Deputy De Rossa has been given permission to raise on the Adjournment the question of the continuing dispute in Dublin Corporation.
Adjournment Debate. - Dublin Corporation Strike.
B'fhearr liom dá mbeadh an tAire atá i mbun na Roinne atá freagrach anseo anocht.
I asked to raise this matter because I tried to raise it by way of Private Notice Question today and also on the Order of Business but I failed in my efforts. It is unfortunate that it is not possible to raise these matters of urgency during the course of the normal business of the day.
A number of other Deputies attempted to raise this matter over the last few days and we warned that the dispute would escalate if steps were not taken quickly to deal with the problems of the workers in dispute, especially in relation to their problem of getting the corporation or the Minister concerned to enter into negotiations with them. I do not know if the Minister is aware that there were very serious incidents in the centre of Dublin tonight involving the Garda, the Army and some of the workers on strike. I understand that some of the workers were batoned during the course of the disturbances. It is a tragic occurrence and could have been avoided if talks had been started over the past week.
It was pointed out today that the request to involve the Army in clearing rubbish from the streets would be bound to escalate the dispute and to harden attitudes on all sides. I do not claim to know the facts in relation to the violence tonight — I got a brief report on them and I am not passing any comment as to who was responsible directly or indirectly — but the Government, the Minister and the corporation could have prevented such incidents if they had entered into negotiations. It is not clear to me — although I have my suspicions — why the Government are so obstinate in their approach to this dispute.
Negotiations have been entered into with many other sectors of the public service in recent months. Indeed, in recent days extraordinary efforts were made to settle the agricultural inspectors' dispute. I fully agree that such efforts should be made, but they should also have been made in relation to the dispute in the Dublin area. Major efforts were also made in relation to the teachers' dispute and of course they should have been made. However, I have a very strong suspicion that the reason efforts are not being made to settle this dispute is that we are dealing with some of the lowest paid workers in the public service and that the Government feel they can win.
It is odd that a Government with a Minister for Labour and for the Public Service, who is a member of the Labour Party committed in policy terms, as presumably Fine Gael are also committed, to free collective bargaining, should be taking an obstinate attitude in this matter. They seem to think these workers are easy meat, that this is where they can draw the line, that it is a confrontation they can win and that they may be able to recover their composure in the public sector pay area.
The Government, in defending their position, have argued that the 7 per cent on offer to the general workers of Dublin Corporation is the public sector norm and that it has been accepted by other groups in the public sector. However, they have not made it clear that not all the public service have accepted the offer of 7 per cent. They also did not make it clear that the figure of 7 per cent and the arrangements for paying it were negotiated with workers who are relatively better paid than the people with whom we are dealing in this dispute. This arrangement was made with officer grade staff and higher civil servants and, in these cases, special payments were also negotiated. In the case of the general workers in Dublin Corporation we are talking about a straightforward pay claim, the 25th round, with no special awards involved.
The sum of 7 per cent is being offered over 18 months. I am not attempting to interfere in negotiations that may, I hope, take place very soon but I want to draw attention to a number of points in relation to the offer which has been made. As I said, the offer is spread over 18 months with a pay pause of four months and a 3 per cent increase for the following eight months which, in effect, is a 2 per cent annual increase. The men involved receive a gross basic income of £138 per week. After deductions for PRSI and PAYE, the likelihood is that the increase would mean £1 extra per week. It may be fine for higher civil servants to accept a 7 per cent increase over 18 months with pay pauses because they are starting from a much higher base. Percentage increases have always benefited the better paid and discriminated against the lower paid.
Dublin Corporation workers are looking for a reasonable increase in real terms. They are not looking for the earth or saying that the Government must pay beyond their means. They just want something extra to enable them to pay their way. Surely the Government must see the justice in the point they made in relation to percentage increases for the lower paid.
The Minister and the Government have the power to call in the Labour Court in this dispute. Last week the Minister, in reply to a Private Notice Question of mine and of Deputy Ahern, said that the Labour Court had already adjudicated on this dispute. That is so. But that is a voluntary adjudication. It is not arbitration as it was applied, say, in the teachers' case where each side were, in theory at any rate, obliged to accept the offer made by the arbitrator. In this case it went to the Labour Court and the workers refused to accept the offer made, as they were entitled to do. But that is not to say that the Labour Court has no further role to play in this matter. If that were the case there are many disputes which have taken place in the past which would never have been resolved because we would simply have arrived at a dead end on day one.
The Government and the Minister have the power to request the Labour Court to take up this issue again. The unions involved in this dispute have indicated that they are ready and willing to become involved in meaningful negotiations on the outstanding issues. It is up to the Government to de-escalate this dispute. They have created the escalation that has taken place and it is up to them now to de-escalate this dispute immediately, tonight, tomorrow morning, as quickly as possible. Let them bring in the Labour Court and get talks started. They can do it directly themselves. They can take the shackles off Dublin Corporation and allow them to negotiate. Whatever way they choose to do it, it should be done as quickly as possible. There is nothing to be gained by the Government, the Corporation or the workers concerned in this dispute from the kind of incidents that took place in Dublin city tonight. I urge the Government and the Minister to move immediately, to get around the table with the general workers of Dublin Corporation, and get the services restored as quickly as possible.
Let me begin by saying that it is most unfortunate that this strike has gone ahead as it has. It is true to say that industrial relations in Dublin Corporation have been very good in recent years with no major industrial strike and very little loss of working days. This is to the credit of both unions and management and it is a great pity that such good relations are being soured by a strike which is both ill advised and unnecessary.
The origin of the dispute lies in the claim by the unions involved for £15 per week pay increase under the 25th round, a shorter working week without loss of earnings and an additional two days annual leave. The claim was lodged in September last at a time then the 24th round agreement still had three months to run and was clearly premature at that time. Pay guidelines generally had not emerged and the Corporation could not become a trend setter for the public service pay. This response by the Corporation was not acceptable to the unions who referred their claim to the Labour Court. Conciliation conferences took place in the Labour Court on 17 January and 6 February 1986. At the latter conference the Corporation offered the same terms as had been provisionally agreed with other public service unions and which had come to be referred to loosely as the public service pay offer. This offer would give the Corporation workers a 3 per cent pay increase from 1 May this year and a further 2 per cent increase on 1 January next and a final 2 per cent increase effective from 1 May 1987, making a total in excess of 7 per cent. This would amount to an average increase for the workers concerned of about £4.65 per week immediately and an average increase of more than £11 per week over the period of the offer. The unions however rejected the offer and elected instead to put their case to a full hearing of the Labour Court. This hearing took place on 13 February last. The court's decision issued on 31 March and it is important that I quote the court finding:
The Court feels that in all the circumstances the offer made by the Corporation is a fair one and recommends that it be accepted by the Unions.
The court did not recommend concession of the union's claim relating to a shorter working week and additional annual leave. The offer made by the Corporation is the same offer that has been accepted by a large body of workers employed throughout the public service. Other groups of workers are considering the offer. I might add that the offer was negotiated at a time when the expected rate of inflation over 1986 and 1987 was several points greater than what is generally acknowledged now will be the actual rate. The offer is therefore looking better all the time and will give the Corporation workers and public service workers generally a significant real increase in pay over the 18 month period involved. Deputy De Rossa's point was that he was appealing for something in the nature of a real increase. This is, in real terms, an increase.
Following ballots of their members the unions rejected the Labour Court's recommendation and served formal notice of strike action to commence on Monday last, 26 May. The strike has resulted in significant inconvenience and a reduction in the quality of life for the citizens of Dublin. The many areas affected by the strike are water and sewerage services, refuse collection and street cleaning. On the water and sewerage side Dublin Corporation requested the assistance of the Army to maintain these essential services. The level of assistance required in the interests of public health and water pressure for fire control was determined following consultation with the local authority. The Army has been providing assistance to the Corporation from midnight on 25 May under the guidance of the corporation's engineering staff. The main area of Army involvement has been concentrated on the Ballymore Eustace treatment plant, which is the principal source of Dublin's water supply, and the Ringsend treatment and pumping plant, which is the city's main sewerage disposal facility. Disruption to the refuse collection and the street clensing service in Dublin city and in south county Dublin is particularly regrettable coming at a time, at the beginning of the summer, when the tourism season is building up to a peak. I would like to commend the large number of householders and business people who are disposing of their waste without injury to the environment and to public health either by bringing it themselves to the tipheads or by other arrangements. I would appeal to those who in some cases are engaging in indiscriminate fly-tipping to act more responsibly in the interests or the community as a whole. I make a special appeal to business people, especially the owners of take-away food premises, fast food restaurants and so on, to keep the footpaths and roadways adjoining their premises free of litter and other waste.
I am told that some 4,000 tons of waste are collected and disposed of by Dublin Corporation each week. In this situation it is only to be expected that problems will arise in some areas as a result of the strike and notwithstanding the best efforts of householders and others.
Earlier this week, the Government were informed by the Dublin City Manager that the Chief Medical Officer had advised him that a serious public health risk is now arising in both the corporation flats and in Moore Street. In addition, the situation in these areas is considered to be a fire hazard. I understand that an approach was made by Dublin Corporation to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions for assistance from the unions but that Congress felt that it would not be appropriate for them to become involved.
In the interests of the health and safety of the public, the Minister for the Environment had no option but to seek the assistance of Army personnel in removing accumulated refuse. As a result, Army personnel began operations this morning.
As I said at the outset, this strike is both ill-advised and unnecessary. The unions' claim has been processed right up to a full hearing of the Labour Court which recommended that the corporation's offer should be accepted. The unions have seen fit to set aside this recommendation of the court in favour of industrial action, at the expense of the citizens of Dublin and without regard to the financial constraints on the local authority.
It is not open to Dublin Corporation to offer more to their workers. It is apparent that the vast majority of workers in the public service recognise and accept that the 7 per cent on offer is the very best which current economic circumstances will allow. As the Labour Court has said, the offer is a fair one and should be accepted.
I understand that congress is to be asked to sanction an all-out picket by two of the unions involved in the dispute. I would appeal to the unions concerned, and indeed to the workers as well, to pull back, even at this late stage, from any action which would further exacerbate the situation.
In relation to the latest news that I have received from Moore Street, I should like to express my regret that incidents of such a nature would take place where Army personnel had become involved, at the behest of the Government and in the interests of the citizens of this city, in order to avoid both a fire and a health hazard. The Government in turn acted as a result of being informed that the accumulation of refuse in Moore Street and in the larger corporation complexes had become a health hazard. I understand that Army personnel have been obstructed in their duties. This is unfortunate. I understand that some volume of refuse is now on fire and that the fire brigade are being prevented from entering the area. All one can say is that it must be viewed with regret, and indeed disappointment, that anybody would engage in that kind of action. They were dealing with people who were acting in their best interests and in the best interests of the people of the city.
I appeal to those causing this problem to realise what they are doing, to apply some commonsense, national pride and responsibility, even at this late stage, and to pull back from the precipice because that will do nobody any good.
The Dáil adjourned at 11.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 6 June 1986.