I have received Private Notice Questions concerning the imminent closure of Hanlon's ambulance plant in Longford from Deputies Pat Cooney and George Birmingham and a similarly related question from Deputy Tomás Mac Giolla.
Private Notice Questions. - Longford Ambulance Plant.
andMr. Birmingham asked the Minister for Labour if, having regard to the imminent closure of Hanlon's ambulance plant in Longford, he proposes to intervene to prevent the loss of 200 jobs locally and the infliction of very severe harm on Ireland's image.
asked the Minister for Labour if, in view of the public concern at the announcement that the Hanlon ambulance factory in Longford is to close with the loss of 200 jobs and is to be relocated in Britain, he will use the powers available to him to intervene and attempt to secure a solution to the dispute; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The present strike in the company stems from a continuation of a long-running dispute between the management and the union which has its origins as far back as 1986 and led to a six month stoppage between May and November last year.
The dispute has its roots in a company decision taken in August 1986 to introduce short-time working on a week-on week-off basis. This pattern of work continued for approximately five weeks when the company informed the union that they were laying off 85 workers on a temporary basis and that the remainder of the workforce would be retained in a permanent capacity. This was done by the company offering full-time employment to those workers whom it considered the most suitable to produce the required output. This was unacceptable to the union which claimed that workers should be retained or laid off on the basis of seniority-service, all things being equal. This was rejected by the company and, as no agreement could be reached at local level, the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference held on 4 February 1987 failed to resolve the dispute and the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
In its recommendation of 24 March 1987 the court said that the work available should be shared among the total workforce on the basis of an undertaking given to the court that the necessary production targets would be met and the standards of quality attained by the workforce at no extra cost to the company. Should this not work out over a period of three months trial, then the existing arrangement should be reverted to.
Management rejected the Labour Court recommendation claiming that the arrangements proposed would not suit production schedules and a strike began on 11 May 1987. Management subsequently informed the workforce that unless there was a resumption of work by 2 June 1987 the plant would close and production would be transferred to Liverpool. This decision was later revoked but management insisted that it would not enter into negotiations on the dispute until there was a return to work. A number of workers subsequently returned to work.
The company were not prepared to attend a Labour Court conciliation conference until 5 September 1987. Management proposals put forward at that conference were rejected. Further conciliation conferences were held on 3 October, 6 October and 12 October but no basis for settlement was found.
The Labour Court intervened in the dispute on 22 October 1987 under section 18 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and hearings took place on 28 and 29 October. A detailed recommendation covering all aspects of the dispute was issued by the Labour Court on 30 October. This recommendation was accepted by both sides and led to the ending of the strike in early November. Difficulties arose, however, over the return to work formula and in relation to the proposed redundancies and the Labour Court became involved again.
A further Labour Court hearing was held on 30 March and, in a recommendation issued on the same day, the court said that the parties should meet the following day to agree the names of those to be made compulsorily redundant. The union and the company should then agree on the payment of £60,000 to be divided amongst the workers being made redundant on the basis of length of service and each individual should be informed of his entitlement. Any worker who was not on the list and who wished to accept voluntary redundancy might do so provided he accepted the compensation payable to someone on the list and provided the switch was acceptable to management.
However, the difficulties over selection for redundancy persisted and there were differences also in regard to the level of redundancy compensation. Strike action recommenced on 11 April and despite further conciliation attempts on 15 April and 12 May no basis for settlement emerged.
The Labour Court held a hearing in Longford yesterday but no progress was made. My understanding is that the company are insisting that redundancies take place on the basis of the Labour Court recommendation of 30 March. The company also insist on last in/first out, subject to skill requirements and that any difficulties be referred to arbitration. The company, I understand, also want a no-strike clause. The union are opposed to the demands of management and in particular to arbitration for selection for redundancy and a no-strike clause.
It now appears to be almost inevitable that this dispute will lead to a loss of 200 jobs in Longford town. I have, since assuming office, kept in touch with all the major disputes which have occurred in this country over the past year and I have not come across any dispute where industrial relations and trust have so completely broken down. The solution to any dispute is ultimately up to the parties and here there does not appear to be a will to compromise or settle. Where that happens, there is nothing anybody can do and this would appear to be the situation in this case.
My understanding of the Labour Court's position is that a complete stalemate exists and the court feels in the circumstances that it cannot, at this stage, contribute to further progress unless the parties exhibit a will to move from entrenched positions.
The management have announced the closure of the plant this week with the intention of moving production to the UK. I can assure the House that the Labour Court is on standby if it is felt any progress can be made.
In view of that depressing recital by the Minister of this sorry dispute, is it not abundantly clear that an initiative by a new party is now necessary, to wit, the Minister himself——
The Archbishop of Tuam.
This is not a frivolous matter but one of great importance for the town of Longford and, indeed, for the country. In view of the fact that the Labour Court have intervened and that all sorts of prestigious people have attempted to arbitrate, will the Minister intervene personally? He has a record of successful interventions in the city and, because of the very grave issue which he outlined in his reply, will he now take the initiative and meet both parties? I was a bit depressed to hear the Minister use the word "inevitable" as if the matter has gone beyond redemption. I do not think it has and it needs an energetic approach. I will remind the Minister of his campaign slogan —"When the going gets tough Bertie gets going."
I should very much like to be of help to the Deputy and I know the importance of the jobs to his constituents and to Longford. Although the 200 jobs are very important, my Cabinet colleagues, those in the constituency, Deputy Cooney, the conciliation service of the Labour Court, the Labour Court itself, the trade unions and the management have all been involved in the dispute. I have spent more time on this dispute than on any other although I have not intervened directly because there would have to be a basis for doing so. In this case, week after week, month after month, I have called on the Labour Court to try to solve the five months dispute. As late as yesterday, the Labour Court tried to resolve it. I do not want to say too much about what happened yesterday but Members of the House and the public know that it is unusual for the Labour Court, Mr. Fitzgerald and his staff to go to the centre of the dispute. I am afraid there is no trust involved. Neither side in this dispute is making an effort to resolve the problem. That is the effective position and the battle has gone on for two years. When the outcome is as hopeless as it was yesterday, not even I can do anything to save the jobs of the management or the workers of Hanlons. I call on both sides to come to their senses today.
I appeal to the Minister to go down today and to meet them.
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive, if depressing, reply. Will he accept that this action in closing a well established industry and transferring it to Britain has the potential to inflict very severe damage nationally? The fact that one party to this dispute is a very close associate of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, that he has been identified as one of our most prominent businessmen and that he has been appointed to Fóir Teoranta and other State boards is bound to say something about how industrial relations work nationally. At the very least it would be interpreted that one of our most prominent industrialists who had been singled out for advancement by the Government appears to be voting no confidence in our industrial relations machinery and this is bound to be to our detriment in other markets. In those circumstances, however remote the prospect of a successful outcome, I ask the Minister to consider intervening in this dispute.
Before calling on the Minister, let me remind the House that normally we avoid, so far as possible, personalising matters but I am not going to pre-empt what the Minister may say about this.
I appreciate that, but the name of the company is mentioned in the question. It is public knowledge that the company is owned by a Mr. Hanlon and is public knowledge that he was chairman of Fóir Teoranta and was appointed to the boards of Aer Rianta, Aer Lingus and umpteen other bodies also.
Nevertheless, it is not the tradition in this House to personalise matters.
I take this opportunity to put on the record that the Minister for Industry and Commerce has outlined to me the problems which could arise in this dispute. It appeared to him a few weeks ago that this company were going to leave our shores and since then he has endeavoured, with myself, to make some progress in this dispute. I agree with what Deputy Birmingham has said. It would be disastrous for good industrial relations, the country and, particularly, Longford, if this company were to close down. I know from discussions which I have had that this company has a good export market but because of the industrial relations problems in the company they are losing a considerable amount of that export market. I do not want to attribute blame to either side in the dispute and I cannot do that——
I do not want the Minister to do that.
I appreciate that. The reason I have given all the facts today is to show that all the conciliation channels available within the State have been extensively used. While I have not become directly involved in the dispute I can confirm to Deputy Cooney that I was never too far away. This was also the case during the five month strike last year. The Labour Court have done all they possibly can in this dispute. Yesterday the court travelled down the country for a full hearing and absolutely nothing happened. Earlier today, I heard reports that both sides had said they were prepared to talk. All that I can say is that they could have done so in the Labour Court yesterday but no talking was done. Instead they lectured each other and did not move an inch. If they are prepared to move forward I will consult with the Labour Court again, who, I have no doubt, would make it clear to me that they would be prepared to go back down again tonight or tomorrow. If the management and workforce are not prepared to move forward, and it is sad to have to say this, but we might as well say it, when the House meets again Hanlon's of Longford will no longer be in existence. It is up to both sides to face reality and to do so now.
As the Minister will be aware, I raised this issue on the Adjournment in June of last year. It was a matter of grave concern then, as Deputy Cooney has said, for both that county and for the country. Would the Minister accept that there is a difference between this dispute and normal industrial relations disputes? Last year Semperit made a similar threat that they would close down if the unions would not accept a particular deal and Packard Electrical in Tallaght also said that they would close down if the unions would not accept a particular deal. This dispute is similar, but would the Minister accept that it is different in one respect in that it is an Irish-owned factory set up with the assistance of State funds and that the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Government should have a special role to play in endeavouring to keep the company open? It appears that all available channels have been gone through and because of this I ask the Minister to intervene. The particular industrial relations problems which exist in the company at present make it very difficult for the normal industrial relations procedure to work. Because of this, would the Minister be willing to take special measures before tomorrow in an endeavour to get both sides talking?
I would if I thought it was going to be of any great benefit. It was an exceptional move to send the Labour Court down to Longford but the way in which the Labour Court were treated does not endear me very much to the workforce and management. I agree with the Deputy when he says that this dispute is bad for industrial relations, but let me say that there is no point in both sides in the dispute saying that they would love to do something but then proceeding to outline hard and fast views and not giving an inch. Perhaps I would not have thought this 48 hours ago, but it appears that some advance plans were made about where the company were going to go when they left the country. If there was a major change of heart following some of the meetings, which perhaps may take place this evening, or following management meetings, I will consult once more with the Labour Court who along with the conciliation service have been involved in this dispute for over two years now. Those involved are very clear on the issues. I have been advised that no progress has been made and that there is no willingness on either side to move forward. Talking is easy but they should remember that it is their jobs which are at stake and their company which is closing down.
There is now much less between them than there was six months ago.
Each time that appears to be the case something else happens. They have had many opportunities to make progress. Perhaps they are not interested in their own jobs or in the company, but I appeal to them that in the national interest and in the interests of good industrial relations, to change their minds before closing time tomorrow evening.
I am very conscious of the importance of the subject matter of the questions but let me remind the House that our treatment of them will be interpreted by the quality of the presentation of the questions and the replies. Unless Deputies have some important questions they would like to put to the Minister I suggest that we might agree that the subject matter of these questions has been well served. Having said that, I am happy to call on Deputy Cooney for a final question.
You are making me feel apprehensive——
I have faith that you will confirm what I have said.
There is an element of repetition in what I am going to say to the Minister, but would he consider convening a meeting over the weekend between the two parties?
Does Deputy Mac Giolla wish to ask a question?
Can the Minister tell us if there is any particular plan or follow up procedure he would resort to if, as he thinks, the factory will close down on Friday? Removing a factory to another country has not happened before, as far as I am aware.
If the inevitable does happen, would the Minister indicate that he is prepared to ensure that the IDA are repaid any grants which may have been given to Hanlons?
I do not want to deal with the question of what might happen afterwards. I might reply to Deputy Cooney's question by saying that I will be available all over the weekend. But in this dispute, because the Labour Court have been involved throughout, if there is any request made to me, to the Labour Court, management, unions or anyone else, we will attempt to convene another hearing of the Labour Court at very short notice, either of the full court or of the conciliation service of the Labour Court. It would be my view that it would be much better to do so before closure time tomorrow because, from what I have been hearing, such a hearing might not be of much use thereafter. That is a matter to which both sides should devote attention.
From all accounts on both sides, it would not appear that either side is bluffing; it would appear that both sides are determined in what they wish to do — which is unfortunate — but both sides realise that. They should think once more.
Hear, hear.