asked the Minister for Labour if he will outline his views on expanding the Labour Court to enable it to deal with all sectors of industrial relations within the country whether in the private or the public sector.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Industrial Relations.
27.
As the Deputy will be aware, a substantial number of workers in the public sector already have access to the Labour Court. These include industrial civil servants, non-officer grades in the local authorities, non-officer grades and some officer grades in the health boards and employees of State-sponsored bodies.
The question of extending the responsibilities of the Labour Court to include groups in the public service not currently within its scope has not arisen for consideration in the current review of the official dispute settling institutions. The machinery which exists for these groups was set up by agreement and any changes would be a matter for the Minister for the Public Service and the unions concerned in the first instance.
Now that the Government are appearing to ignore conciliation and arbitration agreements, there is a strong feeling among trade unionists that they might be better going through the Labour Court. That view is held by a number of senior trade unionists, as the Minister privately knows. Will he go along with that? Is he prepared to extend the Labour Court to take in sections of the Civil Service and the public sector who are at present covered by arbitration if they so wish?
I do not wish the Deputy to convey an erroneous impression to this House. The Government are fully in accord with the provisions of all conciliation and arbitration agreements and with the provisions of those agreements. Should we finally come to this House — as we may on Thursday — to debate a motion in relation to a particular award, we will still be fully in accord with the provisions of C and A agreements because access to this House is an integral part of those provisions. We have never so far been and do not propose to be out of line with the provisions of the C and A schemes.
But the Government will not pay it.
We are fully in accord with the provisions of the schemes, as is the right in free collective bargaining for either party. With regard to the second part of the Deputy's question, the C and A schemes of which there are a number arose when many public servants were not able to have access to the Labour Court. The time may now have come when the unions and the Minister responsible may wish to consider whether access to the Labour Court or a section of the court might be preferable to the re-establishment of the C and A schemes. In the first instance that is a matter for them to discuss and to decide. It might be prejudicial if I offered an opinion in advance of either side coming to their own conclusions.
Will the Minister agree that it might be better for industrial relations if the Government were not in the front line as they have been for the past five or six months in negotiations and if the cases could be argued out in the Labour Court with professional people? The Government would still have the right to decide with regard to Labour Court decisions but it would be far better than the present system.
There is much merit in what the Deputy has said. The Government will always be in the front line of industrial relations because they are the single largest employer. Some people confuse the role of employer with that of an adjudicator and arbitrator. With regard to the latter role, in my view there is considerable merit in that but it must be accepted by the participants if we are to maintain the principle of free collective bargaining, to which I am committed.