asked the Minister for Tourism and Transport if he has given any specific directions under section 26 of the Transport (Reorganisation of CIE) Act, 1986, to the CIE group of companies; if, in particular his attention has been drawn to the fact that CIE management is refusing to pay the second phase of the national wage agreement, without productivity concessions from the workers; if he gave any direction to the CIE board to this effect; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - CIE Pay Increases.
11.
No specific directions of the type referred to by the Deputy have been issued by me to the CIE group of companies.
Payment of the general increases under the agreement on pay in the public sector in so far as they relate to commercial State bodies such as CIE is subject to the ability of the organisation to meet the cost involved. Assessment of the ability to pay factor and the consequent approach to payment of the general increases are matters for each organisation's management in the first place. Payment of the first phase to CIE staff under the agreement commenced on 1 October 1988 for regular wages grades staff and on 1 December 1988 for salaried staff. CIE have not entered into negotiations with unions or staff about paying the second phase of the agreement due on 1 October 1989, and I have not issued a direction in the matter to the board.
Is the Minister aware that negotiations with regard to the payment of a 3 per cent increase are being linked by management of CIE with other demands with regard to responses from the employees? Would he agree that such demands were not contemplated within the terms of the national wage agreement arrived at with congress? Would the Minister be prepared to intervene to make it clear to CIE that they should consider these increases on an ability to pay basis and not conditional on any other basis?
I want to reiterate carefully what I have said. I have not issued any specific directions under section 26 of the Transport Act, nor did I give any directions to the board. Assessment, as I said, of the ability to pay factor and the approach to payment in general are matters for management and not for me.
I appreciate that ability to pay is a matter for CIE and not for the Minister. The position with regard to CIE, as I understand it, is that delays on implementing increases are not based on inability or ability to pay but on the company introducing other demands of the employees not contemplated within the terms of the national wage agreement. Would the Minister clarify that position with the company, simply to aid matters?
As the Deputy knows, the regular wages grades/staff were paid the first phase on 1 October and the salaried staff on 1 December. Those are all the matters that are relevant as of now. As the Deputy is aware, the significant date in regard to what he is talking about is 1 October 1989. I am leaving it to management and union to operate on that basis.
The Minister mentioned 1 December but he said earlier that it was 1 October from the point of view of the first phase.
There are two separate dates depending on the two grades. I am sorry if I misled the Deputy. Payment of the first phase to CIE staff under the agreement commenced on 1 October 1988 to regular wages grade staff and on 1 December to salaried staff.
It was two months late because of the row.
We now come to questions nominated for priority.