Government office, as is the case today. The Labour Party spokesman on this motion sat down ten minutes before the end of the time available to him and one questions the validity of putting down the motion before us. It is ridiculous that the former Minister for Labour crys about the length of the dispute and the fact that the Minister responsible is not taking action. That same former Minister held office during a bank strike which was equally, if not more, serious.
There are complicated problems. We could readily solve all industrial disputes by conceding ridiculous solutions and creating a vicious circle. If there is to be a constructive outcome from this discussion, it should be a recognition of the complexity of industrial relations. The people involved in industrial relations are on both sides, management and personnel, full-time union officials and unpaid shop stewards. The latter are people who undertake to represent their fellow employees, give up their leisure time to attend meetings, be in attendance at their union headquarters and so on. To see how these people are equipped for the responsibilities they undertake I visited the Irish Congress of Trade Unions Advisory and Education Centre in mid-1978 and I found there a very comprehensive facility for educating full-time and part-time trade union officials. I also found that during the previous Government's term of office the Minister for Labour, who is so concerned about the trade union movement since being nominated by his party to run for the European Election, was cutting back on the finance available to the educational facility within the Congress of Trade Unions. The present Minister for Labour redressed that imbalance and has given added recognition to the need for finance from Government central funds to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions Advisory and Education Centre.
We are still not satisfied that we are doing enough in this direction. This is a key area of importance in industrial relations. Until such time as we have an educational facility associated with the trade union movement on a par with the Irish Management Institute we and the Congress of Trade Unions are failing in our duty to develop the type of technology and experience necessary for part-time and full-time trade union officials.
The trade unions are always taken to be causing the most problems in certain people's eyes. The amount of work they are doing gets very little recognition from these people when everything is going right. But, when things go wrong, however, they are the culprits. The personnel manager or the personnel director is not under focus. Very often, he is within a large organisation and possibly does not carry the same personal responsibility or concern when there is an actual dispute.
A whole broad area of training, co-operation and education is needed. The trade union movement will have an increasingly important part to play in our constructive, positive progress. We have had situations where certain small segments of the trade union movement have been unrealistic, unhelpful and negative in some of their demands. It is the responsibility of the Minister and the elected leaders of ICTU to endeavour to bring these people into a co-operative framework where one can achieve real progress. We would like to produce a formula for industrial relations where there would be no disputes.
The Government, in giving recognition to the trade union movement in completing a national understanding, have taken that positive course. I look forward to a situation where, out of this national understanding, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions will have a more important and a more widely recognised role to play in the future. I would urge every trade union member to sit up and take notice, to study the contents of this national understanding and not be dictated to by certain sections of the public who may not give it full recognition. The Leader of the Labour Party last evening, speaking in Rush, condemned part of the national understanding because he said he had not enough information. I would ask him and every member of every trade union to study this document first before they comment on it.
Deputy Tully has 15 minutes.
Some years ago I went into the National Library and got a copy of an old newspaper, the Drogheda Journal. In that newspaper there was a comment by some local employers of the time about a new horror which had arisen in the area and in the country. It was the start of what was known then as combinations, now known as trade unions. Those gentlemen passed a resolution that anyone found to be a member of a combination, or if they made a claim of any kind, not alone should they be put out of their jobs but put out of their houses, if they were tied houses, and the members of their family should not under any circumstances be employed. The idea was that these people should be starved out of existence.
The present postal dispute, unhappily, seems to be a continuation of the same idea. An effort has been made by the present Government, whether they are prepared to accept it or not, to starve a decent group of people, a very large group of people, into submission. Listening here to some of the speakers, some of whom know their subject, some of whom are intelligent people and are speculating and some of whom know nothing at all about the trade union regulations or, indeed, about labour relations of any kind, I wonder where have they been for the last 20 or 30 years? A lot of them were not in this House.
When we hear about the long strike and all the harm it is doing and that it was not the Government's fault we remember the 1953-1954 period, the 21-week strike caused by Fianna Fáil. The civil service were in revolt and were only brought back again when, in fact, a Government which understood paid them the money which was due to them. Now, the Minister comes in here and says "Oh well, if you go back to work we will deal fairly with you". It has been to the credit of the people working in the Post Office that no disputes occurred for over 50 years. Now, out of sheer desperation, they have decided that they must do something about their wages and their conditions. Do not forget that this is not a simple issue. Do not let anybody try to tell me that the fact that an auxiliary postman, no matter how many years' service he has, cannot get a pension from the State has nothing to do with this. Why are they supporting the dispute? They are supporting it because they know that, unless a stand is made sometime, they will not get anything.
All right, blame the previous Government; blame the Governments down through the years. Why did somebody not decide that these people were not getting what they were entitled to? The answer is quite simple. The newspapers from time to time have comments about the average industrial wage, which is reckoned to be around £80 per week. Then come along and see how the Post Office people are paid. A postman has £62.74; Post Office stores men have a lowest adult rate of £53 and a highest of £65. Out of that they must pay social welfare and various other expenses, including income tax. Yet we wonder why these people are not prepared to agree after months and months of negotiation. They are entitled to something more. Take another grade, the Post Office clerk—£4,200 and, first promotional grade, £5,200. They were offered an increase—but they did not negotiate for that increase. Although they had a claim in, it was only after another grade in the civil service, considered to be comparable, had been offered that, that they were then offered the very same—no negotiation as such took place on that claim. That is one of the very sore points. Why should they be tied to another grade and be asked to accept what somebody else has been offered after negotiations? The other grades are looking for a stated increase.
All the people involved in the Post Office are offering the Government and the Department of Posts and Telegraphs an opportunity for a complete overhaul within the Post Office; they are prepared to co-operate and, as is the case with other workers in other types of industry both in State employment and outside State employment, when they are going to do additional duties they want this to be considered.
It is all right to talk about conciliation and arbitration. Conciliation is not what it should be. The conciliation offered to the Post Office is not the conciliation which people who have shown the record which they have shown over the years should be offered. Who would be able to decide, on arbitration, what the regarding of the Post Office should be?
This idea of making them go back to work before anything is offered is farcical. If it were not so tragic I would have been amused this morning at the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. He is a man for whom I have respect as an individual but as a Minister his behaviour in this case is appalling because he offered things in this House which were not worth a damn to the negotiators of the Post Office Workers' Union; he offered things which might possibly lead to a resumption of work; he talked about the percentage which could be given over and above that which had been of fered at conciliation. Why was it not offered at conciliation? Why was it necessary, nine weeks after these people went on strike, to come along and have a Minister saying something which he could not be tied to and which is of no use whatsoever to the people who are negotiating for these workers? The Government will have to come back with something which they can put on the table.
I feel that it is the old story. It is often difficult to have sympathy with a group that one is not a part of. It is very difficult for people who are not a part of the working class here and who feel they are superior to them and better paid with better conditions really to see the conditions under which people must work.
I was interested in some of the comments—some of which I agree with— made by the last speaker about trade unionists themselves. I would like to point out, particularly to him, through the Chair, that this dispute is not a dispute which was started or is being carried out by the officials of the Post Office Workers Union or by the executive. I think I know as much about this as anybody in this House and as far as I am aware 99.9 per cent of those on strike are on strike because they want to be on strike, because they refused point blank to give any consideration to anything except to the question of getting a substantial increase. Nobody is suggesting that the Post Office workers should be offered 100 per cent of what they are looking for. As we all know when trade union negotiations go on, unless people ask for more than they hope to get they could finish up with very little.
Here we have a situation where apparently unless these people grovel in the dust, unless they go back to work with absolutely no more guarantee than they got nine weeks earlier, their claim will not be considered. If they go back under those conditions I am certain that they can expect nothing. If they can expect something why is it not possible for the people who are responsible for negotiations in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to put on the table an offer which can be accepted? We could go back to the mid-forties when there was a 21- week teachers' strike. An investigation into that and into what happened and how it was eventually straightened out would make some extraordinary reading.
I do not like this idea of the Government standing on a principle. A principle now is a principle in 30 years' time. This principle is one which has been cooked up and let us not think that anybody has been codded by it. The reason why the Government will not give way on this, or have not done so far, is because they feel that if they do others will be looking for the same. What about others? Is there any other grade in the employment of the State who are being paid with pennies as these people are? If there is it is a shame to this Government and any other Government which was in office. Those are the plain facts.
I believe that relations inside the negotiation services of the Post Office are not good and a typical example of this was what happened more than once in Blackrock, one little post office. This is something which should not have occurred but which can occur at any time in any post office because people were being asked to do things for which somebody else was being paid a very much higher wage. The Post Office officials must know and the Minister must know that a payment of about £1.50 extra per week to a dozen men would have settled that for good but they had to discommode everybody and allow it to continue as long as it did.
I have the greatest sympathy with the Post Office workers and with the people who are representing them. They are fine people, the best to be found in this country. They know their jobs and the people negotiating with them know they know their jobs. I feel that at the back of this there is just a small suggestion of the hidden hand. Are the Department of the Public Service the people who are attempting to show that they have the whip hand, that they must insist on certain things being done in a certain way?
Deputy Tully has three minutes to conclude.
The effect on the workers and their families is desperate and this attempt to starve them into submission will be remembered to this Government for many years. But who else has been affected by it? Practically everybody has been affected by it. An effort has been made by the Minister for Social Welfare to try to have benefits paid to people on social welfare but it is not working well in many cases and not because the officials in the Department of Social Welfare are not doing their best, because they are. When we have examples of people in Drogheda being told after four or five weeks that their payment is in Mullingar, which is nearly 50 miles away, that is not much use to anybody. Pensioners have been unable to get books and despite the advertising in the paper they do not understand what is happening. Those who are not on State pensions but on other pensions are finding it impossible to get paid at all. There is a lot of hardship and hunger at present which is being caused by this strike and it is a legitimate and official strike.
One point which seems to have escaped many people here is that the agreement which is supposed to have been breached terminated on 31 March 1979 so people should not continue using that as one of the reasons why the strike has not been settled.
Finally, I would like to say that I consider it a bit much that in the middle of these troubles we should have somebody who is not a Member of this House but a Member of the Oireachtas talking in public about training the Army to act for people who are on strike in essential services. If he thinks that the Army are prepared to scab on the postmen then he had better have another look at how ordinary people here operate.
It cannot be repeated often enough in certain circumstances that a climate of harmonious relations is a sine qua non for economic and social progress. It must be pointed out that in a democracy such as ours the creation of a harmonious climate for industrial relations may not be easy to achieve. Basically and fundamentally the achievement of such rests chiefly with the elected Government. In the area of industrial relations, more than in any other area, the ineptitude and the failure of the Government is most clearly manifested.
I was appalled here today listening to the Tánaiste and to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, neither of whom offered one single new idea which could be described as an effort to find a new formula which would create a new national climate of harmonious industrial relations which is so badly needed. I was horrified to hear the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs repeat again today, after almost three months of a standstill in the postal services and widespread disruption in the telecommunications system, almost word for word the same speech he gave here six weeks ago, five weeks ago and last week. We must be honest and face up to the fact that no industrial dispute in the history of the State has caused more economic and social havoc than has the prolonged postal dispute and the concomitant telephone disruption. It is also true to say that there has been scarcely a day since August 1977, shortly after the Government came into office, when the vital communication services of the nation, inadequate though they may be in many cases, have operated 100 per cent satisfactorily.
I am satisfied, from my close examination of the causes of this dispute, that the continued deadlock in the postal services and certain sectors of the telephone services has been caused by two main factors. It has been caused by the frustration of the postal workers of different categories and the telecommunication workers as well at the slow, cumbersome, outdated conciliation and arbitration machinery in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. I have found examples to bear this out of relatively simple claims taking five and six years to solve and when the claims were granted not even one day's retrospection was granted. With regard to the bicycle allowance which postmen used to have, a claim for 1p or 2p a day extra took months of meetings at conciliation level and perhaps 2p was granted.
This dispute is because of frustration at the length of time it takes for claims to be processed and a longer time still to have them granted. In this atmosphere of frustration there is a strong element of anger at the failure of the Government to honour the specific commitments they gave in the general election manifesto under the heading of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. A clear categoric undertaking was given to reorganise and streamline the industrial relations machinery in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. There were other commitments given in that manifesto under the same heading. Since the Government were elected to office we have not had 100 per cent effective communication services on any single day.
The Minister for Labour is responsible for industrial relations and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is the employer in this case. As well as that he is a Minister responsible to the Government, to this Parliament and to the nation for the maintenance, improvement and expansion of the nation's communications services. He had an obligation to take some initiative and to display some ingenuity that could have broken the deadlock before now. I agree with most of what Deputy Tully said. In fairness to the members of the POWU and the postal workers in general, they have given loyal service to the nation and their industrial relations record is excellent. If we examine our consciences realistically and honestly about this we must ask ourselves why are a body of men and women who have a superb record with regard to industrial relations and whose service to the nation has been outstanding being forced to strike and to prolong this strike. It is because of their sheer frustration and the bad experience they have had with the practical operations of the conciliation and arbitration machinery in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.
I have discussed this matter with the ordinary members of the POWU throughout the country and I know that there is total lack of confidence among them in the industrial relations machinery. They have been conned before. I have quoted a few examples about this. How could any group of workers have confidence in industrial relations machinery like this? Fianna Fáil before the election recognised that there was dissatisfaction among the employees of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs with the conciliation and arbitration machinery and very smartly and cleverly wrote it in as the first point in their election manifesto, giving a solemn undertaking to the employees of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs that they would, immediately on being returned to office, rectify the grievances they had.
A third element in the prolongation of this dispute has been the completely inflexible stance of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. He proved this in his speech today. There was no change of attitude in it and no element of humanity or sensitivity, which is of paramount importance in all industrial relations disputes. The total inflexibility of the Minister in this respect must be condemned. We must also condemn his apparent lack of concern today at the appalling consequences, economically and socially, of the prolonged postal and telecommunications dispute.
The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is also Minister for Tourism and Transport and he must realise that the tourist industry is virtually wrecked. There are areas on the western seaboard where they have neither postal nor telecommunication services for over 12 weeks. There are people in those areas who have invested their life savings in guest houses, hotels and other ancillary tourist activities who are now faced with total ruin. I know that people who set up small industries are trying to operate without telephones and post. They, too, are faced with disaster. The saddest part of this whole sorry episode—caused by frustration with the industrial relations machinery in the Department, by anger at the failure of the Government to honour their election commitment and by the total inflexibility of the Minister—is the appalling human, social and economic consequences. The Minister today rehashed the whole thing again. He said that the conciliation and arbitration machinery and agreed procedures must be followed.
When I was Minister for the Gaeltacht I had responsibility for the operation of 60 companies in which Gaeltarra Éireann had shareholdings. As Deputy Corish said, a Minister, by virtue of his ministerial office, can use his influence. During the last Government when there were problems Deputy Corish or Deputy Cluskey intervened. There are many cases when a Minister, if he has the guts, the courage, the initiative, the intelligence and the sensitivity, can intervene and give the necessary reassurances. A stitch in time saves nine.
I do not intend my remarks to reflect in a personal way on the Minister, a man for whom I have the highest respect, but this dispute could have been settled weeks ago if he had been a little less inflexible, if he had displayed a little initiative, if he had given an assurance to the POWU that a return to work meant two things: an immediate, realistic, interim offer—I put forward this idea over the last two months and I understand that this has been the attitude of the POWU—and an assessment of their claims which contain a number of vital elements. I understand that one of their claims for shift allowances has been going on for four or five years and has not yet been solved and that there are other elements involved as well—service pay, relativity, productivity and so on.
In view of the fact that the economic and social life of this nation is grinding to a halt, I appeal to the Minister, with his officials, and with the advice of the Minister for Labour, to get together this evening with the POWU executive and think of some way of settling this matter. They could resolve the difficulties based on a realistic, immediate, interim offer and a proper assessment and examination of the workers claims in the long term.
I appeal to the Minister for Labour to assist in finding a solution because this has been the worst and most disastrous industrial relations dispute in the history of this country. The economic and social damage that has been done is frightening and the nation is crying out to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, the Minister for Labour, the Taoiseach and the Government to display some imagination, some ingenuity to solve this problem. I suggest they get together with the POWU tonight and get the postal and telephone services restored immediately.
There has been so much clamour and demand for this debate that one would have expected that the Opposition had all the answers to the industrial relations problems of the public sector. To say the contributions were disappointing is putting it mildly. There were no constructive ideas put forward, just a series of worn-out tunes we heard so often. One must suspect that the prime aim was to make industrial relations a political issue rather than an issue of national importance concerning the whole community and the employment of our young people.
While the motion is in general terms, the latter stages of the debate particularly were overshadowed by the Posts and Telegraphs strike. It is necessary in the context of the motion to consider the general situation. As the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs dealt with that dispute earlier today, I do not want to limit myself to any particular situation. Therefore, in my reply I will attempt to address myself to the general issues involved. When the Department of Labour was established in its present form, just 13 years ago, the Government of the day saw it as the primary duty of the new Department to protect and foster the interests of workers in matters which were properly the concern of the Government.
In moving that the relevant Bill which provided for the establishment of the new Department be read a Second Time, the then Taoiseach, the late Seán Lemass, pointed out that the setting up of a new Ministry of Labour was not to be taken as implying any fundamental change in regard to Government policy in respect of industrial relations, which was firmly based upon the principle of free collective bargaining. The duty of the Government was seen as limiting its role to facilitating this system in whatever way might be agreed to be desirable. The then Taoiseach commented that, while it seemed likely that industrial relations would be a large part of the work of the new Department for a long time after its establishment, the Department would not be concerned exclusively with this subject. The primary duty of the Department would be the protection of the interests of the workers in matters which were properly the concern of the Government.
Dr. Hillery, during his term as first Minister for Labour, explained to the House, in the course of introducing the first Estimate for the new Department, that the aim of the Department was to bring about conditions in which workers, through wage increases, improvement in working conditions and other benefits, would be rewarded fairly for their labours. He felt it necessary at that time to remind the House that improvements in the lot of workers, as of any other category of persons, could only be achieved if national production was expanded and that monetary increases which were not supported by an expansion of production or improvements in productivity could be quickly overtaken by rises in prices and other developments which would nullify the increases in pay.
In the intervening 13 years since the Department was set up much progress has been made in improving the standard of living of the Irish worker. The national economic context in which local employer-employee relationships and negotiations take place may have become more complex in the years following our accession to the EEC, the recession of the mid-1970s and, most recently, our participation in the European Monetary System, but the basic mechanism of voluntary collective bargaining is still the major means of channelling employer-employee relationships and negotiations and of securing for the worker improvements in the conditions of his employment over and above the basic minimum rights guaranteed under legislation.
In the context of recent serious industrial disputes, criticism has been directed at members of the Government and at me personally because we have not intervened in particular dispute situations. It has been said that the Minister for Labour has a lot to answer for. I have indeed a lot to answer for and, as Minister for Labour, I am responsible for legislation relating to the occupational safety, health and welfare of workers and conditions of employment; for manpower policy, including the training and retraining of workers, forecasting manpower requirements and the operation of placement and guidance functions through the National Manpower Service; for the operation of schemes of redundancy payments and resettlement allowances and the employment incentive and maintenance schemes; for the promotion of standards set by the conventions and recommendations of the International Labour Organisation; and I am responsible for the implementation of industrial relations and trade union law, as well as for industrial relations in general.
In short, I am a Minister for Labour, not a Minister for Industrial Relations alone. Even if my responsibilities were redefined tomorrow so that my sole function was in the sphere of industrial relations, the face remains that our system of industrial relations is based on free and voluntary collective bargaining. Unless this principle is radically revised, the range of actions open to me in the case of a serious dispute remains limited, more limited than the public and, indeed, some of the Opposition Deputies seem to realise.
When the Oireachtas set up the Labour Court and conciliation service what it did, in effect, was to provide a venue where the parties to trade disputes could meet and try to reach agreement with the help of an impartial third party. It must be emphasised that in the realm of industrial relations in Ireland no one is obliged to call on the help of the conciliation service; no one is obliged to take a trade dispute to the Labour Court; and, if people do go to the court, they are not obliged to accept the recommendations of the court for the settlement of disputes. The workers and employers have the freedom to bargain collectively up to and including a Labour Court hearing and recommendation. Normally the court will not investigate a dispute unless efforts at conciliation have failed and unless both parties are agreeable to have the matter investigated by the court.
The Industrial Relations Act, 1969 empowered the Minister for Labour to appoint rights commissioners. The commissioners normally deal with disputes involving "rights"—for example, dismissal, demarcation and disciplinary disputes. Following investigation of the dispute, the rights commissioner makes a non-binding recommendation to the parties suggesting terms of settlement. This recommendation may be appealed to the Labour Court by one or other of the parties involved, but in such event the Labour Court's ruling is binding. However, neither the rights commissioner's recommendation nor the Labour Court's ruling on an appeal are legally enforceable.
At this time I will not go into all the complexities of the machinery for settling industrial disputes. But I do want to say this: if it is argued that we are in the midst of industrial relations chaos, that somehow the situation is out of control, then it is because either the existing institutions and machinery are suitable and adequate but are being abused in some way, or the existing institutions and machinery are suitable but inadequate, or because the institutions and machinery are both unsuitable and inadequate and some new arrangements for dispute settling are required.
I must admit that I sometimes wonder whether in some instances the parties to disputes really make genuine efforts at settlement while the dispute is still a matter exclusive to themselves. In theory, employers and employees come to the conciliation service because they have difficulty in reaching agreement at local level and require the assistance of an impartial third party to help them make a settlement. In practice, of course, one or other party may accept conciliation merely as a means of postponing strike action; or they will go to conciliation with no real intention of yielding ground but declaring after deadlock has been reached that they were always prepared to discuss the problem with the other parties to the dispute. This attitude makes nonsense of the term "meaningful negotiations" and it is only when negotiations are meaningful, when both parties are prepared to adopt a flexible approach, that the conciliation process can be successful.
Over the years the Labour Court, its conciliation service, and the rights commissioner service all have proved their worth. I am not suggesting for a moment that they are perfect and cannot be improved. This is one area which the Commission on Industrial Relations, which I will come back to later, is considering.
The Minister will not have much time.
I have until 5 o'clock. It has been argued that the existing machinery does not have the capacity to deal speedily with disputes, thereby increasing dissatisfaction and frustration among workers who must wait for the resolution of what they see as their legitimate grievances. I am well aware of the burden of work placed on the Labour Court staff, whose normal schedule of hearings may be disrupted by a major strike. I am in the process of appointing a fourth division of the court which will ease the burden on existing staff and reduce delays in processing disputes. I have already invited both sides, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Federated Union of Employers, to suggest their nominees. I will be appointing additional rights commissioners.
As for the claim that the existing legislation and institutions are inadequate or unsuitable for the preservation of good industrial relations, it must be admitted that some of the key legislation in this area dates from the 1870s, not the 1970s. I have for long been of the view that there should be an overall, in-depth review of existing legislation, of the institutions and structures set up under legislation and of the conduct of industrial relations generally. For this reason I established a Commission of Inquiry on Industrial Relations in May of last year. The commission is representative of both employers and trade unions, the people actually engaged from day to day in industrial relations affairs. I have also appointed independent members from a range of industrial relations backgrounds. The commission has now met 20 times and it has received a substantial number of submissions from interested bodies, parties and individuals. I wonder if all the so called experts in the Opposition have made submissions to the commission or, as some of them have been doing, would they prefer just to be as usual knocking its usefulness, its benefits and effectiveness? This is a major step forward for the future.
Deputy Kelly was asking questions about what had been done as if he were one of those people who never had experience of government and was not aware that industrial relations, serious though they are, have never been as good as we would like them to be. I feel that even Deputy Kelly himself did not believe that there was an instant solution to this problem. I am confident that this commission will still meet my request for a final report to be submitted within two years of its establishment.
As for the role of law in industrial relations, let me say that I would prefer a situation when legislation was mainly supportive of the institutions and arrangements which would reflect the existence of our system of free collective bargaining. There have been demands for more legislation—legislation outlawing strikes and pickets, legislation providing for cooling-off periods and so on. These demands have to some extent stemmed from the incidence of dispute situations over sometimes seemingly trivial matters which inflict widespread hardship on the community. Let me say that I can understand the reasons for the calls for law in such situations. However, there is no guarantee that such laws would help towards achieving the degree of industrial peace which we all so earnestly desire. There is the basic consideration that you cannot in a democratic society force a man to work if he does not wish to do so. I want to see a situation where order and sanity will prevail in industrial relations through voluntary arrangements between the parties concerned. Surely this is not too much to expect. In all areas of human activity there are ground rules which must be obeyed in the interests of order and harmony. So, too, must there be ground rules which must be adhered to in the conduct of industrial relations.
If people, however, continue to refuse to obey the rules of the game consideration must be given to the possibility of legislation in limited areas. The Government cannot tolerate forever a situation where individuals or groups continue, in the pursuit of selfish aims, to upset the lives of the rest of the community.
Whenever a dispute disrupts or removes an essential service there is clamour for intervention by the Minister for Labour. However, the Minister for Labour has to explore in each particular situation whether there is a role for him in the matter. He would have to have regard to the extent to which all the dispute-settling procedures had been utilised. For example, in the Post Office dispute, pressure was exerted on individual Government Ministers and even on the Taoiseach to intervene. I often wonder whether people who advocate such intervention realise the implications of what they are suggesting.
The position in regard to the Post Office dispute is that agreed procedures have been broken and, therefore, to intervene in such circumstances would only serve to encourage other to do likewise and disregard agreed procedures. Let me make it clear that there is no statutory role for the Minister for Labour in the negotiation process. I do not propose to become another rung on the negotiation ladder. Frequent ministerial intervention would have the probable consequence that local settlement procedures, the Labour Court and its services would increasingly be regarded as just a series of barriers to be pushed aside before getting the dispute on the Minister's table. I am not going to be the cause of overthrowing procedures or the Labour Court.
In the public mind ministerial intervention carries with it the hope of a settlement. I am not empowered in the case of dispute in the private sector to insist that an employer improve his offer and thereby secure a return to work. similarly, in the case of public sector disputes, the Minister for Labour is not in a position to make an offer in excess of that made by the Minister responsible. However, I do not rule out completely the possibility of my intervening in some major dispute situations which cause serious hardship for the community or are likely to affect adversely the national good and where all the available negotiation machinery has been utilised and has failed to secure any settlement. In considering intervention in such cases I would have to have regard to the effect on third parties outside the immediate area of the dispute, the effect the intervention might have on the existing dispute-settling machinery and, of course, the possibilities of securing a settlement.
Apart from my intervention in dispute situations I have also on a number of occasions met the parties to disputes in order to persuade them to use the settlement machinery available to them. My own and my Department's activities in this area have been conducted quietly and without publicity. Indeed, the vast majority of disputes in Irish industry are settled within the agreed procedures in a mature way without the glare of publicity.
Perhaps the most important principle which a Minister for Labour should defend is that of observance of negotiation and dispute settling procedures agreed between employer and organised labour. If breaches of these procedures by employers or workers are to be blandly accepted as a fact of industrial life and negotiations to be pursued with the defaulters regardless of their bloody-minded attitudes, where is the incentive for the majority of employers and workers to abide by the agreed procedures and conduct their negotiations in an orderly fashion? We all accept the necessity for moving off on the green light and halting on the red light. If some transgressors ignore the red light and get away with it, should we all do it?
As long as we accept the principle of free collective bargaining we must accept that it is the people who must work together each day who are best suited to developing agreements and relationships which have a real chance of working satisfactorily for them. Persons having marital problems may receive advice from a counsellor, but the counsellor cannot go and live with them. In like fashion I can exhort employers and unions to abide by certain procedures but it is ultimately the parties themselves who must try to keep their relationships on a harmonious basis.
Interventions by the Minister for Labour can at best only help towards bringing about a settlement in a particular dispute. Such interventions cannot achieve a fundamental change in attitudes, which is what is really required to bring about a lasting improvement in industrial relations. But attitudes can only be changed through a better informed trade union movement and a more realistic approach on the part of employers. Towards this end the Government had made, and continue to make, available through my Department substantial financial assistance for the education, training and advisory services of the ICTU and for the Irish Management Institute. In so far as the grant to Congress is concerned, it was subject to a restriction by the previous Minister for Finance which would have had the effect of requiring of Congress, as and from this year onwards that they meet 50 per cent of the gross expenditure on their education, training and advisory services to enable them to get the grant. This restriction has now been removed and the grant has been stabilised on an 80 per cent Exchequer/20 per Congress contribution basis. I must mention that the grant to Congress has steadily increased over the years. It now stands at £205,000 for 1979 as compared with a grant of £45,000 when this function was originally transferred to my Department in 1973-74. In addition, since the beginning of the year my Department have assumed responsibility for the payment of the State subvention to the College of Industrial Relations. Indeed, this grant has been increased by 100 per cent. I would expect that the outlay by the State on these institutions will bring substantial benefits and will over the years improve the quality of our conduct of industrial relations.
In any undertaking in which a number of trade unions operate problems can arise for both the employer and trade unions. In situations of this kind the employer is usually faced with a fragmented approach to negotiations for improvements in pay and conditions. Competition and rivalry between the trade unions may result in each union trying to outdo the others as regards the size of pay increases and other improvements which they achieve for their members.
Obviously a co-ordinated approach to negotiations on pay and conditions would make the task of employer and trade unions much easier. The Government are aware that for some time past the Irish Congress of Trade Unions have endeavoured to promote the better organisation of trade unions in joint structures with a view to bringing about common negotiation and common decision-making procedures where more than one trade union operates within an industry or firm. The group negotiation concept has already been established recently in CIE. The Government are sympathetic towards the group negotiation concept and they will consider supporting moves which they know are under way with a view to encouraging the more widespread development of this type of agreement.
The manner in which employers conduct their industrial relations and the importance they attach to them can significantly affect performance on the shop floor. I would sincerely hope that the day is long past when profit was the sole motivating force for management and that a greater awareness of the need to develop human relationships is now an accepted part of every employers approach to his work force.
The Government have the right to expect that both sides of industry will conduct their affairs in a responsible and orderly manner. No group can act responsibly unless they have the freedom to do so and the Government are reluctant to interfere in a situation where what has to be done can best be done on the basis of voluntary restraint.
Not only is there a need for a change of attitudes but there is a need to experiment with new approaches to foretelling and resolving industrial friction. One such approach is worker involvement in decision-making.
Deputies will already be aware that I have been implementing the Worker Participation Act, passed by my predecessor in the public sector. Twelve employee directors have been appointed to date. As the election in NET concluded only last Saturday, the successful candidates have not yet been formally appointed.
In addition I am having a discussion paper prepared by my Department setting out the general position relating to the whole question of worker participation at all levels of the enterprise. The work on this document is well advanced and I hope to have it published within a month or two. The document will help to focus public debate and discussion on the main issues involved in worker participation and on new developments occurring in the area of worker involvement at shop floor level. It should also afford both sides of industry an opportunity to bring forward their own considered views and opinions on these issues. An outline of the main issues which will be dealt with in the document has been discussed with both sides of industry.
I am considering appointing an advisory committee, comprising representatives of the main interest groups, to review progress and developments in the general area of worker participation and the possibilities for the provision of funds for research into certain aspects of shop-floor participation.
Apart from participation at local or enterprise level there have been significant new developments which exemplify participation at national level in the formulation of policies for economic and social progress. I am referring to the proposals for a national understanding for economic and social development drawn up by the representatives of Government, employer and industry organisations and of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.
I was disappointed this morning to hear Deputy Mitchell refer to Fianna Fáil's efforts towards national pay deals or national understandings or any efforts of that sort as being political efforts. Surely that is the type of approach that must be encouraged in this day and age. It should not be criticised in the glib manner in which it was criticised this morning.
The Minister was good at that when he was in Opposition.
I intend to ignore the interruptions.
(Interruptions.)
the Minister to conclude.
I will answer Deputy O'Brien when I have more time at my disposal.
The Minister has not answered anybody yet.
(Interruptions.)
As usual the Deputy is unruly; he is never otherwise.
Through the Chair, look who is talking.
(Interruptions.)
We have only ten minutes left and the sooner they are over the better.
This development envisages the forging of a new unity of purpose and stability in working towards the achievement of prosperity for all our people. All sections of the community have been made aware in recent years of the economic and social problems caused by high levels of unemployment. The proposals for the national understanding declare at the outset that the central objective of economic and social policy is, and must continue to be, the creation of more employment. The practical difficulties involved in catering for a rapidly expanding work force which is well educated and has high aspirations are going to be considerable but the goal of full employment can be achieved given the necessary response and sustained commitment from all sections in the community.
The proposal for the national understanding represent another important step in the development of a relationship between Government, employer and workers. They certainly represent a major development, a new concept, towards achieving a national consensus on a wide range of topics, including employment, pay, taxation, health, welfare and education. I would, therefore, stress to union members that when they cast their votes they will not be voting on whether or not to accept the pay deal for the next 15 months, they will be voting on a development plan for economic and social progress in which all sectors of the community will be participating.
In framing proposals for a national understanding, the parties concerned have shown an exemplary spirit of co-operation and unity of purpose. If it was possible to achieve this spirit on major issues of vital concern to every member of the community, surely it would not be asking too much of those concerned with industrial relations at different levels that they show a similar spirit of co-operation by adhering to agreed procedures and making full use of the dispute-settling machinery available to them. In so doing they would be helping considerably in laying the foundations for industrial peace and the future prosperity of this nation.
Before concluding I wish to reply to a matter raised by Deputy Mitchell this morning in connection with the point contested by us in this House some months ago on man-days lost due to industrial disputes in 1978. Deputy Mitchell said that 80 per cent of all man-days lost were attributable to the public sector. That is not correct.
I am aware that Business and Finance published a commentary on strike situations giving statistics for 1978 based on a survey carried out by the staff of Trinity College. According to that commentary the man-days lost in the public sector represented 80 per cent of the total in that year. However, my Department's estimate—and I am absolutely satisfied about its accuracy—is that the number of man-days lost in the public sector in 1978 was approximately 36 per cent. Officials of my Department have had discussions with Trinity College personnel engaged in the survey and they have agreed that the university in-depth examination showed that possibly 38 per cent of the man-days lost were attributable to the public sector. Neither Trinity College staff nor the officers of my Department know where the quoted 80 per cent came from.
The motion is before the House. I believe I have set out the way ahead and the new concept. All of us hope for improved industrial relations.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 45.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Kit.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Andrews, Niall.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, Seán.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Cogan, Barry.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Daly, Brendan.
- de Valera, Síle.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Farrell, Joe.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Filgate, Eddie.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom. (Dublin South- Central).
- Fitzsimons, James N.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Fox, Christopher J.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, James.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gibbons, Jim.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Keegan, Seán.
- Kenneally, William.
- Killeen, Tim.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lemass, Eileen.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Morley, P. J.
- Murphy, Ciarán P.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy C.
- O'Donoghue, Martin.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Smith, Michael.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael J.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Belton, Luke.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Boland, John.
- Browne, Noël.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Joan.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Horgan, John.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lipper, Mick.
- Mannion, John M.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Cosgrave, Michael J.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Deasy, Martin A.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Donnellan, John F.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom. (Cavan-Monaghan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, William.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Ryan, John J.
- Spring, Dan.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies MacSharry and Briscoe; Níl, Deputies B. Desmond and Creed.
Question declared carried.
The Dáil adjourned at 5.10 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 8 May 1979.