asked the Minister for Labour if he will intervene or take the necessary steps to bring an end to the industrial dispute within the ESB which is having such serious effects on the country; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Private Notice Questions. - ESB Dispute.
asked the Minister for Labour the proposals, if any, he has to take any positive steps to bring the two sides in the ESB dispute together; if so, when they will be implemented; the plans, if any, he and the Government have to avoid social, industrial and agricultural chaos, with particular emphasis on whether hospitals have sufficient generating capacity; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
(Limerick East) asked the Minister for Finance if he will intervene to bring to an end the industrial dispute within the ESB which is having such serious consequences for the country.
The current ESB dispute centres around the unions' claim in respect of the 26th pay round. The 25th pay round ended on 30 September 1986 for craft and general workers and on 30 November 1986 for remaining staff.
The ATGWU representing over 4,500 general workers in the ESB submitted a claim for an increase of £35 per week on salaries up to £250 per week; 4 per cent increase on the balance of salaries over £250 per week and changes in the superannuation scheme to allow for retirement on full pension after 30 years' service, that is instead of 40 years' as at present.
The group of unions representing about 7,000 workers in the craft, clerical, administrative and technical areas submitted a claim for an increase of 12 per cent for 12 months with a minimum increase of £20 per week.
In direct negotiations the ESB offered the unions an 18 month agreement incorporating a six months' pay pause and a 3 per cent increase for 12 months, the costs to be recovered by internal economies.
Those proposals were rejected by all the unions and the matter was referred to the ESB's joint industrial council, which, as Members of the House will know, is the procedure which has been in place since 1970 and is the settling machinery made up of unions and management under an independent chairman.
Waffle.
Mr. Maurice Cosgrave is the present chairman. He was a former chairman of the Labour Court. The Industrial Council's recommendation of 17 February 1987 was for a 3 months' pay pause, then 4 per cent on the first £100 of basic weekly pay or equivalent, with a minimum increase of £4 per week; 3 per cent on the next £200 of basic weekly pay or equivalent; 2 per cent on the remainder and a review in September 1987 in the light of the circumstances then prevailing.
The recommendation of the Joint Industrial Council amounts to equalling inflation, with even better provision for the lower paid. The agreement would end in September, subject to the review provided for. Both the ESB group of unions and the ATGWU separetely rejected the industrial council recommendation and all unions agreed that industrial action would commence on 5 May 1987.
In an effort to avert industrial action the Employer Labour Conference had a series of meetings with the parties. These meetings got under way last Friday and continued well into Saturday and Sunday. The chairman of the conference issued a statement on Sunday 3 May, indicating that no acceptable basis for a resolution of the dispute existed at that time.
Early on Monday 4 May, the ESB wrote to all unions calling on them to accept the industrial council's recommendations and to withdraw the strike notice and all the restrictions. In return, the ESB offered immediately to enter into negotiations on all other existing claims, including the matter of a staff electricity discount. The ESB emphasised that the outcome of negotiations would have to be self financing and make a contribution to lowering the price of electricity. In these negotiations, the ESB would allow the unions to set the priorities. The discussions could also take place under an independent chairperson whom I would nominate.
The ESB saw this offer as providing all the members of the ESB unions with a pay increase up front; a process for final determination of the 25th pay round in the ESB in September and a framework for concluding negotiations on all existing claims including the claim for a staff electricity discount.
Under the auspices of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, discussion reopened at 5 p.m. on Monday, 4 May and continued throughout the night and early morning but failed to avert the industrial action scheduled for Tuesday, 5 May. Pickets have now been placed on all locations and power cuts have already been implemented.
As I said in the House last week the ESB have their own unique dispute settling machinery which has proven its worth over the years. All along, I have kept in close touch with the developments leading up to this dispute. In a statement which I issued yesterday, I stressed the serious implications which this dispute has for everybody. I would again urge the parties to continue their search for a solution. This strike is one for resolution between the ESB and their trade unions.
I thank the Minister for Labour for repeating verbatim his answer to me on Thursday last. May I now ask him what specific role he sees for himself in this situation, or does he propose to stand aside? Does he see a role for the Labour Court?
As the Deputy will be aware, it is not the same answer, because at that stage the Employer Labour Conference had not been involved. It was not a question of the direct negotiations which took place yesterday, albeit for a short period, between management and the unions and there had not been the intervention of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions at senior level. Those three major events have happened since I spoke here on Thursday evening last. I said last week and I repeat; I see the Joint Industrial Council as a unique machinery for settling disputes. It has proved this in the past. It is within that framework that this dispute can be resolved.
A Cheann Comhairle——
I want to bring in Deputy Colley, I am sorry.
The Minister has repeated much information that the House had already but he has — I shall not say refused — omitted to answer the question I put to him. That was to let the House know if there were any proposals to take steps to bring the two sides together and if so, when.
The Deputy will appreciate that the two sides were together less than 24 hours ago and that the meeting broke up. The senior representatives of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions acted as intermediaries for 12 hours. I do not at this stage see any point in trying to assist in bringing both sides together. If the sides wish to go back to the Joint Industrial Council, or wish to have a fresh initiative from the Employer Labour conference, that is open to them.
(Limerick East): What guidelines have been issued by the Government, through the appropriate Minister, to the chairman of the ESB for negotiation of the 26th round which has now led to this dispute?
The guidelines I believe all semi-State boards would be working to are those issued by the Government last September. These were further enunciated in the budget speech on budget day.
(Limerick East): Do I take it that the board of the ESB are operating under the guidelines issued last September by the previous Government and that no new guidelines and no reaffirmation of the existing guidelines have been issued by this Government?
The reaffirmation was set out in the budget speech by the Minister for Finance.
(Limerick East): There was a section in the budget speech which dealt with public sector pay but not a section which dealt with pay in the commercial State-sponsored bodies. Is the Minister aware that the Minister for Finance on the “Today Tonight” programme, in which I also had the pleasure of taking part, said the following: “I think that we are now fast approaching the stage...”.
Quotations are not in order at Question Time.
(Limerick East): The burden of what he said was that we would have to differentiate now between commercial and non-commercial semi-State bodies and if State bodies have the resources to pay increased incomes to their staff then they will do so. If they have not the resources they cannot do so. Is this the new guideline or has there been a departure from this? Are we operating on the guideline stated by the Minister for Finance on budget night or on the guideline laid down by those of us on this side of the House when we were in Government?
This dispute is about the refusal of an award by the Joint Industrial Council. It is that award which is at issue. the Deputy's questions would perhaps apply if both sides were agreeing and were asking the Government to pay. That is not the position. The unions refused an offer put by the Joint Industrial Council.
On a point of information——
Three Members tabled questions, Deputy Andrews, and they are entitled to ask supplementary questions.
(Limerick East): Are we to take it when domestic suppliers have such problems and industries are closing down that the Government have not issued any guidelines to the ESB and that the board are operating on guidelines issued by the previous Government last September? Is that the position?
The guidelines issued last September covered all of this year and the Government made the position quite clear in the budget statement.
The Minister for Finance confused the issue and raised expectations.
This dispute is about the refusal of the unions to accept the Joint Industrial Council award. That is the issue.
(Interruptions.)
Order. I am calling Deputy Birmingham.
Am I right in interpreting——
I protest at the manner of your treatment.
I will hear the Deputy.
I must ask you to exercise your authority with justice.
I have already commented on that. Deputy Birmingham.
Will the Minister for Labour confirm that I am correct in my interpretation of his failure to give a direct answer to my question in that he sees no role for intervention by himself or by the Labour Court and that on that basis it is not so much a question of a laid back Government but a Government Minister who is horizontal in the face of a national crisis?
The Joint Industrial Council have been very successful over the years in resolving disputes. If that is not seen as fit by the parties involved, the Employer-Labour Conference is there. There can also be joint negotiations between the two parties involved or negotiations with a third party. These four different processes have been used in the past four days and they are still available if the parties wish to use them.
Does the Minister consider that the final responsibility for the provision of electricity as it is a State-run monopoly, lies with the Government?
It lies with the ESB and the Government are concerned about that matter. It is for the ESB to supply electricity.
In the event of this disgraceful and horrible strike continuing, does the Minister contemplate a role for the Army? Can the Minister say how many British-based unions are involved in this strike? Is any immediate action to be taken?
I do not see it as a position for the Army. The Minister for Defence made that clear earlier. I ask again that both parties to the dispute, because of the serious nature of the dispute, would initiate talks through the powerful machinery available to them and find a resolution.
Will the Minister confirm it is not the intention of the Government to depart from the guidelines issued last September? Therefore, the trade unions concerned should at this critical stage take full cognisance of the firm intentions of the Government in that regard.
The Deputy is correct. The 26th round has been set down and clarified by the Minister for Finance. There is no more money under the 26th round for anybody, other than what has been clearly set down by the Minister.
Will the Minister for Labour elaborate on what he means by what the Minister for Finance said on budget day? Is he aware of what the Minister said on television that night? Will he not agree that the Minister for Finance at a crucial point in the negotiations regarding this round within the ESB encouraged differentiation between commercial State bodies and others and encouraged the ESB workforce in the belief that they could get more if they held out?
I do not accept the Minister for Finance did so and I believe the ESB workers and unions know exactly what are the Government guidelines.
What did the Minister for Finance mean on television on budget night when he differentiated between commercial and non-commercial State bodies? Did he mean that there was to be more money for commercial State bodies like the ESB? Did he not encourage this dispute?
(Interruptions.)
A Deputy
Is that what Fine Gael want?
I want an answer to the question.
Will the Minister accept the statement the Chief Executive of the ESB, Mr. Moriarty, made in the newspaper advertisements that the 26th round as negotiated in the ESB is not finalised and will remain as such until September?
That is correct. It is clearly written in in a clause in the findings that there would be a review and that would be the completion of the 26th round in the ESB but that review would not be until September. I accept Mr. Moriarty's statement in that regard.
Is it possible that in that review some advance could be made in some way on the union's claims bearing in mind the adherence to the Government's guidelines on pay?
I assume the reason that clause was put in, and I have seen nothing to the contrary, was that at the end of the 26th round in September it could be looked at and at that stage the parties could negotiate what the review should be, whether it would mean a zero sum or a percentage. It was put in on the basis that there would be a review in September at the completion of the round.
(Limerick East): Are we now operating on a nod and wink basis, saying on the one hand that the guidelines issued last September are to be rigidly adhered to and then we nod and wink about a review in September when the headline has been set for the rest of the public service and there might be something else for the ESB? Are the guidelines to be held for everybody right through the year in the interest of equity for all workers or are we going to make fish of one and flesh of the other and make this distinction which the Minister for Finance talked about between commercial and non-commercial semi-State bodies on the basis of “not now but in September when everything else is fixed”?
In the Joint Industrial Council awards on the 26th round roughly a 3.5 increase was given following a three months pay pause. It stated that there would be a review at the end of the round in September 1987. That clause was written into that document and that is why I have said continually that the resolution of this problem between the two parties in this dispute would best be by their own machinery in the Joint Industrial Council.
A Cheann Comhairle——
I am sorry I am passing on now to the Order of Business.