asked the Minister for Labour whether he intends to intervene or to seek the intervention of the Labour Relations Commission to resolve the dispute at Dublin Port: and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Private Notice Question. - Dublin Port Dispute.
I share the concern expressed about the damage being done to the commercial life of Dublin and the country as a whole by this unofficial dispute. This industrial action was taken without notice and without recourse to procedures which are laid down for the resolution of disputes. It is a matter of concern that industrial action should be undertaken in total disregard of procedures. I had hoped that unofficial strikes of this nature were a feature of our industrial relations past. I have no doubt that the dispute can be resolved if the workers concerned accept the advice of their own union and return to work. The Labour Relations Commission are available at short notice to assist the parties once normal procedures are followed.
I am of course concerned at the situation in Dublin Port at a time when Dublin Cargo Handling are in financial difficulties. The action being taken does not bode well for the future of what should be our premier port facility. For some time Dublin Port has lacked the flexibility needed for modern port operation. In a country heavily dependent on exports, it is essential that work practices there are such as to ensure the efficient operation of the port.
I welcome the Minister's statement. What action does he intend to take to resolve the problem? Does he agree that the current dispute poses a serious risk to the future viability of Dublin Port, that it will be seen as again raising the spectre of the port being unreliable and result in substantial loss of business to the port? Would he also agree that this dispute, taking place at this time of the year, threatens many businesses who rely on the port and the trade which takes place through the Christmas period to maintain the viability of their businesses and jobs? Would the Minister agree that the dispute is placing at risk a substantial number of jobs? Would the Minister agree that it is a recipe for disaster to preserve the current Mexican stand-off whereby the Labour Relations Commission are not intervening until the workers go back to work and the workers will not go back without the problems being resolved? This is a recipe for disaster which will involve the continuation of the dispute for weeks rather than days. What steps will the Minister take to break this stand-off and tackle the problem so that Dublin Port can rapidly return to normal?
I have no trouble in agreeing with the sequence of statements made by the Deputy in relation to the damage to the port and to the national economy. I have stated that as a matter of fact. Is the Deputy suggesting that I as Minister should encourage a total departure from agreed procedures by telling the Labour Court that they should sanction this kind of unofficial action, taken without notice, contrary to precedents and procedures, by interfering in response? The Deputy appears to be hinting at this in asking me to insist that the so-called Mexican stand-off should stop. He had better acknowledge the chaotic consequences of what he is suggesting.
Would the Minister not agree that the function of the Labour Relations Commission is not to give sanction to either official or unofficial action but to resolve industrial disputes and that the current stand-off is a recipe for the continuation of this dispute for a substantial period? Would the Minister not agree that the Labour Relations Commission, through the good offices of the Labour Court reconciliation officer intervening at this stage, could provide a mechanism for bringing the dispute to an end, without in any way expressing approval or disapproval of the behaviour of the unofficial strikers or any side in the dispute? Would the Minister not encourage that intervention?
The Deputy must know that there are agreements in place between management and unions. The best guarantee of good industrial relations is to adhere to that partnership. If any degree of sanction or recognition is given for unofficial action which ignores all those procedures there is only one consequence, namely chaos. That is not in the interest even of Dublin Port, which is vitally important to the economy. I was amazed to learn that Dublin Port will not handle meat. I believe a number of things can be done to improve Dublin Port: first, the re-establishment of normal work procedures and, second, the creation of an efficient, reliable and consistent port to which importers and exporters will come to do business. The taking of strike action without notice would only be encouraged if people did as the Deputy suggested, and he must know that.
May I——
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle——
We have to get on with the business of the House. I will allow a brief question from Deputy O'Sullivan and a final brief question from Deputy Shatter.
The Minister has matured considerably in his attitude to this dispute over the past five hours. He now recognises the gravity of the problem. Is the Minister not aware that on many occasions strikes have been resolved through informal approaches by people other than the courts or the Labour Relations Commission? The Minister should use all the machinery at his disposal, including the officials in his Department who are familiar with this type of activity, to bridge the gap which now exists, which will lead to chaos in the coming weeks, to resolve this dispute.
I note what the Deputy said. I never suggested that this was not a serious matter. The fact that I am taking this Private Notice Question is evidence of my concern about this dispute.
There was no response this morning.
I was not present to respond when this matter was first raised in the House.
The Minister was here.
I never said that I would not deal with it. In regard to the Private Notice Question, I never did anything other than indicate my readiness to deal with it, which is what I am doing now.
On the Order of Business this morning——
The Order of Business is not the time to deal seriously with such matters, and I ask the Deputy to accept that.
With regard to the second point made by the Deputy, I can assure him that I have done what he requested me to do, to consult with the people in my Department who are very experienced in such matters. They, in turn, have been in contact with the Labour Relations Commission who are also very experienced in such matters. All their advice was made available to me in coming to my conclusion. I hope the procedures to which I have referred can be put in place shortly so that this dispute can be resolved in the interests of the port, which has lost a great deal of business to other ports in recent years, and of the overall economy.
A final and brief question from Deputy Shatter.
I wish first to thank the Minister for taking this question which deals with an important issue. I am astonished in the third day of the dispute that the Minister sought a briefing on the background to the matter only after this question was tabled.
It is important to point out that I did not say that. I said that the views I was expressing had been reached after consultation. It is very important to put that on the record. I sought advice and got it immediately.
Will the Minister not accept that his recipe to resolve the dispute is that he should do nothing, that the Labour Relations Commission should do nothing and that we should simply hope that the dispute will go away? Will the Minister accept that this is unrealistic? I join with the Minister in calling on the workers on strike to come off strike. If they are not willing to respond to that call the only way the matter can be resolved is for an intermediary to get involved, and the appropriate body is the Labour Relations Commission through a conciliation officer. In that context I wish to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that where procedures were not followed in the past in a dispute which affected the vital national interest his predecessor was willing to involve himself in the resolution of those disputes. The Minister is adopting an excessively legalistic response to a problem which requires flexibility and urgent resolution.
I hope the Minister will understand if I ask for a short reply.
I should like to reply to the question but I am sure the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will recognise that that was a statement and not a question. My reply will be brief. I do not accept any of the points made by the Deputy. I should like to ask the Deputy a rhetorical question: is he suggesting, on behalf of his party, that the procedures we have in place which have proven to be successful, particularly during the past four and a half to five years——
The Minister is not using all the procedures. The Labour Relations Commission provide the procedures.
I should like to know if Fine Gael now hold the view that the Minister should immediately intervene in unofficial disputes without notice where all the other procedures——
The Labour Relations Commission——
Is that the position Fine Gael are adopting?
The Minister is twisting the Deputy's words.
It is a spurious response. The Minister should deal with resolving the dispute.
The Labour Relations Commission do not wish to be involved and do not think it is appropriate that they should be involved in unofficial disputes without notice. That is a fact.
How will the dispute be resolved? There are perishable goods in Dublin Port which will be lost.
This is why industrial relations over the past four to five years have been so secure. Is Deputy Shatter now suggesting on behalf of the Fine Gael Party that from now on unofficial industrial disputes——
That is total nonsense and the Minister knows it. The Minister has done nothing to resolve this dispute for three days.
A member of the Minister's party was chairman of the port authority.
Please, Deputy Owen. We will move to what I hope will be the tranquility of country roads.
And potholes.