asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment the steps, if any, he intends to take to help find a settlement to the two industrial disputes in Dublin Bus which are now badly disrupting services, especially in view of the threatened escalation of one of the disputes which could lead to the total withdrawal of services; if, in particular, he will request the Labour Relations Commission to intervene; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Private Notice Questions. - Dublin Bus Industrial Dispute.
asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment the steps, if any, he is taking to bring about a speedy resolution to the Dublin Bus dispute which is already affecting thousands of commuters in Dublin.
asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment the reason the dispute at Dublin Bus occurred despite the code of practice to prevent disruption of essential services; the steps, if any, he is taking to bring about an early return to work while the issues are being resolved; the point at which he will provide some services for people dependent on the buses; and the plans, if any, he has to prevent a recurrence of such disputes in essential services.
asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications if, in view of the serious disruption caused by this dispute in Dublin Bus, and its adverse impact on commuters and business alike, he will give the action if any, he intends to take to bring the matter to a speedy conclusion; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I am extremely disappointed that these disputes have reached an impasse with consequent serious inconvenience to the public. The issues in dispute can and should be resolved through negotiation and do not warrant the disruption of services.
The drivers' dispute arises from the introduction of a revised network in sector 7, Blanchardstown/Castleknock/ Clonsilla. The revised network was discussed at local level and at the Labour Relations Commission. As no agreement was reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court. In its recommendation issued on 12 May, the court recommended that all elements of the network review, with one exception, be implemented from 17 May for one month during which time the parties would negotiate all the detailed points raised in respect of the changes.
The craft workers dispute arises from productivity negotiations which have been ongoing for the past three years. The claim has been the subject of detailed discussions at the Labour Relations Commission from which two sets of proposals emerged but which were rejected by the workers concerned. The dispute can be referred to the Labour Court but the unions do not wish to do so.
I would ask the workers concerned to resume normal working immediately and seek to resolve their problems through negotiations with the assistance of the dispute settling agencies, if necessary.
The lack of progress in implementing the code of practice on dispute procedures including procedure in essential services has been very disappointing. The code was drawn up following detailed consultations with all interested parties and on that basis should enjoy a wide degree of acceptability and support. Since taking up office I have been encouraging employers and unions in essential services such as Dublin Bus to adopt a more proactive approach in the implementation of the code.
Dublin Bus is among the companies where the provisions of the code have not been implemented. I would hope that lessons will be learned from these unnecessary disputes that will provide the impetus for the early implementation of the code.
If the code of practice does not receice widespread acceptance and the public continue to suffer because of disputes in essential services, the voluntary appraoach in dealing with these issues will have to be reviewed.
Is the Minister of State aware that the largest union involved in this dispute, SIPTU, intends to ballot its members on a full scale strike on Thursday? Would she agree that the prospects, between now and Thursday, of negotiating a back to work formula and of avoiding total chaos in Dublin Bus services will disappear if there is a ballot on a full scale strike? Would she use the powers available to her under section 38 of the Industrial Relations Act to require the Labour Relations Commission to involve itself in the negotiation of a back to work formula in order to provide a bus service for the people of Dublin and avoid further disruption of services in the event of a full scale strike?
I am aware that SIPTU intends to ballot its members. I wish to inform the House and the Deputies again that both the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court have been involved at various stages. They will continue to make themselves available to the parties involved. The Department will also keep a close watch on the proceedings and will make itself available to lessen the discomfort caused for commuters and to prevent an escalation of the dispute.
Is the Minister of State aware that the SIPTU representative involved in the dispute at the Phibsboro bus depot is quoted as saying in today's newspapers that the dispute there could be resolved in a matter of hours if Dublin Bus management was prepared to sit down and meet the unions without preconditions? Would the Minister of State accept that Dublin Bus management acted irresponsibility in refusing to agree to talks in view of the effect the dispute is having on many thousands of commuters? Given that the unions have called for third party mediation or intervention by the Labour Relations Commission, can the Minister of State assist or intervene directly to facilitate this? Will she give an assurance that she will not wait until the entire public transport system has ground to a halt before deciding that it is appropriate to intevene directly?
The Deputy mentioned what is reported in a newspaper. One would not be prepared to say that what is reported in the newspapers is accurate until it is repeated in public. As I have said, in both disputes in Dublin Bus the intervention process has been well utilised. Both the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court have been involved and will continue to make themselves available to the parties involved. The Deputy asked if I would intervene directly. The Government has put structures in place. One hopes that matters such as this can be resolved at management level but, if not, other machinery is available so that disputes and altercations can be resolved. The Department and the Government are keeping a close watch on the matter.
Would the Minister of State agree that disputes are occurring within the transport services, in particular Dublin Bus, with alarming regularity, particularly in the run up to holiday periods? Would she accept that the principles underlying the code of practice governing disputes in essential services have been forgotten in this instance? For example, would she agree that acceptance of the outcome at the final stage has not occurred in this case, in that none of the fall back positions envisaged in the code of practice has been adopted, whereby it would be accepted pending an annual or a five-yearly review?
Would the Minister of State indicate what she plans to do by way of intervention in this and in other possible disputes in essential services to protect the public and ensure continuity of service? Does she envisage a certain point at which alternative services will have to be provided for people affected?
The Deputy alleged a proliferation of trade disputes. There has been a great diminution in the number of trade disputes in recent years, which we hope will continue.
The Deputy talked about a code of practice. We are disappointed at the non-implementation of the code of practice for essential services. Of course, it is a voluntary code of practice. One would have hoped that management, unions and workers would have sorted the matter out between themselves. The code of practice was drawn up following detailed consultations with all the interested parties. On that basis, one would assume that it would enjoy a great degree of acceptance. We have been doing our very best to ensure that the code of practice is implemented. One can go only so far with a voluntary code. One would always wish that the voluntary code of practice would be adhered to and implemented. If it does not receive widespread acceptance and the public continue to suffer because of disputes in essential services, obviously the voluntary approach will have to be reviewed, but I remain convinced that the voluntary approach is the correct one. We will keep that matter under review because, as the Deputy rightly says, the public cannot always be allowed to suffer.
Would the Minister not agree that the spectacle of an all-out strike in the delivery of public transport would be an unthinkable proposition, bearing in mind the damage being done already to the business community by difficulties people encounter simply trying to get to work, apart altogether from personal discomfort? This is something we can ill afford. Because prevention is better than cure, would the Minister not consider, through whatever means she has at her disposal — and there are many — intervening in some way before a full ballot is undertaken on Thursday next? Would she not accept that if an all-out strike occurs with massive disruption of public transport, the damage could have an effect throughout the remainder of this year?
Would the Minister agree that one of the major contributory factors is that a monopoly exists in the delivery of public transport? Is she aware that some 1,200 new European transport operator passenger licences have been issued whose criteria for qualification include the production of tax clearance certificates, which means that, effectively, there can be upwards of 1,000 private companies delivering public transport services here not recognised at all by the Government? Would she agree it is about time that competition obtained, particularly in Dublin, but nationwide, in the delivery of public transport? If that were to happen, opportunities would not get seized within Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann to utilise their monopolistic power to hold the public up to ransom. We have gone far beyond the stage of acceptance of such practices. Would the Minister care to comment on that?
Nobody in this House or outside it wants to see a dispute about public services. The Deputy asked me to use the considerable powers for intervention available to me and to the Department. As I said, that has already been gone through with the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court who remain available for consultation, if necessary, at immediate notice.
The Deputy raised a third aspect, a monopoly in public transport. I would reply that that is a separate question but realise that the Deputy is speaking from an interested background in that respect.
As I have declared, I am no longer involved.
The Minister has questioned the accuracy of newspaper reports regarding the willingness of the unions to attend the Labour Relations Commission. As recently as two hours ago, it was confirmed to me by the union that they were willing to attend before the Labour Relations Commission on the issue of the suspensions and so on which has given rise to the disruption of the services, but that there appears to be some reluctance on the part of the Labour Relations Commission to facilitate such appearance.
May I ask the Minister again whether she would use the powers available to her to direct the Labour Relations Commission to arrange for discussions between the parties before these disputes escalate and the entire bus service in Dublin grinds to a complete halt?
The Deputy's words — that I question the accuracy of newspaper reports — are his, not mine. I said Deputy Gregory spoke of reportage in papers of what somebody had said. One is always careful about attributing the utmost veracity to such reports. I take it, if the Deputy has spoken to somebody, he is relating facts. I must repeat that the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court are available, at the ready, to consult, help and advise in an effort to obviate any further dispute.
Would the Minister not agree that the availability agencies like the Labour Relations Commission will not necessarily bring about any intervention and that what is needed on her part is some clear direction to get the apparatus available directly involved since, as we have seen in the past, their simply being available has not resolved disputes which have tended to escalate. We are endeavouring to prevent a serious escalation and to put an end to the current dispute. Would she not agree that something more than the mere expression that various agencies are available is required?
I should say, for the record, I am no longer involved in any private or public transport organisation. I was up to 13 months ago.
Obviously the Deputy would have been speaking from his background knowledge of the matter of monopolies and so on.
The Deputy contended that the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court being available is not sufficient. Let me reiterate that they have been actively involved in the disputes, in particular in this one. I might add that the Department and we in Government are in close contact, from hour to hour, with both the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court. All Members can be assured that everything possible will be done to achieve a resolution of this dispute.
At what point would the Minister envisage asking either the Army, or some alternative service, to be available to the people affected by this dispute? If it becomes an all-out strike, we will have very serious circumstances prevailing. While it is not the best industrial relations practice to have Labour Court recommendations re-opened by the Labour Relations Commission, in order to prevent the public being so severely discommoded, would she intervene personally to ensure that the Labour Relations Commission does hold a hearing on this matter at an early stage?
I would sincerely hope that the need would not arise for the type of remedy envisaged in the earlier part of the Deputy's question.
I should place on the record again that we in Government, and in the Department, are actually following this matter, as are the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court. I can assure Members that everything possible will be done.
With regard to the dispute at the Phibsboro' bus depot, the Minister has said that the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court are standing by and are available. Since the unions are anxious to take the dispute to the Labour Relations Commission, can the Minister indicate what is preventing its being brought before them today?
The Labour Relations Commission is available and ready and I will take up the matter raised by both Deputy Gilmore and Deputy Gregory. Let me repeat the machinery of the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court is available. They have been proactive in every respect of the dispute and are available again.
Surely today is the time to be involved. Given that the unions are prepared to go to the Labour Relations Commission, will the Minister indicate why the dispute will not be heard today before it gets out of hand completely?
That is our active intention. Quite clearly as the day advances there will be developments and interchanges between people on the matter. As the Deputy knows this is how the issue proceeds. The personnel in these bodies have built up a body of expertise through the negotiation of disputes and as I said already they are available to deal with this matter as it develops.