I am grateful for the opportunity of raising this matter on the Adjournment. Over the past fortnight or three weeks I have been making the request so that I might have the opportunity to put before the relevant Minister the facts of this strike. We pass the people on strike in Dawson Street and we are inclined to disregard the fact that it is a very serious strike. I call it "strike" and stay with the old terminology. I am always at a loss to understand why the new description —"industrial action"— should apply when it invariably means that industrial action has ceased and we do not have action of any kind.
I was mindful of the fact that the staff on strike in this instance had been involved with their company in providing a very vital service. I was concerned as always that any strike should exist because we are experienced enough to realise that in the matter of strikes nobody benefits. The staff or workers seldom benefit since they incur direct loss and hardship. There is a corresponding injury to the company they serve and the attendant loss to the community, especially where the service relates to insurance.
While I know we have mechanisms through which efforts can be made to settle a strike, in respect of this strike the Labour Court had considered the case and made recommendations which apparently were not acceptable to the management. I am not sure whether that is unique but it is certainly unusual in such matters. This strike has been going on for the past eight weeks or so and little progress had been made. I thought it would be appropriate for the Minister for Labour or the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism to indicate his concern and the concern of the community regarding its effect. Here we were not indicating any special interest in one side or the other but taking a neutral stance.
Briefly I will tell the House what I have in mind. Let us suppose I am insured with that company and pay premiums covering my house and my car which during the past eight weeks have been due for renewal. There is a tradition in this country that we do not pass pickets. One might say that there were some people in the offices anxious to cater for any person who would wish to pay his premium. I would not pay mine. I would not be motivated entirely by what would be reasonable or correct but by what is traditional. If the strike is on, we do not pass the picket.
If a client has a claim the company will say the premium had not been renewed and will not accept responsibility. The other fund is then called into play to pay for it. This is an aspect of the strike which should have concerned the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism, if not the Minister for Labour. The latter could indicate that the machinery existed through which strikes should be settled and that he was not disposed to interfere. That response has been characteristic of Ministers for Labour. I suppose it is the lazy approach but it is one in which any Minister for Labour can feel justified in taking refuge. Take the case of the policy holder with that company. Some people are more prudent than others and some might avail of the opportunity of not paying premiums due.
I gather that people are very optimistic about deliberations on this dispute which took place today but I am not accepting the vibes. Rather I will be hoping that if there is good news it will give pleasure to the Minister of State at the Department of Labour to make that announcement in his reply. If it is not the case, I would hope he would put it to his Minister that it would be necessary and appropriate for them to indicate to the Labour Court that they were anxious to have this matter reopened to bring the two sides together so that a reasonable and amicable resolution could be reached.
One could continue repeating aspects of this matter but I am avoiding repetition lest it would be taken that I was leaning towards one side or the other. That is not my purpose. Naturally we all lean in these matters towards the staff who are enduring hardship, the people for whom it is no pleasure but who feel they have been driven to the point where they must withhold their service because the recommendations of the Labour Court is this case were not honoured by the company. I have no doubt that the company have their own response to that but I do not want to dig into it lest I might be accused of interfering with or putting at risk any delicate situation which might have been reached.
In defence of myself and my interest in the strike I would point out that I first indicated to the House three weeks ago that I wished a Minister to convey to the two parties his unease or displeasure at this dispute because of the nature of the service being provided, apart from the human aspects, and that renewed negotiations should take place with a view to reaching a settlement. It is no harm that it should go out from this House that while the machinery exists through which strikes and disputes can be settled, in circumstances where that mechanism is not successful there is an obligation to protect the interests of the public, especially in such a vital matter as insurance. At the moment there are so many people trying to escape the payment of insurance that we should not be giving them another opportunity.
The enthusiasm I would have felt in my pleadings to the Minister has been somewhat affected by what I consider to be intimations of very good news which I received a few moments ago. I now find myself in the position where I do not want to plead beyond what is necessary. There is nothing new or novel I wish to say beyond saying that we are all concerned with the tragedy of strikes. I do not accept that in respect of any strike there is a conflict between right and wrong. I would concede that it is more akin to the ancient classical tragedy of two rights. The company will claim they are correct; the staff will claim they are correct, but where there is a stalemate it is essential that a representative of the Government should be prepared to act as mediator. We should not step aside from the existing legislation or from the Labour Court or any other court if we feel they can make a worthwhile contribution.
I do not want to presume that I have a greater sensitivity to the human aspect of this matter than anyone else, or that every Member is not as concerned as I am, but as we walk or drive to the Dáil it gives no great pleasure to see these people walking up and down outside these companies. I am concerned about the national loss which has been caused by this strike. This too should be borne in mind. The company should have some means of expressing their fears to a Minister and he could adjudicate and say what he feels.
There is a public charge that this House is becoming more irrelevant day by day. We should show that we are sensitive to anything that affects a person, a company, or the commercial and industrial life of this nation. As I said earlier, we all know that strikes benefit nobody. Invariably someone will presume to be the victor and someone else the vanquished, but in essence everybody loses. To date the staff have lost a lot and I hope the Minister will tell me tonight that the hardship and trauma suffered by the staff can be ended and that they can join with the company in once again providing this vital service to the community.
