asked the Minister for Labour the present position regarding negotiations for resolving the dock strike in Waterford; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
91.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Waterford Dock Strike.
3.
asked the Minister for Labour the present position regarding the long drawn out strike at Waterford port; and the steps, if any, he proposes to take to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion.
This dispute commenced around 1980. Efforts have been made over the years to find a settlement formula acceptable to both sides. These have included independent mediation, a rights commissioner's investigation, a formal hearing of the Labour Court and more recently an industrial relations officer of the court had intensive discussions with all the parties involved. Those discussions produced a formula which at the time was acceptable to the workers in dispute, but it is understood that difficulties have arisen with the result that the dispute continues. I have no doubt the House will appreciate that every effort has been made for the last seven years to settle this long-running and difficult dispute. In view of the damage being done to the commercial life of Waterford port, I would urge once again the parties involved to continue their efforts to find a solution to the dispute. The dispute settling agencies of the State remain available to the parties should they wish to avail of them.
This dispute has lasted more like eight years than seven. It commenced about November 1979. Mediation has not succeeded and the conciliation officer was not successful. Can the Minister offer any form of solution? Can he actually impose such a solution? Waterford port is crippled and so is the commerce of the city and the surrounding region to a certain degree because of this strike. It is basically due to a clash of personalities, inter-union rivalry, call it what you will. It is something which obviously cannot be resolved by operating through normal channels. It needs something extra and I am asking the Minister to provide that something extra. Whether it be an enforced settlement or whatever, I want to see a resolution to the problem. Could the Minister promise us something in that regard?
I share the Deputy's concern. All the normal ways, as the Deputy said, have been tried — independent mediation, a rights commissioner's investigation, a formal hearing of the Labour Court and an industrial relations officer of the court trying independently to bring about a settlement. The one major power that a Minister for Labour has under section 24 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1946 is to investigate and the previous Minister used that procedure on 15 November 1985. The Labour Court as part of its investigation commissioned a report on the economic and financial background of the dispute which has substantiated a number of the matters which Deputy Deasy has outlined. Following on the Labour Court investigation an industrial relations officer's report was made available to the parties, again to try to bring about a solution after considerable discussion by all the parties, particularly the trade unions concerned. The industrial relations officer followed the set of proposals which seemed to be getting agreement by saying that the proposals, if accepted by the unions, constituted an extraordinary means of resolving an extraordinary dispute. That still remains the view. I would be very anxious, if I could, to be of help. I have had discussions with the people in the Department who have been involved in this matter for almost eight years and have tried every form of agreement. I should be very glad to meet the Deputies from Waterford who, I understand, would have a major concern here. If there is something I can do, I should be only too glad to attempt it.
I understand that the Minister is endeavouring to be helpful. There is a bloody-minded attitude on the part of some people involved in this dispute. The dispute obviously cannot be solved using normal procedures. There is necessity for some imposed solution. I would ask the Minister if that is possible and, if so, will he do this?
Imposing solutions here with regard to industrial relations has never proved to be successful. I do not think it would be helpful. If through the mechanisms of the State agencies involved in trying to resolve industrial disputes we can do something, we shall. It seems that at this stage the two parties are not even asking the State for assistance. I take this opportunity to appeal to them again.
A waste of words, I am sorry.
After eight years it is incumbent upon us to try any recommendations that have come from the Labour Court and investigating officers over the years. Nothing has been agreed. I am hoping that it is not a waste of words to ask the two groups of unions involved to come back to the Labour Court or to use whatever other mechanism is available to try to resolve this long lasting dispute.
This is a matter of the most serious gravity. Would the Minister not agree that a "strike" lasting eight years calls into question the performance of the harbour Authority in Waterford? Would he establish that nobody employed by the State in the Waterford Harbour Authority is involved in the purchase of a company formerly known as CAP, located down river from Waterford?
Deputy, you are obviously introducing new matter into this question, quite extraneous matter.
I am asking a very relevant question.
It is not extraneous.
The question deals with a particular dispute and I would dissuade the Deputy from bringing in extraneous matters.
I can assure the Chair that it is not as he says. I have almost finished my question. I ask the Minister to establish that no other company are associated with the port. If there are, would he not agree that this would lead to an impossible conflict of interests in that it would be to the possible benefit of those other companies that the deep sea section of Waterford port and docks remains closed? This then raises the very serious matter of vested interests at work in this harbour.
I have no knowledge of the matters raised. However, the Deputy has asked me to investigate those matters and I shall so do.
In view of the fact that this dispute has gone on for over seven years, of the bitterness that exists among the workforce in Waterford, and of the damage to the local economy, is there any mechanism by which the Minister could order a public sworn inquiry, or any formal inquiry by members of his Department? If so, would he order such an inquiry?
The most extensive inquiry I can order would be one under the provisions of section 24. That took place already almost 12 months ago. I will examine the matters raised. As Deputies representing Waterford will know, there is no easy answer to this dispute. Almost every channel has been tried, some of them several times over the last seven years within the terms of office of three successive Governments. If anybody can give me any assistance, I will investigate the matters raised to ascertain whether there is anything further we can do.
Just to clarify matters for the people of Waterford, is the Minister saying that there is no mechanism whereby he or any other Minister can order a public sworn inquiry into this matter?
I do not believe I can do so on an industrial relations matter. But the inquiry held under section 24 is one not dissimilar to what the Deputy is requesting. The Deputy will be familiar with the findings of that inquiry. There have also been the normal rights commissioner's investigations and inquiries, and the Labour Court's efforts in this regard have been extensive over the years. As I said in my reply, in view of the damage being done to the commercial life of Waterford port — and here I accept what the Deputies representing the area have said — I would urge the parties involved to continue their efforts to find a solution. We can never give in in trying to resolve a dispute. If there are some constructive suggestions advanced that I can usefully follow up with all the mechanisms of the State available to me, I will be glad to do so.
Would the Minister accept that the fact that a dispute in an area as sensitive as this one can drag on for somewhere between seven and eight years indicates that there is something seriously wrong with our industrial relations? In that context would he agree with me that the provisions in the Programme for National Recovery indicate a remarkable lack of urgency?
We are now having an extension of this question. I am calling the next question.