Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 8 Nov 1989

Vol. 392 No. 8

Ushers' Strike: Statement by Ceann Comhairle.

May I be permitted to interrupt the business of the House to make a statement in relation to the ushers' strike?

As Deputies are aware, I allowed two Private Notice Questions yesterday to the Minister for Finance on this issue. The matter was discussed also at a meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I sought advice on the proposal that the dispute be submitted to binding arbitration in view of my statutory position as the disciplinary authority under the Staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas Act, 1959.

I have been advised that it is not possible for me to divest myself of my statutory responsibility by submitting to binding arbitration. However, I am prepared to agree to a third party arbitration on the matter on the understanding that the industrial action ceases immediately and that I will take full account of such an arbitrator's recommendations in discharging my statutory duty. I have instructed my officials to pursue this aspect as a matter of urgency.

Mr. Dukes rose.

That is for the information of the House. No debate should arise but I will allow brief comment.

I understood you to say that you have instructed your officials to take this matter forward in a particular manner. I do not wish to interfere in that or in any way to prejudice the outcome of it but may I suggest that in the event that it turned out to be necessary, you would reconsider the advice you have been given? I understand your statutory position. It would be my view that you would be perfectly entitled to make a decision on how you would decide matters without infringing in any way on your statutory position. That is all I wish to say at this point.

I welcome the statement you have made and I should like to think that the parties involved, both your officers and the ushers who are outside the gate, would be able to meet to try to resolve this problem as quickly as possible.

I take it from the spirit of what you have said that personally you will do everything within your power to ensure that the dispute is resolved today if possible. I should like to think that you would make yourself available in an effort to bring about that result.

I rise to seek some information though perhaps you will not be able to let me have this information. The advice you have received with regard to divesting yourself of your role under the Act concerned differs from the advice available to us. Our advice is that you can arrange for a binding arbitration if you so wish.

I do not wish to become involved between yourself and the staff on this issue but can you inform the House as to the nature of the advice you received? Was it legal advice from the Attorney General or was it legal advice from personnel within the House? There seems to be some dispute as to whether there has been correct interpretation. I urge, therefore, that you seek alternative advice on the matter.

I thank the Deputies for their comments but I have nothing futher to add to my statement except to assure Members that I have sought the advice of the highest and the best authority available to me. I am grateful for the encouraging remarks of the Members who have spoken. Let us hope that our endeavours are successful.

Has this been communicated to the union?

No. My first obligation was to mention it here in the House as a matter of courtesy but it will be communicated immediately to the union.

Would the Chair be prepared to take this opportunity to initiate some procedure whereby this archaic piece of industrial relations procedure is got rid of and this House would have some appropriate procedure for dealing with industrial disputes? We need some procedure that will ensure that the House is not run on the lines of some dictatorship, Army unit or something of that nature. We need to adopt some new measures to ensure that you are not restricted in the way that has been outlined to us.

I very much appreciate your efforts to solve this dispute but I think that, on any construction, even within the spirit of the Statute you quoted, the Members of the House are the employers and that you are acting on our behalf. It seems to be the will of the House that you be given maximum flexibility in solving this dispute and that, for our part, we are entitled to the same flexibility as is any other employer in the sense that if you want to relate yourself to the option of a third party set of proposals, it would be valuable that you have the support of all sides in the House in removing any obstacle or impediment from any Government Department to enable you to resolve this dispute today.

I thank the Deputy. That is my very strong desire.

Perhaps the Minister for Finance could fulfil it.

We will resume discussion on the Derelict Sites Bill.

Top
Share