asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment if he will intervene in the Dublin Bus disputes to bring both sides together without preconditions, under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission or the Labour Court in view of the hardship being caused to thousands of commuters and before the current disputes escalate into a complete breakdown of services; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Private Notice Questions. - Dublin Bus Disputes.
asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment if, in the view of today's decision of Dublin Bus craft workers to reject the advice of their unions to return to work and the likelihood that this development will lead to a further rapid deterioration of the bus service, and in view of the fact that Dublin Bus has already issued its 2,900 staff with protective notice, he will consider intervening personally to see if a settlement can be found; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment if, in view of the fact that protective notice has been served to the entire 3,000 staff in Dublin Bus and of the likelihood that all public transport bus services in Dublin may cease to operate within a matter of days, and in view of the grave inconvenience that the dispute is already causing to workers and other commuters, he will give details of the action, if any, he plans to take to avert this unacceptable disruption; if he is willing to meet with the various parties to the dispute; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I should like to take the three Private Notice Questions together.
I am disappointed that the disputes in Dublin Bus have resulted in a reduction in services of approximately 25 per cent with consequent serious inconvenience to the public. The issues in dispute in both cases 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 of services for the Blanchardstown-Cabra-Castleknock and Dunboyne areas. This was the subject of intensive discussions at local level and at the Labour Relations Commission and was then referred to the Labour Court. In its recommendation issued on 12 May the Labour 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 on all the detailed points raised in respect of the changes. The Labour Court gave us an undertaking, in the recommendation, to arrange a hearing and issue a recommendation without further formality in the event of failure to reach agreement on any particular point. The recommendation was accepted by one of the unions concerned, the NBRU, but was rejected by SIPTU. It is a matter of regret that SIPTU took this course of action, particularly having regard to the undertaking given by the Labour Court.
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 negotiations at the Labour Relations Commission from which two sets of proposals emerged but which were rejected by the workers concerned. The claim could have been referred to the Labour Court at that stage but the unions opted instead for strike action. A Labour Court hearing was arranged for Friday 28 May on the understanding that the workers would resume normal working. However, as the workers did not comply with a request from their unions to return to work, the Labour Court hearing did not go ahead. The Labour Court had informed the unions that if they resumed normal working a court hearing would be held within 24 hours. There was a meeting of craftsmen today and I regret that the workers voted against a resumption of normal working. It is difficult to understand why the workers opted to take strike action in the first place and why they persist in their refusal to resume normal working despite the recommendation from their unions to do so.
In the context of industrial disputes, the best solutions are to be found when the parties themselves follow proper procedures with a view to reaching negotiated settlements. The State provides machinery, in the form of the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court, to assist parties whenever there are particular difficulties in arriving at negotiated settlements. In the vast majority of cases, employers and trade unions either reach mutually acceptable solutions to disputes directly or with the assistance of the independent dispute settling agencies. The services of both the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court are designed to ensure that parties have impartial, expert and independent assistance, in incremental stages, to reach settlements and to avoid industrial action.
In both Dublin Bus disputes, the unions concerned do not appear to be willing to follow normal well established procedures for resolving disputes. In these circumstances it would be wholly inappropriate for me to intervene personally. These disputes are causing unnecessary and avoidable hardship to Dublin commuters which I fully appreciate. I urge the unions, their members and all others concerned to take this into account and reconsider their positions with a view to ending both disputes quickly. The Labour Court is available at this stage to give any assistance it can to all the parties in both disputes.
Will the Minister agree that issuing 3,000 protective notices by Dublin Bus management to their employees was a most provocative and undoubtedly served to harden the position on both sides? Furthermore, with regard to the drivers' dispute at the Phibsborough bus depot, is the Minister aware that SIPTU is willing to go back into the Labour Court at a moment's notice, if needs be this evening? Last week I understood the Minister of State, Deputy O'Rourke, said in this House that the Labour Court was available and standing by. Will the Minister say whether the Labour Court is still standing by and why the court will not call in the two sides in the drivers' dispute to resolve any outstanding issues in this dispute at least?
The Labour Court is available to all parties to the dispute if they wish to avail of its considered and professional machinery. I recommend that all parties to the dispute, including those at the bus depot to which Deputy Gregory referred, avail of the fact that the Labour Court is available, that they exercise that option and move quickly in an endeavour to resolve this matter.
Will the Minister agree, irrespective of his or anybody else's views of the issues in dispute or about adherence to procedures, that both sides in this dispute are now rapidly digging themselves into entrenched positions? Will he also agree that it is now critical, to serve the travelling public, that a "back-to-work" formula be found? Will the Minister ask the Labour Court to intervene directly in the SIPTU dispute — where the issue involves the suspension of employees and who are not involved in today's ballot? Will he ask the Labour Relations Commission or the Labour Court to have discussions with Dublin Bus and the craft unions on some kind of a "back-to-work" formula in view of today's discussions? If those initiatives fail, will the Minister intervene?
Certainly I am open to the idea that my Department and the two institutions answerable to the Department, although clearly independent, the Labour Court and the Labour Relations Commission, should vigorously explore a "back-to-work" formula that would have the consent of all those involved. Deputy Gilmore — with his previous experience as a professional trade union representative — will recognise the complexities of this dispute, its history and the problems associated with it. However, the House can take it that I will encourage the Labour Court and the Labour Relations Commission, with the consent of the parties associated with this dispute, to pursue vigorously the search for a "back-to-work" formula.
Will the Minister accept that his colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy O'Rourke, expressed the same disappointment with the dispute in the House last week? It is clear that the Minister is adopting a "hands off" approach? Given that the strike has escalated, the outcome of the vote today among craft workers, the disruption which has been caused for those who are trying to get to work and the threat to jobs, the Minister must intervene directly in this dispute having regard to the fact that the former Department of Labour, which was always seen as another part of the machinery in solving such disputes, has been absorbed into the Minister's Department? Would the Minister not intervene directly and outline the action he intends to take during the next 24 hours to bring this potentially explosive and damaging strike to a conclusion?
I am amused at the request for direct market intervention from the representatives of the Progressive Democrats.
The Minister should tell that to commuters.
If they had some knowledge of this territory on which they have just pronounced they would recognise that the responsibility of any responsible Minister for Labour is to ensure that the intervention machinery is available. If the Deputy has heard what one of the representatives of the trade union workers directly involved in this dispute, Mr. Michael Keating, had to say this morning he would realise that this issue is very complex.
I fully appreciate that.
Commuters do not care what the problem is; they want it solved.
Deputies should allow the Minister to answer the question.
Like the Minister of State, Deputy O'Rourke, I will do everything to ensure that the machinery which is available and which has actively been availed of in one case over a period of three years will continue to be made available to resolve this conflict.
I call Deputy Currie I ask him to be brief.
I will. I wish to point out to the Minister that, apart from the inconvenience and hardship caused in the week that has just passed when we experienced terrible weather conditions, next week the leaving certificate examinations are due to begin.
Questions, Deputy, not information.
Would the Minister agree that in those circumstances every possible effort should be made to minimise the inconvenience and disruption caused for students who have enough trouble as it is at this time of the year?
For the benefit of those Deputies who have just entered the House let me repeat what I have already said.
It is a broken record at this stage.
I said that in both Dublin Bus disputes the unions concerned do not appear to be willing to follow normal well established procedures for resolving disputes. I appeal to all involved to recognise that there is a clear, well established set of procedures open to all involved, particularly the unions, All I can and should do is to encourage and make that machinery available to the parties to the dispute.
Deputy Burke.
When the Minister was on this side of the House he was not slow in telling the Minister to intervene.
The Deputy is wrong and she should check the record.
Deputy Burke without interruption, please.
Many of my constituents in the Blanchardstown-Castleknock area have been badly affected by this dispute. Apart from the leaving certificate students who will be affected next week, many of those doing university examinations have been affected already. I fully accept the point made by the Minister that the machinery is available, that it is important that it be availed of and that it is brought to the attention of all those involved in the dispute that this machinery is available but there comes a time in any dispute——
Questions, please.
——when the machinery is not sufficient and what is needed is personal intervention. I ask the Minister to personally intervene.
He is one of your own.
(Interruptions.)
Would the Minister indicate why the Labour Court has not intervened during the past week in the SIPTU dispute given that SIPTU has stated it is prepared to go back to the Labour Court? Would the Minister clarify what precisely he will do today to bring the parties to this dispute back to the Labour Court?
I wish to reassure the Deputy that I will convey to the representatives of the Labour Court and the Labour Relations Commission the strong concern that is shared by Members on all sides of the House about the disruption which has been caused unnecessarily for the public by this dispute.
The Minister should tell that to the unions.
As I said in my opening comment, it could and should be resolved under the existing framework of negotiating machinery.
How long?
There is no need to try to resolve this dispute by way of strike action.
The Minister should tell that to the unions; there is no point telling it to the Labour Court.
(Interruptions.)
The Deputies can have a go at him in their own time; I am trying to do my job. I can assure the House, including Deputy Dukes, that I will convey to the Labour Court and the Labour Relations Commission that this House has expressed serious concern about the disruption caused unnecessarily for the public, be they leaving certificate students or otherwise, by this dispute and the fact that the machinery for resolving industrial disputes is permanently available. I will urge the unions and management to make maximum use of this machinery.
The institutions are not on strike; the unions are.
Would the Minister not telephone SIPTU and tell them that?
The prices have not gone up yet; phone them.
Would the Minister accept that if this dispute continues the economy of this city will grind to a halt? In view of his wider responsibilities in the area of employment would the Minister take the initiative and make the first phone call to try to bring this dispute to an end?
Can he afford it?
Perhaps the Deputy did not hear or understand fully what I said——
I did.
——but I have just said that I, as the Minister responsible, will contact all the parties involved through the Labour Court and the Labour Relations Commission to reinforce the concern which has been democratically expressed in this Chamber——
It was raised last week also.
——in the most effective way possible to find an effective solution to the dispute.
The Minister should have done that last week.
A final question from Deputy Cullen.
Would the Minister accept that the machinery he has spoken about so eloquently has failed to deal with this problem and that he, as a Labour Party Minister in the Government, is in a unique position to intervene personally to bring this potentially disastrous strike to an end given that it could lead to further strikes in the public transport sector throughout the country? Surely he must accept what has been said in this House that he is in a unique position to intervene so that the machinery he has spoken about can be availed of to resolve the crisis.
I am touched that Deputy Cullen believes that an individual Minister has the unique ability——
The Minister should not patronise me.
——to do something which Michael Keating said this morning was impossible, if the Deputy listened to what one of the trade union leaders had to say.
I listened to what he had to say.
The Deputy's colleague is well aware of that fact. I repeat that I will ensure that the machinery is made available to all the parties to the dispute without hesitation.
The Minister should tell that to the unions.
This will be done effectively and quickly. I will convey to them that this House has expressed its concern in a vibrant manner this afternoon.
(Interruptions.)
That concludes Question Time for today.