asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment the proposals, if any, he has and the actions, if any, he will take to address the crisis facing TEAM Aer Lingus.
Private Notice Questions. - TEAM Aer Lingus.
asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment if his attention has been drawn to the deteriorating industrial relations situation at TEAM Aer Lingus arising from the demand by management for agreement on substantial lay-offs and redundancies prior to 8 June; if, in view of the serious consequences for the company of an industrial dispute, he will consider intervening to see if a solution can be found, and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I do not wish to say anything today that might be construed as not being helpful to the delicate position that obtains in TEAM Aer Lingus. I urge Members of the Opposition to do likewise and not to make a political football out of the issue, especially with the viability of the company and so many jobs at stake. Moderation and good sense are called for all around so that matters are progressed and a competitive future secured for the company and its workforce.
I understand management has outlined the seriousness of the position to the trade unions and staff representatives in the last few days. Suffice to say that the position is extremely grave and the timescale to find a resolution is extremely short. The Labour Relations Commission has contacted the parties concerned with a view to assisting them to reach a solution. The services of the commission remain available. A viable solution of TEAM's grave financial position can be achieved only through negotiation between management and trade unions and in this regard I urge that the services of the Labour Relations Commission be utilised by both sides without delay.
I thank the Chair for allowing this question to be put to the Minister for Enterprise and Employment. I am very disappointed the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications did not accept a similar question. I note in the Minister's comments a threat similar to that we heard earlier this week that we, as Opposition Members should not concern ourselves about the potential loss of 1,700 jobs. We do concern ourselves about this matter and that is why I have tabled this question.
I wish to ask a question that was raised at the press conference this morning. Are the Minister and the Government prepared to allow this fine company go to the wall rather than meet the unions with a view to solving the problem? Is the Minister aware that in March of this year the unions and management reached agreement on a plan which would have resulted in 250 redundancies plus a saving of £14 million and the injection of £25 million equity? Management has reneged on this plan and is now requesting the unions to agree much more stringent cuts. The onus rests with the chief shareholder, the Government, particularly the Minister for Enterprise and Employment and the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, and management of the company to allow the injection of £25 million to save the company. There is no point negotiating after the company has closed. The Minister should tell us today that he will meet the unions and try to solve the problem with the injection of £25 million equity.
I share Deputy Owen's concern about the economic viability of this excellent company but I am very hesitant to comment on the internal merits or demerits of any proposal that may be negotiated. There is a solution to this company's problems and it can be negotiated by both sides, preferably within the walls of the company's negotiating rooms so as to ensure it gets the maximum benefit from those negotiations. I do not wish to say anything that would exacerbate the problem or lead to false hopes or impressions on either side. Any commitment made to the Aer Lingus parent company in respect of an equity injection was based on agreement by management and unions to implement a survival package.
They did, in March.
I am speaking on the basis of the position as I see it. Management and unions should return to the table and negotiate meaningfully on the packages required to ensure a viable future for the company.
I thank the Minister for taking the question. This is an important issue and I am sure he will appreciate we are here because of our mutual concern for the future of TEAM Aer Lingus. Part of the obstacle to reaching an agreed settlement is the mistrust that has arisen between workers and management because having agreed a comprehensive package in March, which saved the company in the region of £14 million, the company then sought further cuts. This indicates at least a lack of vision by management in how the company should be run and how to deal with the workforce. On that basis would the Minister, this weekend, see what role he can play, privately if necessary, to bring both sides together and lay down the parameters on which agreement can be reached to save the company?
I thank Deputy De Rossa for his comments. My responsibility is in respect of the industrial relations machinery. However, I share the sense of urgency articulated by the Deputy. I do not dispute what he said about the difficulties surrounding the negotiations — they appear to be manifestly self-evident. I will certainly take on board what he said. I will again contact the Labour Relations Commission to ensure that meaningful negotiations and discussions take place as a matter of urgency to avoid the scenario to which the Deputies referred.
Would the Minister agree that this is more than simply an industrial relations problem, that it is essentially an issue of Government policy? If he confines himself to industrial relations he is engaging in shadow boxing. Would he agree that the company was initially under-capitalised? The plan agreed in March has clearly unravelled, through no fault of the unions who negotiated it. Market opportunities could be exploited if resources were available. Will the Minister agree, therefore, that resolving this issue goes beyond simply the use of labour relations machinery and, on behalf of the Government, offer the extra support needed to get confidence back regarding the survival of TEAM?
I have already outlined my area of responsibility. I note the Deputy's points and I will convey them to the relevant authorities.
This is a critical time for all of us, particularly for the workforce of TEAM. Is the Minister aware there is a possibility of protective notices being issued to all the workforce tomorrow? Will he not accept that in this climate and on the basis of trying to recommence negotiations, it would be helpful for him to direct the management not to proceed with issuing those notices pending negotiations? Finally, in the context of the negotiations that will have to take place, will the Minister give a commitment that TEAM Aer Lingus will not lose out on the equity injection promised in the Cahill plan directly arising from the cost of the redundancies?
We all want to see this company survive and, as elected representatives, are aware of the sensitivities involved and the pressures we come under, particularly those of us whose constituents work in this company. I will certainly take to the Labour Relations Commission, which is directly involved in the negotiations between management and the trade unions, the text of what has been debated on the floor of the House today as an indication of the strong concern of Members of the Oireachtas about the future of this company. However — and I do not think Members opposite will disagree — it is a question for management and unions to negotiate a viable package to which the Government in turn can, with taxpayers' money, make the equity injection of £25 million on the same basis as the successful case in the restructuring of Aer Lingus. We have the success of the Aer Lingus model, which one could describe as a sister company of TEAM Aer Lingus, to which to refer in this area. I understand the information has been given out, as Deputy Ryan stated, and I urge the Labour Relations Commission to intervene as quickly as possible to see if progress can be made.
I take on board what the Minister said about moderation and good sense. However will he accept that if this was a private company there would be a shareholder dimension to resolving the present crisis? It simply is not helpful to say that the management and unions should sort this problem out between themselves; there is a very definite shareholder dimension here. Will the Minister agree that industrial relations at TEAM have reached the stage where they are teetering on the brink? The company is facing the prospect of 600 job losses and if somebody does not grasp the nettle it will go out of business. The catalyst should be the shareholder and the Minister.
Is the Minister aware of the letter I received from Mr. Frank O'Reilly on behalf of the group of unions to Minister Cowen pleading for intervention by the Government as the shareholder to recommence discussions? Is he aware that the unions pleaded today for the opportunity for meaningful discussions in the context where the shareholder discharges his role? Will the Minister go a little further than he has in the House and say he is prepared to intervene personally or recommend that Minister Cowen gives a positive response to the trade unions' plea for intervention because if this stand-off continues, it will pose a threat to one of our finest companies, the equivalent of three Digitals, which the Minister tried to save? The only difference with this company is that it is located in Dublin.
I am aware there has been correspondence between the union official and Minister Cowen of the kind to which the Deputy referred. I am aware we are at a very difficult stage in relation to the negotiations in this company. I am anxious to ensure that a successful outcome is achieved. My specific responsibility is in the area of industrial relations. I undertook to answer questions in the House today because this matter was debated outside this House and I was of the view that the House was entitled to answers. However, the point of crisis is in the focused area of the industrial relations and their breakdown at present. I assure Members that I will convey to the parties involved, including representatives of the shareholder, the extent of the concern expressed here by Members about a large and successful company.
Before I call Deputy Owen I must ask for brevity to bring this issue to a conclusion.
Unfortunately, 600 workers and their families are anxious to know the outcome of this debate. I appreciate the Minister coming into the House to answer this question, and I do not wish to be offensive, but it appears to be a case of a boy being sent on a man's errand because Minister Cowen should be answering these questions. When the equity injection for Aer Lingus was agreed, is it not the case that there was to be a partnership negotiation concerning the viability plan involving the shareholders, the Government, the unions and management and that it is not good enough now for one part of that tripartite partnership to renege on its responsibilities and say that only the unions and management must find a solution? Will the Minister confirm that mistakes were made in the plan last March involving an underestimation of the cost of redundancy, an overestimation of the savings and that that is the reason there is a problem now? Will the Minister become involved in the dispute this weekend, with his colleague, Minister Cowen, who seems to feel that somehow this company is completely separate from him when in fact he is attached to it with an umbilical cord?
I do not intend to get into the details of the merits or demerits of what was agreed in March. The Government is an integral part of this process because it is the shareholder representing the taxpayers and obviously its participation is linked to what has been previously stated here, namely, the negotiation of a successful viability plan. My understanding is that such a plan is not currently available and remains to be negotiated. My obligation and my responsibility as a member of the Government is to ensure that the machinery to bring about such a successful negotiation is put in place and remains in place and that the resources and skills of the Labour Relations Commission in particular are brought to bear unrelentingly on both sides to ensure that such a plan can be successfully negotiated. I give an undertaking to the House that I will renew efforts to ensure that, regardless of what may have happened in the past, negotiations will resume as quickly as possible to bring about that successful viability plan which, in turn, will release the third party to this process i.e. the shareholder acting on behalf of the taxpayers, to meet its commitments in respect of any equity injection.
I appreciate the constraints the Minister is under in that he is primarily responsible for the industrial relations side of this problem. Indeed, I tried to raise this matter on the Adjournment yesterday with Minister Cowen who refused to take it on the basis that he was not responsible to the House for the matter — an extraordinary decision. In his contacts with Minister Cowen and with other parties, in particular, management, will the Minister impress upon them that this is not simply a question of conflict between unions and management over work practices, because the unions have demonstrated time and again their willingness to alter work practices? Today they launched a ten point plan for the survival and development of this company. It is necessary that the viability plan addresses more than simply the question of reduction of pay, increased working hours and the introduction of sub-contractors. The survival of the company concerns far more than the question of labour costs.
I accept that the survival of the company concerns more than just labour cost issues. Unless labour costs in Irish Steel are brought into line with other comparative companies in the same sector it will not survive. There are other factors but labour costs tend to be one over which we have most control. I will bring the comments made by the Deputy to the attention of the Ministers concerned.