Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 7 Apr 1992

Vol. 418 No. 4

Private Notice Questions. - Bank Dispute.

I will be calling on the Deputies in the order in which they submitted their questions to my office. The first question before me is addressed to the Minister for Finance and there are some five others addressed to the Minister for Labour. I am calling, first, the question addressed to the Minister for Finance in the name of Deputy Proinsias De Rossa.

asked the Minister for Finance if, in view of the serious escalation of the banks dispute, he will say what steps are being taken to ensure that those who normally receive Government cheques, such as public servants and social welfare recipients, are able to receive their payments in cash as long as the dispute continues; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

My Department have been monitoring developments in the bank dispute. Contingency measures are in place and will be implemented, if necessary, to ensure that public servants are paid. It would be inappropriate to divulge these measures at this stage. As of now there are no difficulties.

As for the impact of the dispute on the economy, it is too early to give a clear assessment. However, it would appear that banking services are being maintained and so long as that position continues, the impact of the dispute will be limited.

In his reply the Minister did not refer to the arrangements which are being made with regard to the payments for social welfare recipients. As I understand it, public servants may use cheque books and the so-called "hole-in-the-wall" facilities to gain cash but the vast majority of social welfare recipients do not have cheque accounts. Will the Minister indicate what arrangements are being made to ensure that those who receive cheques from the Department will be enabled to cash them so that they will have money to feed themselves at the end of this week?

Assuming that there is no significant change, the payment of salaries by way of electronic transfers will operate as normal and standing orders will be met. Approximately 50 per cent of salaries are paid by way of electronic transfers. With regard to the remainder of salaries which are paid by cheque no problems are anticipated in cashing them in the banks that are open or, if people would prefer not to go to those banks, in the other network of banks. The same will apply in the case of pensions paid by cheque to Civil Service pensioners; no difficulties are foreseen in cashing them at this stage. With regard to social welfare payments, I was in touch with the Department of Social Welfare this morning and they have confirmed that this dispute will not cause any great difficulties in continuing to make payments through the normal network.

Two Deputies from the same party are offering. As I want to make progress on the other Private Notice Questions I call Deputy De Rossa for a brief question and I am proceeding then to the other questions.

The Minister has indicated that the Department of Social Welfare — I presume that is the Department he is referring to — have indicated that they do not foresee any difficulties but as there are tens of thousands of social welfare recipients who do not know at this stage where they will get cash to pay for groceries and so on at the end of this week will the Minister indicate what arrangements have been made? I presume some contingency plans have been put in place and I should like to know what will be done to ensure that these people will have money at the weekend.

There is an element of repetition here.

As Deputy De Rossa is aware, the majority of the Department's cheques in any normal week do not go through the banking system so the normal arrangements will apply so long as there is cash in circulation. There will be no difficulties in regard to that matter. With regard to social welfare and other statutory cheques — we have been monitoring the position every few hours — while there is no need to go through the figures a large proportion of the banks are still open. In the case of the two main banks, the AIB and Bank of Ireland, close on 500 banks are open. Should there be a major or significant change and the banks are unable to cope contingency arrangements have been made; the other network of banks could be used. The details of the contingency arrangements, if they are to be successful, must remain confidential and, if necessary, they will be put into operation within a matter of hours.

What the Minister is saying is that social welfare recipients must break the strike or starve. That is what he is saying.

We must proceed to the other questions.

They must pass the pickets or starve.

These are questions addressed to the Minister for Labour on a related subject. I call, first, Deputy Ahearn to put her question.

asked the Minister for Labour if he will outline the action, if any, he proposes to take to encourage a resolution of the dispute in the major banks, and if he will make a statement on the matter.

asked the Minister for Labour if in view of the appalling consequences of a prolonged bank strike, he intends to take steps to ensure that the Employer/Labour Conference intervenes in this strike, and if he will make a statement on the matter.

asked the Minister for Labour if, in view of the breakdown of talks between the two sides in the banks dispute, he will immediately intervene to prevent a further escalation of the dispute that could result in disruption in the economy and a possible loss of jobs.

asked the Minister for Labour the urgent steps he proposes to take in order to bring about a speedy settlement in the banks dispute in view of the large-scale disruption within the economy.

asked the Minister for Labour if, in view of the serious escalation of the banks dispute from yesterday, he will outline the steps, if any, he intends to take to help seek a solution to the dispute, especially in view of the serious economic damage and public hardship which would be caused by a prolonged banks strike; if his attention has been drawn to reports of intimidatory activity on the part of some bank management; if he intends to take any action on these claims; if he also intends to accede to a request for a meeting from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I am extremely disappointed that despite long and intensive negotiations a solution to this dispute could not be found before the ultimate step of strike action was taken. Apart from the hardship to the community and potential damage to the economy the Government are concerned that in a situation where we as a country need foreign investment our image abroad could be adversely affected.

This dispute has a particularly long history and has been the subject of investigation by two bank tribunals before eventually being the subject of a Labour Court recommendation. Prior to this the Labour Relations Commission were involved and have been involved more recently. The Labour Court in their recommendation did not concede the IBOA claim for a straight salary increase but recommended an alternative approach under the terms of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress which involves a 6 per cent increase from 1 May, 3 per cent basic and 3 per cent local bargaining, a lump sum of £750 and an extra days annual leave in return for extra opening hours.

The recommendation was not accepted by the IBOA and in an effort to break the deadlock further discussions were held in the Labour Relations Commission but despite their best efforts a settlement was not achieved.

As I said on a number of occasions, a resolution of this dispute must rest in the end with the banks and the IBOA and third party intervention can only be as effective as the parties to the dispute will allow. I regret to say that at present I do not see any real desire by the parties to enter meaningful dialogue but I would again call on both sides to sit down immediately and open discussions in a spirit of goodwill and co-operation.

I am keeping in close contact with the situation and monitoring developments hourly. Deputies can take it that I will spare no efforts to help bring about a resolution of this dispute.

Meetings with the Federation of Irish Employers and ICTU have been arranged for tomorrow and I will review the situation following these talks.

I should say, having regard to the number of Deputies involved, that one round of questioning should be sufficient.

Is the Minister aware that it is the view of the general public the Government and himself, as Minister for Labour, have sleep-walked themselves into this dispute by failing to take any action to prevent a strike and by failing to do anything about it since it happened? Has the Minister met the IBOA or members of the banks' standing committee and, if not, has he any intention of meeting them within the next few days?

I reject utterly the contention that the Government have been passive in their attitude with regard to the damage that could be caused by this dispute. I should remind the Deputy that when it became clear last Thursday that the dispute had escalated I immediately called on the parties to sit down together and emphasised that the Labour Relations Commission would be available to see if the dispute could be sorted out. As we are all aware, despite their best efforts, the Labour Relations Commission were unable to resolve the dispute over the weekend and the strike commenced yesterday morning.

Second, I should make the point to the Deputy that the Labour Relations Commission, the Labour Court and I are available to the parties at all times should they so wish but, until there is evidence of trust and goodwill between the parties it will be difficult to find a solution to this dispute. I have kept a close eye on the situation at all times and have emphasised that the Labour Relations Commission are available to the parties. They are experienced officials and are involved in the resolution of disputes weekly. Unfortunately, we have not been successful so far but that machinery is still available should the parties wish to avail of it.

Is the Minister aware that the banks are currently engaged in a campaign of intimidation and are among other things, taking cars back from managers who refuse to sign declarations that they will not participate in the strike; that officials who were in fact granted examination leave have been transferred in such a way that they no longer qualify for it and that what is at issue, from his point of view as Minister for Labour, is the defence of the fundamental right of people to organise themselves in a trade union? Is the Minister aware the banks are engaged in constructive dismissal, which is in breach of the Unfair Dismissals Act? In view of the gross intimidation that is now occurring in one bank, of which I have documentary evidence, will he open a confidential telephone line in his Department to enable harassed bank officials to report instances of intimidation that are occuring on a daily basis?

I have been concerned about the reports which have been communicated to my Department since the strike began. I said yesterday and last night that I could not condone over-zealous actions by any party to the dispute. I agree that to organise and take free decisions is a fundamental right of every employee in any industry or service industry. My Department have made staff available to take these reports, and I am concerned about them. I regret that this is happening. I believe it is very difficult to resolve matters in the atmosphere that has been building up over the past 24 hours.

Will the Minister investigate complaints?

As far as I am concerned, any complaints that come to the notice of my Department can be dealt with. However, let me point out that if we are interested in resolving this dispute it is important that I do not get involved in recriminations or counter-recriminations. I am trying to ensure that an atmosphere of goodwill and trust prevails in order to resolve this dispute. The chairman of the Labour Court referred in the Labour Court recommendations to the very poor industrial relations atmosphere which has been a dominant feature of the banking system for some time and stated that when this dispute is resolved — hopefully shortly — that issue should be taken up in detail by the Labour Relations Commission. In the interest of seeking to resolve this dispute, which is our primary objective at present, I am anxious not to heighten tensions but to try to create an atmosphere in which the dispute can be resolved.

Would the Minister not agree that he should get in touch with both sides, the banks and the union, to point out that the Members of this House will do everything in their power to ensure that intimidation or any such practice does not continue and if either the banks or the union engage in these practices they will get no support from the Members of this House? Would the Minister not agree that it would improve the atmosphere if the spokespersons for both sides were taken off the airwaves? We do not want to listen to a war of figures every hour on the hour. It would be far more in their line if they sat down around a table and tried to resolve their differences rather than trying to score points off each other.

I will, of course, at the Deputy's request, as I have been doing in public statements, indicate the view of the Members of this House to the parties concerned. Second, I agree — and I stated this publicly last night — that if as much energy were to be directed by the parties concerned to the resolution of this dispute as to the war of words over the airwaves, perhaps we would be closer to a settlement. Although I understand that during the strike both sides need to give their version of events, I have continually indicated to both parties the need to desist from such activity and pursue the line referred to by the Deputy.

Having listened to the Minister I understand that all his hard work to date has consisted of making public statements to the press, and the words attributed to him in a report in this morning's paper where he talked about "a trial of strength" and "war of attrition" were not very helpful. Did the Minister at any stage communicate his views directly to either party to the dispute, because from what he has said he seems to have failed to do that? Does he agree that it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that we have a proper banking system in this country and what is he going to do about that?

This dispute is a long-running matter and we have spent the past three weekends between the Labour Court and the Labour Relations Commission trying to resolve it. These people are highly qualified in industrial relations procedures. Let me say also that the Labour Court pointed out in their recommendations that the problem arises as much from the deep-seated attitudes of the parties as from the procedures or lack of them, and that it is a symptom of an overall problem which must be resolved in any event.

I would not accept that any public statements I have made have in any way heightened the dispute, quite the contrary. I have been seeking to indicate to the parties that the people and the Government, given the wider implications of the dispute, wish to see the matter resolved. A cornerstone of our industrial relations procedure is a voluntary approach, which has been adopted, and the need to respect the arbitration either of the Labour Court or the Labour Relations Commission——

And the rights of individuals.

——and as soon as both parties revert to that situation, we may be on the way to resolving the dispute.

I accept the need for the Minister to be seen to be acting objectively, but when he said there was no disposition to settle the dispute was he referring specifically to the attitude taken up by the banks' management? Does he acknowledge that the public generally do not accept that the banks should use their power to try to break the union and specifically to prevent the union from having any say in the shape and structure of future services due to the pervasive impact of technology? Will he ask his Department to conduct an investigation into the allegations of intimidation; such as — and I wonder is the Minister aware of this — people on full-time study leave in Limerick being threatened with withdrawal of their scholarships; an assistant manager whose wife is on temporary contract being threatened that her temporary contract will not be renewed if he persists; people who have refused to sign forms being reduced to tears by management in one-to-one interviews; and a particular manager in the Bank of Ireland advising his staff that he will see to it for the remainder of his days in office that they would never be promoted if they support the IBOA action?

We cannot debate this matter now. This is Question Time and the Deputy had better come to finality.

Can the Minister maintain his objectivity in the light of those facts, and if he disputes that they are facts, will he ensure that an investigation is conducted into the basis of these facts?

As I have said already, I am concerned about the reports of intimidation that Deputies have communicated to me in the House and to my Department. I will monitor those allegations to see how well founded they are. My primary objective as Minister for Labour is to resolve this dispute. As Deputy Rabbitte has said, it is important that a measure of objectivity on the general issues be maintained so that we can bring the parties together to resolve the dispute. In relation to the other matters I would ask the Deputy to take what I have said in good faith.

A Cheann Comhairle, one question, please.

I am proceeding now to other matters. The Deputy will now resume her seat.

Top
Share