Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 28 Apr 1994

Vol. 442 No. 2

Adjournment Debate. - Irish Rail Dispute.

Mr. Hogan

I thank the Chair for allowing me to raise this important issue. I am glad the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Quinn, is here to respond. The Government should intervene in the rail dispute. While I realise the unions have been balloting during recent days on the Labour Court decision it is unthinkable that disruption of the rail system should take place after this busy bank holiday weekend. All available industrial relations procedures have been exhausted. While the problems associated with this dispute are complex, it is worth nothing that the work practices which have built up over the years are archaic and totally out of date in a modern transport company.

It is essential that management and unions work together to streamline the company and maintain competitiveness. Accordingly, it would be commercial lunacy to have a prolonged industrial dispute. Sooner or later a decision will have to be made by management and unions on the future of Iarnród Éireann.

Unfortunately the Government has starved rail transport of investment in the past while other European countries have been more progressive in improving this mode of transport. Iarnród Éireann can abandon its Cinderella image and win back passengers and freight if common sense prevails in this dispute and if the Government takes action to prevent an escalation of the dispute and undertakes a major programme of investment, with EU assistance, to modernise the railways. I would be happy to hear what plans the Government has to ensure that the public are not thrown to the winds in respect of public transport and that they will be able to use this essential public service after the weekend.

Minister for Enterprise and Employment (Mr. Quinn)

The productivity proposals in the dispute at Irish Rail have been the subject of intensive negotiations involving both the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court over a considerable period. Both bodies have made strenuous efforts to assist the parties in reaching agreement. This process has not yet come to finality. It is still ongoing in that the Labour Court has issued its recommendations and the result of the ballot by the workers is not yet completed.

I am aware that neither of the unions involved has recommended acceptance of the recommendation. However, the court has recommended certain adjustments to the productivity proposals which would be of benefit to the workers if accepted. Among the changes to the proposals recommended by the court are: first, drivers will be compensated for the removal of mileage payments by a lump sum of £1,000 for each driver, an increase in pay of £5.77 per week and compensation of two and a half times their 1993 mileage allowance; second, drivers will have a mileage limit of 360 miles per day and guarantee that the proposed scheme for direct recruitment to DART will not interfere with existing drivers' rights; third, that the increase in the ticket machine allowance from £7 to £12 be accepted; fourth, the lump sum payments offered to train drivers to be increased by 20 per cent; fifth, freight guards, who are not required to move at this time, to receive a payment of £600 and a further £600 when they come off freight train working for one person operation. The court also recommended that the operation of the agreement be continuously monitored and provision has been made for a review of the agreement 12 months after its implementation. In the circumstances, I am of the view that it would be wrong to prejudge the outcome of this vote.

It is vital for the future of the company and its workforce that agreement is reached on new work practices. Having regard to the implications that rejection of these proposals would have for all concerned, especially as the State's disputes settling services have been fully utilised, I hope all parties will adopt a positive attitude to the Labour Court recommendation.

In accordance with my practice established when I was Minister for Labour, I am not disposed to intervene personally. I stated previously my views on ministerial intervention in individual disputes both in this House and elsewhere. As matters have now reached a delicate stage, I do not propose to make any further comments at this time.