Our time is limited. I suggest that the Deputy has eight minutes at his disposal and the Minister four minutes to reply. Is that satisfactory.
Adjournment Debate. - Irish Printed Circuits Limited Industrial Dispute.
Yes.
Deputy Ruairí Quinn has given me notice of his intention to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of the ongoing industrial dispute in Irish Printed Circuits Limited.
In this, the Millennium year of this city and the 75th anniversary of the great and historic lock-out of 1913, it is sad for me to have to stand in this House of a free and independent Republic and report to you, Sir, and indeed to the Minister for Labour that the spirit, if not the ghost, of William Martin Murphy is stalking the streets of this city but, unlike his predecessor who at least had the courage of his own convictions and did not put his hands into the pockets of the State coffers to justify his exploitation of working people, the reincarnation of William Martin Murphy not only has the temerity to deny workers the basic right of trade union affiliation and negotiation, but has the temerity and the audacity to obtain from the same PAYE workers subsidies to the tune of £575,000 to enable him to carry out this continuous exploitation and flaunting of basic rights for which the Republic of Ireland was established in the first instance.
What is at issue here, after 14 weeks of an official trade union dispute, which was endorsed by a finding of the Labour Court, is the fundamental and basic right of groups of workers to pool together and to join freely a union so as to maximise their own labour and the sale of that labour in the marketplace. For most working people the only thing they have to sell is their skill, their ability to work, and the best way that they can sell that in the marketplace is to ensure that they get the best price for it. Historically and traditionally it has been the unique task of the trade union movement to bind together the individual spirit and contributions of workers in the form of a trade union to ensure that they got a fair and decent price for the sale of their labour.
Tonight I have to report that that basic right, which so many of us had taken for granted that it was no longer a matter of question or dispute, has been systematically denied over the past 18 months by an employer, Mr. Michael Clear, managing director of Irish Printed Circuits Limited. The tragedy that compounds insult to injury is that this individual was formerly an employee of the IDA and the factory he established——
I would prefer if the Deputy did not personalise the debate by referring to a particular person or persons. This is a privileged Assembly and we must be concerned about the rights of people outside the House.
I appreciate that. I am concerned about the rights of people inside and outside this House and I will respect your admonition. Some of the directors of this privately owned company were previously employed by the IDA and benefited from their experience within that organisation to the extent that they were able to obtain the assistance of the IDA in the establishment of this enterprise and received taxpayers' assistance to the tune of £575,000. What is the policy of the IDA, the body in which some of the directors of this company were employed? In response to a letter from Deputy De Rossa the secretary of the IDA said:
The Management of the Undertaking should also recognise the constitutional rights of Irish workers regarding Trade Union membership and the right of a Union having a negotiation licence under the Irish Trade Union Acts, to carry on negotiations for the fixing of wages and other conditions of employment.
If that advice is good enough for Japanese, German, United States and United Kingdom industrialists and enterpreneurs establishing companies in the Irish Republic, why is it not good enough for former employees of the IDA?
On foot of the recommendation of the Labour Court, and having regard to the time constraints, I am asking the Minister for Labour to undertake to do the following three things. First, I want him to say unequivocally in his reply that, as Minister for Labour he will formally write to the management of this company and request them to recognise the recommendation of the Labour Court. In asking him to do that I put him on notice that the managing director of that company, in response to a question put to him, said:
I am not bound by a recommendation of the Labour Court and, in my view the court has always favoured union recognition even if only one employee wanted it.
The facts are that 32 people out of 35 want a trade union, their third time trying to have one established in this enterprise, and their efforts are being frustrated. It is extraordinary and contradictory, but perhaps in the nature of capital exploitation, that management are prepared to recognise the State in the form of the IDA when they are giving them money but not prepared to recognise the State in the form of the Labour Court when they are making a recommendation. I repeat: the first thing I want the Minister to do is to tell the House he will request management to recognise the rights of workers to organise a union in this workplace.
Second, I want to ask his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, to direct the IDA not to pay any further moneys to this enterprise until such time as they recognise the spirit of the management policy of the IDA in relation to the recognition of trade unions outlined by Séamus Walsh, secretary of the IDA.
Third, I ask the Minister to request his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, to conduct an investigation into the origins of the establishment of this enterprise. How was this enterprise established in the first place? How did it happen that a person working in the IDA could get a slice of what is reputed to be £100 million of the domestic market for printed circuits and in so doing to flaunt not once, not twice, but consistently, the fundamental right of Irish working men and women to form a trade union, to ensure that they can sell their labour at the best possible price and live and work in a Republic which is capable of providing them with the sort of liberty and freedom for which this Republic was established.
The Deputy made his case well and clearly and I will deal with the three questions he asked in a moment. I want to put on record the background to this dispute in Irish Printed Circuits Limited.
An official strike has been in progress in this company since 21 March 1988 over union recognition and the dismissal of a temporary worker. Union representation in the company is put at approximately 20 per cent of the workforce of 55. The union in question is Manufacturing Science Finance. The two unions were referred unilaterally by manufacturing Science Finance to the Labour Court under section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946. A reference under this section binds the union to accept the court's findings. No such obligation is placed on the employer.
The Labour Court recommended on the issue of the dismissal of the temporary worker as follows:
The Court recommends that the Company agree to discuss the dismissal of this worker with the Union and if necessary to have the issue referred to a Rights Commissioner or other third party as the parties may agree.
On the question of the union recognition, the court recommended that:
... the Company agree to recognise the Union as the negotiating and representative body on behalf of those employees who are members of a union. The parties should negotiate a procedural agreement to govern their relationship for the future and to avoid any recurrence of the difficulties which have arisen between the parties.
The employer rejected the Labour Court findings and the strike continues.
Despite the continued presence of pickets, production is being maintained. The two sides in this dispute are maintaining their present positions and so a stalemate exists. As the Deputy will understand, the question of the implementation in this case of the Labour Court recommendation by the employer is a matter for the employer concerned.
I will now deal with the questions raised by the Deputy. As the Deputy will know, the issues he raised with regard to the IDA do not come under the Department of Labour, but I will consult with the Minister for Industry and Commerce on them. As regards other action to be taken by the Department of Labour at this stage, the fact that the Deputy has raised this matter will ensure that we will keep in touch with the issue but I am not sure exactly what else we can do. I am giving a commitment that we will keep in contact with the Deputy and any other Deputies who are interested.
May I ask one brief supplementary?
The Minister has replied but I will allow a very brief question.
Will the Minister write formally to the management of the company asking them to accept the recommendations of the Labour Court?
I will consider the matter. The rules are laid down in the Labour Court and, if the employer does not wish to accept the recommendation of the Labour Court, that is his right. If there is anything useful I could do in the interests of orderly and good industrial relations I would be happy to do it, but that position does not exist as of now. There is a stalemate but, as often happens in disputes, that position can change. However, we will keep in touch with the matter.
The Dáil adjourned at 11.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 1 June 1988.