Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 10 Feb 1983

Vol. 339 No. 11

Adjournment Debate. - Imprisonment of Workers.

I should like to thank the Chair for giving me the opportunity to raise this difficult issue on the Adjournment. I do so realising the difficulties for the Minister and, perhaps, for all of us. I am aware that action taken by a group of workers in the Phibsboro, Dublin, section of Ranks (Ireland) Limited is unofficial and that the Labour Court have made two earnest efforts to reach a solution. The difficulty has led to the commital to prison this morning of two people and I understand from the radio — the Minister may have more information — that three more will have to indicate their intentions in regard to whether they intend to proceed tomorrow. I appreciate the difficulties realising the unofficial nature of the action that has been taken by the workers and that it often happens that unofficial disputes are hardest to solve.

As Minister for Labour I experienced difficulties in regard to official and unofficial disputes. In recent times trade union officials have been outspoken in their comments about management resorting to the courts leading to the imprisonment of workers. Such procedure has never been a solution to the problem. The Minister of the day, or somebody else, must then strive to solve the problem before it escalates and the Minister should do so in this case.

I had a long saga with the company concerned. I had one good intervention with the company but several that were, unfortunately, not so good. What has brought this problem to crunch point is the question of flour imports. It would be dishonest of me to say that this has only happened since the change of Government. It has not and Governments have not been able to come up with a solution to it. I will support any efforts the Minister brings to bear on his colleagues to find a solution to that problem because the importing of flour will undoubtedly affect other groups. That would be disastrous and in the long term it may undermine the independence of our flour milling industry.

I had some experience of dealing with the company concerned with the threatened closure of Kellys of Kilcock and I can claim, with justification, that my intervention saved that company from closure. I was involved in unsuccessful and disappointing interventions such as in the case of O'Rourke's or the Mother's Pride Bakery where, late in the day, I asked both sides to meet me. I wondered then whether there was some death wish hanging around the company or an anxiety to close. An intervention which disappointed me because of the attitude of management was in regard to the Marina Bakery in Cork. In that case — it was not so long ago — there was almost a determined resistance to any effort to get the bakery to continue as a going concern. The lack of investment over the years contributed to the problem and the company complained that restrictive practices contributed but the workers, with a lot of justification, complained that management contributed. The bakery closed, resulting in the loss of badly needed jobs in Cork.

In regard to the dispute under discussion, when the rationalisation programme was put before the workers, and the Labour Court recommended that redundancy terms be paid in line with industry — they had been paid by that company already — the company pleaded inability to pay. I can understand people being surprised to hear of such a multinational company not meeting what would be for them a small commitment. The company had set a headline already. A threatened closure followed and then we had the decision by the workers. There was agreement by some workers to go back to work but on the Dublin scene that was not acceptable with the result that we have reached this impasse. In recent years a number of companies have sought such court injunctions. Some companies are quick to get such injunctions but I have never seen one solving a problem. In fact the action has meant that the load has been thrown on to somebody else to solve. That is the problem the Minister is facing unless somebody acts quickly and wisely.

I accept that we are living in an era where some people like the publicity attached to being in prison for a short time to highlight a problem. Such people are hailed as heroes as a result and that must be taken into account. We have often heard employers' organisations screaming about the damage one-man pickets cause, leading to all sorts of hardships, but on the other side of the coin there has been a growing tendency by employers to seek court injunctions. In this case a court injunction has resulted in the imprisonment of workers. I am not going to lay the blame on the Minister and he has my full support in his efforts to solve this problem. Before I left office I was approached to begin to separate this type of law interference with industrial relations. I have often said that if one could legislate away industrial relations problems every western democracy would have done so long ago. It is very much a human problem too and human problems are not helped by people being imprisoned. Rather than conceding or surrendering, the Irish people seem to harden their attitudes and there is a resolve to win despite the consequences or the hardship which may be involved for individuals. They do not consider that seriously if they feel they have a cause to fight for, justifiably or otherwise.

In this case they have stepped outside their own trade union rules. This is unofficial. One must have some sympathy for them. Their jobs have been put in jeopardy and are unlikely to continue. They see the flour imports. They see the multinational company who have not abided by the Labour Court recommendation. I could join with the Minister and tell them to accept the democratic decision taken, but that is not always easy.

I am speaking to the Minister in a very low key this evening, realising the difficulties and problems and that those who become involved go to prison. These problems are not easily solved, particularly if the cancer is allowed to continue for too long. Attitudes harden and build up. I look forward to hearing the most up-to-date position which no doubt the Minister knows. While there are two people in jail, I hope no hasty action will be taken in relation to the other three, and that efforts will be made immediately by the Minister or some agency on his behalf to prevent a bad situation, which was contributed to by the people involved and by many others, from worsening.

I understand that the decision to commit the workers concerned was taken by the court because of a refusal to obey the court's injunction to cease occupation of the premises in question. As the matter is one for the courts, I am advised that I may not comment on this particular case.

In my address on the budget earlier today, I referred to the increasing use of the civil courts in regard to industrial dispute situations. As stated already today, I intend to raise this question of ex-parte injunctions and the procedures involved with the employer and trade union representatives in the forthcoming discussions with a view to determining what legislative action may be appropriate in the circumstances. The Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Industrial Relations took the view that such injunctions are granted on the same basis and according to similar criteria in other branches of the law.

Without prejudice to the talks which will take place with the employers and trade unions, it is my considered view that recourse to common law in an industrial relations dispute situation may often have unfortunate repercussions for both the employers and trade unions involved and may ultimately, in a broader perspective, damage the fabric of our industrial relations system. On the other hand, illegal forms of industrial action can never be condoned and it is the special responsibility of trade unions to ensure that the provisions of the law are complied with.

I want to make that particular point quite clear. I made it clear this morning in the budget debate. I assure the Deputy that, should approaches be made to me with regard to mitigating the situation in this case, and if there is an area in which I can be of assistance, I will certainly take action.

The Dáil adjourned at 5.15 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 15 February 1983.

Top
Share