Deputy De Rossa has been given permission to raise on the Adjournment the continued imprisonment of 14 workers of Ranks Mills in Mountjoy Prison. Before the debate commences the Chair would like to point out that in so far as the Minister for Labour has asked for a report on the facts surrounding the matter and has received a submission from the imprisoned workers, the Chair has allowed the matter to be raised. The Chair wishes also to point out that the Minister has no official responsibility for the imprisonment of the workers or for their release and those matters will not be in order in the debate.
Adjournment Debate. - Jailing of Mill Workers.
I wish to thank the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment and I regret it has taken so long to get the subject debated in this House. It is unfortunate that the Minister for Labour, Deputy Kavanagh, is not here to listen to the points being made and to reply to the debate.
It must be clear to everyone that the jailing of 14 employees of Ranks Limited and their continued imprisonment will have, and is having, the most serious implications, not only for the milling industry, but for the entire field of industrial relations in Ireland. Today Dublin port closed for a half day as a result of sympathetic strike action by the dockers and building workers have now indicated their intention of taking similar action. I congratulate them for their decision to take this action, because it is only through unity and strength of the trade union movement that in the long run workers will get their rights.
Workers are very angry because of the situation that has developed. They are indignant at the jailing of their fellow trade unionists. They know that in the present economic climate, they too may have to take drastic action to protect their jobs and their rights. We are likely to see more and more sympathetic industrial action arising from this dispute. Unless prompt action is taken to have the jailed workers released, the effects could spread through Irish industry with the speed of a bush fire and with an equally devastating effect.
While the immediate problem relates to Ranks, it is clear that there are a number of other disputes around the country which could escalate in a similar manner. The use of High Court injunctions has become an increasingly sinister feature of our industrial relations field. Disputes of this nature must be a matter for the Labour Court rather than the High Court. In this instance the Labour Court have already made a recommendation but Ranks have refused to implement it. At present there is little or nothing the Labour Court can do when a company refuse to accept their decision. I believe the Labour Court should be given some teeth to enable them to deal with employers like Ranks. What grants or Government subsidies have Ranks received? What grants or subsidies have subsidiaries of Ranks received from the State? What grants are they still receiving? There is surely a case for withdrawing Government assistance from companies like Ranks who refuse to accept the findings of the Labour Court.
As unemployment continues to grow, and it inevitably will after the recent budget, workers will become more and more desperate to protect their jobs, or failing that to get fair and just compensation when their jobs are lost. Unless the Government move to control the use of High Court injunctions in the industrial relations area, our jails will be filled with more and more workers. With unemployment at an unprecedented level, with the Government cutting back on services and with unemployment benefit under threat, is it any wonder that workers are determined to hold on to what they have?
The workers in Clondalkin Paper Mills and in Ranks have exploded the myth that Irish workers lack what is called the work ethic, a slander we repeatedly hear, particularly from the Fine Gael benches. Here are workers who are prepared to go to jail in their determination to hold on to their jobs. Is it not a sad reflection on Ireland in 1983 that the prison authorities and the Department of Justice are apparently prepared to sanction the release of convicted criminals in order to make space to jail workers seeking their just rights?
This dispute highlights once again the rights which private property is given over and above the rights of those who do not have any property. The rights of shareholders of a company are deemed to be more important than the rights of workers who have given 10, 20, 30 and even 40 years' service making profits for a company who, at the end of the day say "sorry lads but we can only give you a half week's pay for every year you have worked for us". Injunctions have been sought and granted and men jailed because Ranks believe the rights of their shareholders are more important than the rights of the men and women who have worked for them. This dispute has exploded another myth, that of a classless society. We are told that we are all in this recession together, that we are all equally hit by it and that we must all pull together, except when it comes to redundancies. Then we are told we should take these few bob in our fists and go quietly down the road without making any noise because the shareholders must get their fair whack.
In my view questions must be raised about the bona fides of the Ranks company. This dispute started when workers sought to protect their jobs. When this failed they tried to get adequate compensation for the loss of their jobs but Ranks — 73 per cent of which is owned by a British consortium, Ranks, Hovis and MacDougal — have pleaded inability to pay. It would be laughable if it were not so serious that a company of that size are pleading inability to pay 200 workers fair compensation for the loss of their jobs. To what extent have Ranks engineered the importation of British flour into this State? To what extent have their subsidiaries here been using imported flour? To what extent is the present closure simply the last act in a plan which has been set in motion by the Ranks organisation for the last 15 to 20 years in an attempt to get a grip on the Irish market? They have succeeded in gaining 32 per cent of it. There is a strong suspicion that our 16 per cent of imported flour is coming from the parent company in Britain which effectively gives them a 50 per cent control of the Irish market.
The Government must take steps to insist that the company fulfil their obligations to the workers who have served them loyally, not just during the last year or two but for generations. They must insist that the company fulfil their commitments to the agreements entered into freely by the company in relation to redundancy payments, and they must insist that the company comply with the Labour Court recommendation on redundancy payments. That is the way to end this dispute. That is the way to get the men out of prison.
With the agreement of the Chair, I propose that Deputy Gregory contribute to this debate.
I thank Deputy De Rossa and the Chair for allowing me to contribute to this debate. I am glad of this opportunity which at last has afforded the House an opportunity to express our concern at the continued imprisonment of 14 workers. It must have been very disheartening to the men and their families over the last ten days that there did not appear to be a sense of urgency in the Dáil at their desperate predicament. It must be a very effective example to demonstrate the irrelevance of this House to vital issues of importance to workers, that so far this matter has not been debated through the normal time of the House, either by way of Government statements, private notice questions or other mechanism. As the Chair is well aware, I attempted to raise this issue on at least three separate occasions by private notice questions using the accepted procedures of the House, all of which were disallowed by the Chair on what, with respect, I considered most dubious grounds.
The Deputy cannot raise the ruling of the Chair in this way.
I regret that I felt it necessary to refer to that because——
The Deputy will find it necessary to remain in order if he is to continue to talk.
I have always remained in order and it would take a very extreme situation to make me stray from that stance. However, the Chair will agree that we started this session of a new Dáil with the principle before us of trying to make the proceedings of this House a little more relevant. The past week has shown the very serious difficulties confronting Deputies in attempting to do this. That is an extremely important aspect of this——
That may be, Deputy, but to refer to the dubious decision of the Chair is an entirely different matter.
I agree. I was going to attempt to clarify that statement by reference to the reasons given by the Ceann Comhairle's office, particularly the statement that the situation had not changed despite the fact that since the original adjournment debate on this issue, when only two workers were involved, there has been for some days now a total of 14 workers imprisoned, which many Deputies regard as a drastic change in circumstances. They felt that such a serious situation should come before the House and be debated in the normal session, not pushed to Adjournment time when, as we see, most of the Deputies have gone home and there is very little emphasis on what goes on.
I must reiterate that the Chair's decision in refusing to allow this matter to be debated or to allow the Ministers responsible to be questioned during the normal session to be a most retrograde step.
The Deputy will withdraw that remark or resume his seat. The Chair rules in accordance with Standing Orders and precedent and the Deputy may not criticise that ruling. I am so ruling now.
I am referring only to the ruling. As the Chair knows, I abide by Standing Orders. I did not do as some Deputies do — in other words raise the question at a time when it is not proper to do so. I went through the accepted procedures of the House and put down private notice questions, but they were disallowed. I do not want to divert from the main issue in this debate, but feel it is an extremely important issue which should have been debated before the House. I beg to differ with the Chair's decision.
The Deputy may not differ with the decision of the Chair in the way he is doing. If he wants to do so, there are provisions for that in Standing Orders; but the disorderly way of making suggestions that the Chair has not acted properly in accordance with the rules cannot be tolerated.
If I may continue.
Before the Deputy proceeds, he should withdraw the implications which he has made.
If the Chair felt any criticism of, or disrespect towards, himself I will withdraw it.
I feel disrespect towards the Chair. Personally, I have no feeling, but there is disrespect to the Chair and the Deputy should withdraw.
Towards the Chair, I regret that I felt it necessary to raise that matter.
Is the Deputy withdrawing?
I withdraw my remarks to enable me to proceed with the remainder of the——
The Deputy will withdraw without qualification, please.
I did not mean any disrespect to the Chair. However, I must re-emphasise that there is a need to make this House more relevant and enable Deputies to refer——
That is a perfectly legitimate point of view, but this adjournment debate is not the time or place for advancing it.
I will pass on from the subject now, but my reason for making the statement is that trade unions and the families of those in prison felt it necessary during this week to block traffic in the streets of this city in order to highlight the plight of these workers. That was largely due to our own failure to highlight it.
It is the Chair's duty to see that Standing Orders and rules of this House are neither blocked nor impeded and he proposes to do this as long as he occupies the Chair.
The issues involved in this dispute have been outlined by Deputy De Rossa, particularly the need for legislation to prevent the further use of High Court injunctions against workers involved in an industrial dispute. Giving the, in my view, dishonest and arbitrary methods of unscrupulous business interests, it is certain that before long there will be many more instances of workers being forced to take similar drastic action. The Government in this context would be very ill-advised if they do not act now. If this adjournment debate does nothing else, it will highlight that issue which will be worth while.
My immediate concern is for the courageous men now imprisoned in Mountjoy. I trust that the Minister will outline what consideration the Government have given to ordering the release of these men.
The Chair does not want to invade Deputy Gregory's time, but the Chair pointed out at the commencement of this debate that the Minister has no responsibility either for the imprisonment or the release of the men in question.
I accept that. However, I feel that this matter has been debated at Government level and that Deputies might be made aware of any consideration that the Government have given to the release of these men. The Minister is not here, which is disappointing. Perhaps we could be told if consideration has been given by the Government to the release of these men. We all agree that it is very unsatisfactory to talk of negotiations in such threatening circumstances, where people on one side of the dispute are incarcerated in prison cells. It is unrealistic to talk of reaching a satisfactory conclusion to these negotiations while the men remain imprisoned. If the Junior Minister choses not to, or cannot, give us that information, the fact that this adjournment debate has been held will serve to demonstrate to the workers the sense of solidarity among Deputies with their plight.
The Deputy's time is now up. The Minister to conclude.
In thanking you, Sir, for affording him the opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment, Deputy De Rossa mentioned the fact that the Minister for Labour was not in the House. That fact was referred to also by Deputy Gregory. In those circumstances it is only proper that I should say that the Minister for Labour has been attending an EEC meeting in Bonn and that he returns from there this evening, a fact to which I will refer later.
At the outset I should emphasise that what I can say about this matter is limited, limited because of the fact that many of the issues in this dispute are sub judice. As both Deputies who contributed to the debate are no doubt aware, the Minister for Labour has appointed Mr. Ercus Stewart, S.C., and an authority on labour law, to provide him with a report on the facts surrounding the Ranks dispute.
Could the Minister explain in what regard the matters relating to the dispute are sub judice? How can that be? As far as I am aware they are not before the courts.
The Minister should be allowed conclude without interruption.
As I have said, Mr. Ercus Stewart was invited to prepare a report on the facts surrounding the Ranks dispute. Submissions were received by the Department of Labour from the parties to the dispute, Ranks (Ireland) Limited, the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union and the group representing the former employees of the company who have been engaged in unofficial industrial dispute, 14 of whom have been committed to prison for contempt of court because of their refusal to obey a High Court order.
Mr. Stewart yesterday met with representatives of each of the parties involved. I understand that Mr. Stewart has had prolonged meetings with both company and union representatives and also visited Mountjoy Prison to speak to representatives of those in jail. The report is now at an advanced stage of preparation and the Minister expects to receive it tomorrow. The Minister intends to publish the report in due course. In the meantime I would hope that all concerned would await publication of the assessor's report and disclosure of the full facts before making any further comments or taking any further action which might be unhelpful.
I would emphasise for the benefit of all Deputies the great urgency with which the report has been prepared. I do not think I can put the matter further at this stage except on one general point raised by both Deputies who referred to the question of the role of injunctions in labour disputes. As the Deputies will be aware, the Minister for Labour, in the course of his budget speech made reference to this subject and has already indicated his intention of examining the role of injunctions in labour disputes in conjunction with both sides of industry.
The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 23 February 1983.