I now come to deal with Private Notice Questions from a number of Deputies to the Minister for Enterprise and Employment and the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications concerning the threatened industrial action by the staff of Irish Rail. I will be calling the Deputies in the order in which they submitted their questions to my office. By reason of the number of Deputies involved I appeal for brevity. I call first on Deputy Rabbitte.
Private Notice Questions. - Threatened Rail Strike.
asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment if, in view of the current dispute involving employees of Iarnród Éireann, the serious hardship for travellers and the implications for the future of the railways of an all-out strike, he will request the Labour Relations Commission to intervene to try to avert a full scale strike and secure a solution to the dispute; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications the steps, if any, he is taking to avert the imminent national rail strike scheduled to commence on Saturday, 16 April; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment the plans, if any, he has to arrange intervention in the present rail dispute to avert the collapse in this vital element of our transport system which will cause economic chaos and enormous public inconvenience.
asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment if, in light of the chaos the pending industrial action in Irish Rail will cause for the travelling public, he will arrange for the Labour Relations Commission or the Labour Court to intervene in the dispute.
asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications the contingency plans, if any, the Government has to minimise the impact of any disruption caused by a strike in Irish Rail.
I propose to take the five questions together.
The dispute at Irish Rail arises from the rejection by the two unions concerned, SIPTU and the NBRU, of proposals on pay and productivity. The issues involved were discussed by the parties over a period of 16 months. The final proposals were worked out in intensive discussions held over a three week period from 7 to 27 February under the chairmanship of a senior industrial relations officer of the Labour Relations Commission.
The proposals involve redundancies, redeployment and changes in work practices. Among the changes proposed are one-person operation of trains, the introduction of new ticket issuing machines and a limit on the allowances paid to drivers. In return for the changes, a package was offered which includes rises of £4.85 per week and 3 per cent. Other specific payments on offer include a bonus of 20.5 per cent to drivers for one person operation of freight and passenger services.
The proposals were put by the unions to members, without recommendation, and were rejected following a ballot. Management commenced implementation of the proposals with effect from 5 April. A number of workers who were rostered for training on the new systems refused to participate and were suspended. As a result of a ballot in favour of strike action, the unions served strike notice to take effect from Saturday 16 April.
Deputies have legitimately asked what can be done to avert the threatened strike and ensuing disruption to the travelling public and the wider business community. I want to take this opportunity to inform the House of the Government's concern that rail services will be in jeopardy from next Saturday. However, contingency plans are being put in place by Irish Rail.
My colleague, the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, has assured me that his Department is in close contact with Irish Rail to ensure that, in the event of interruptions to rail services, the company will make every effort to arrange for alternative services for its customers. Continued normal operations by Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann should, of course, greatly assist in reducing disruption and inconvenience to the travelling public arising from any stoppage of rail services.
I share with Deputies on all sides of the House the disappointment that normal and sensible industrial relations practices and procedures have not yet led to a resolution of this dispute. It is unfortunate to say the least that the lengthy and intensive efforts of the Labour Relations Commission have not yet borne fruit.
Some of the questions to which I am now replying call for my intervention or that of the Labour Relations Commission. As I stated previously in this House and elsewhere, I am loath to intervene in individual disputes. Ministerial intervention, by its very nature, takes responsibility from the parties involved to reach their own settlements, which they must ultimately and inevitably reach themselves. Intervention also raises expectations — those of the public and of business and of the parties in dispute. In this instance, I am obliged to say that the responsibility for their actions rests with the parties, management of Irish Rail and the two unions.
I do not wish to comment, either in my reply or on supplementaries, on the specifics of this dispute. However, the full range of the State's industrial relations support mechanisms remain available to assist the parties in reaching a resolution and avoiding strike action. The Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court are monitoring the situation closely. Management and trade unions at Irish Rail are fully aware that it is open to them to refer the matter to the commission again, or indeed to the court, if they have any further proposals which could avert the strike.
I ask the parties to give the most careful consideration to the consequences of the proposed strike. This dispute is one which will ultimately be settled by the parties themselves, with or without third party assistance. I therefore, urge both sides to explore, as a matter of extreme urgency, ways and means of reopening meaningful dialogue without the necessity of a damaging strike.
I call Deputy Pat Rabbitte. Having regard to the number of Deputies involved, one round of questioning on this matter should suffice.
As I understand it, the Minister has said he will not comment on the specifics of the dispute. I also note that his position in Opposition in assisting me in calling for ministerial intervention seems to have changed. Accepting those parameters for my supplementary, I put it to the Minister that, regardless of the history of this dispute, the perception of the unions now is that the management of Iarnród Éireann is seeking to impose a wide range of changes on the workforce. What is the Minister's response to the unions' perception that the Labour Relations Commission is not offering to intervene in this dispute, that, whatever its historical contribution, it is standing back at the behest and instruction of the Government, that this hard line by the management will be fully supported by the Government——
Questions, please.
Will the Minister agree that if the Labour Relations Commission intervenes, it is the position of the unions that if the suspensions are lifted, the all-out strike due to commence on Saturday morning can be avoided? All that is required is for the Minister to call on the Labour Relations Commission to intervene. That will be met by a positive response from the two main unions concerned.
The Labour Relations Commission is acting under no such instructions as indicated by the Deputy. It has not been told to stand back. It is available and it has been involved, as the Deputy well knows, over a long time in this dispute. It is available should either the unions or management seek its assistance. I have made every effort to ensure that it will remain available. I do not think that any further comment at this stage would be helpful given the nature and the background and, indeed, the long history of this dispute.
The Labour Relations Commission can intervene. It does not have to wait for an invitation from——
Can the Minister instruct the Labour Relations Commission to intervene? He has power under the Acts to do so. Would it not seem appropriate to do so in these circumstances in the light of the considerations put forward by Deputy Rabbitte?
As I said in my reply, if I or the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, were to give an instruction to the Labour Relations Commission to intervene and call both sides back to the table, there would not be an unreasonable expectation that something additional to what was negotiated could be available to either side. That would be a misleading impression to convey and, therefore, after 16 months of considerable and detailed negotiation both sides are well aware of the constraints and the parameters within which they have to operate. Any such intervention at this stage could and would be misleading and misinterpreted and would not bring about an ultimate resolution of this dispute.
It would not be an intervention by the Minister, it would be an intervention by the commission. The Minister should ask the commission to intervene.
Does the Minister agree that in February the two parties were close to an agreement and that there is now a huge gulf between them? A total of 60,000 Dubliners use the DART system every day, 20,000 use the mainline service and 17,000 tonnes of freight is transported by the rail system each day. Must the public endure the pain while the two sides come to their senses? Is the Minister saying to the House that he is going to sit on his hands while that goes on? Why did the Government abandon the code of practice, published by his predecessors, which was to prevent such disputes disrupting essential services only a few months ago?
In reply to the second question posed by the Deputy, the Government has not abandoned the code of practice. It remains my earnest desire that it be accepted by both sides and as it is a code of practice its value will only become a reality if it is accepted by both sides. I bitterly regret that it has not yet been so accepted.
With regard to the public suffering if there is a disruption of these services while negotiations continue, the public does not need to suffer. There is no reason both sides cannot recommence negotiations and I am ready to facilitate the resumption of them on the clear understanding that no expectations should be falsely raised by any action that might be taken by me, the Labour Relations Commission or the Labour Court.
Reference has been made to contingency plans in the event of this strike taking place. I regret there is no contingency plan to prevent it taking place. A strike at this time would be a disaster for the workforce, the company and the public. If the company agreed to voluntarily lift the suspensions, it would represent a major development and the unions could agree to lift the strike notice. The people directly involved in the negotiations, the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court, could intervene and resolve this dispute. That is what they are being paid to do and it is up to us to ensure that that happens before this strike which could have disastrous consequences takes place.
I share the Deputy's concern in this respect and I want to assure him of the Government's support for the modernisation of the national rail service. Indeed, no previous Government has been so prepared to commit scarce public resources of taxpayers' money to improve the Irish rail system. Also there is the need to modernise work practices and adapt to new technologies. That has been the subject of 16 months of negotiation and discussion. I regret that what appeared to have been arrived at in February has not been either recommended by the unions or accepted by the workers involved. I urge both sides to resume their discussions to see if they can get back to where they were in February without bringing about a strike in order to achieve that. They were able to carry on negotiations over the 16 month period without recourse to industrial action. I do not believe industrial action is necessary to find a solution to the modernisation of Irish railways that will lead in turn to the massive investment of public moneys in that company.
What will happen over this weekend for people who want to travel on mainline rail? What will happen next week if 60,000 extra cars pour into this city and what will happen to the 17,000 tonnes of freight per day, including mineral ore and cement, which are important employment creating materials? What are the details of the contingency plans that will protect us in four days time if the strike goes ahead?
I am glad the Deputy has asked that question because I hope it will help to focus the minds of the parties who are central to this dispute. The freight section of Iarnród Éireann is not free of competition and it is in danger of losing its customers to other modes of transport if it is unable to provide a reliable service. I suggest, therefore, that it is very much in the interests of the workers in Iarnród Éireann to ensure they maintain their customer base and improve the service to it. They should do so while, at the same time, negotiating whatever changes have to take place. The details of the contingency plans have been drawn up by Iarnród Éireann and they are not available to me at present.