As the matters raised by Deputies O'Rourke and Harney are similar I suggest that each Deputy make her statement and the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Bruton, could then reply to both Deputies.
Adjournment Debate. - Proposed Lay-Offs at Tallaght (Dublin) Plant.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Kitt.
I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.
Thank you, Sir, for selecting this item for discussion and the Minister for coming into the House to reply. Perhaps the Minister would indicate if he has received the result of the ballot in Packard this evening. What happened in Packard last night— reports of which were repeatedly corrected — was bizzare. The Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, used a very strong word when referring to the matter.
This industrial relations shambles is not the fault of the workers in Packard who, with commitment, last December and January embarked on productivity arrangements which they were assured would retain workers at the firm. While they expected layoffs, they did not expect 400 to be laid off indefinitely.
When the Minister, Deputy Bruton, and the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, returned from their travels a few months ago they informed us they had arranged a good deal and everybody was genuinely pleased with the outcome of the trip. The workers, in particular, believed the assurances they were given. They accepted the package of cuts and changes and were told there would be a sufficient level of work to sustain employment at the company.
Packard is a big enough company to ensure that those assurances are kept. It can generate work for various components of the company in many parts of the world. We want the Minister to honour his commitments to the workers. What commitment did he enter into in Coventry and later when he met executives of Packard in the Davenport Hotel? We were relatively satisfied a reasonable approach was being adopted. It is time for firm action. The company has a future in the automotive components business and it is imperative that every effort is made by the Minister to ensure this.
I understand from people in the firm that local management is not causing the difficulties. It has reached a satisfactory arrangement with the workers, but the orders come from abroad which forces it to change. This is presenting a very uneasy, chaotic and confused picture. What commitments did the Minister get from Packard? What will he do to ensure the shambles experienced by the workers yesterday, is not repeated? It is very difficult for workers in such circumstances to honour commitment and retain morale.
I thank my colleague, Deputy O'Rourke, for sharing her time with me. I, too, am anxious to hear answer to the important questions raised by her. When the Minister and Minister of State returned from Coventry last January we were given commitments and assurances that all would be well at Packard. There was talk of a new beginning and it was stated that the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, had saved the economic future of the Packard plant in Tallaght. Where do those commitments stand now? Agreements were reached, but have been broken. For example, 42 workers who were laid off were told they would be reinstated by 1 April 1995 or given a redundancy package, but this has not happened. The unions were reassured by the Government in January that any layoffs that might take place would be temporary and minimal — another commitment not honoured.
Last night we had a strange and disturbing statement from the management that it was withdrawing its proposal to lay off 720 workers. What appears to be lost to everyone concerned is that we are dealing with real people and their families.
We are witnessing the worst excesses in industrial relations and, as my colleague has said, extremely poor communication from the management abroad. Nobody expects Packard to run a loss making operation. We are all aware of the huge competition abroad but we are entitled to ask for openness from the management in its dealing with the workforce. Clearly, we did not get the real story from the management or indeed from the Government in January. All the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte can now say is that he does not know what is going on. I ask him to find out what is going on. What is the definitive duration of the proposed layoffs for these 400 workers? What are the prospects of the 42 workers who have been laid off? The time for blustering on this issue is over. We are talking about 400 real and valuable jobs and about 400 people and their families. The Minister must tell us and the workforce where their future lies, what he has done and what he intends to do on their behalf.
The situation at Packard Electric is very worrying and deeply unsettling for its workers, their families and the community in Tallaght. Deputy O'Rourke referred to the situation as being bizarre and I agree with her. It raises a number of fundamental questions for the Ministers, Deputies Bruton and Rabbitte and for the management at Packard. One can understand the anger of the workforce who have made enormous sacrifices. These are difficult, monotonous and lowly paid jobs. The average wage is approximately £210 gross per week and I do not need to tell the House what one takes home from a wage packet of that kind. These workers want to work, they want to earn a living because they have families, mortgages and other commitments. Because they cared about their jobs they were prepared to accept a very difficult package which involved an extended work week, a pay freeze for two years and other difficulties in the interest of preserving their jobs. They now find their reward for that sacrifice is that the workforce may be laid off.
It is difficult to have confidence in a management which says at one part of the day that virtually the entire workforce could be laid off and which reverses that decision within a matter of hours — a decision that has such a profound effect on the livelihood of so many people. For the management to announce that decision and reverse it so quickly raises serious questions for it and makes it difficult to have confidence in it.
The matter also raises questions for the Ministers, Deputies Bruton and Rabbitte. Is the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, as much in the dark as he led us to believe today? We were told in January that assurances had been given to the Ministers when they went to Coventry. We were told that the IDA had put in a restructuring package so that a re-engineering programme could be put in place at the plant. We were told that training grants would be given by the Government to minimise the number of layoffs. I want the Minister Deputy Bruton to tell us the nature of the assurances given. Has the IDA put any money into the company with a view to initiating the re-engineering programme? Were any training grants paid to the company? I want the Minister to tell us also whether the company management in Coventry indicated how many layoffs there would be at the company because the Minister recommended to the workers that they should vote in favour of the package. The workers accepted the assurances given by the Ministers and by the IDA and the commitments that were made.
The workers have behaved very reasonably in this whole affair. One only had to listen to their trade union representative this morning on "Morning Ireland" to understand how reasonable they have been. There has been an ongoing saga at this plant. Last summer, over 40 workers were laid off for an indefinite period. They do not know their fate and that does not instil much confidence in the existing workforce.
If we are to have a cohesive and coherent industrial policy, it is important that we spell out that policy and make clear to the management of this company that it cannot continue to play around in the manner in which it has with the workers at this plant who have done everything possible to secure it, to turn it around and to make it competitive and productive.
I thank the Deputies for raising this important issue. The Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, is unfortunately absent this evening on official business but he was keen to be here in the House to hear the Deputies.
As the Deputies know, the announcement by Packard of layoffs of the order of 400 has been a major disappointment. Events over the past 24 hours have been the cause of dismay and confusion among the workforce. This is a difficult industry and the management of the problems in this industry has not been made any easier by the location of key management figures outside the country.
The company's announcement last Friday in regard to substantial layoffs effective from the end of June was a direct result of a reduction in demand for its wiring harnesses for the remainder of 1995. During the lengthy industrial relations negotiations last December and January, the company indicated that vital business contract deadlines had passed without agreement and that significant business had been lost.
It was to get other business.
I will come to that. The company indicated that layoffs would be unavoidable because of the loss of a single major contract. The management said that contract was one of the major contracts likely to come its way and people were aware of that. Talk of layoffs was not a surprise and no guarantees in regard to employment levels were given. As Deputy O'Rourke rightly said, the agreement was to implement a programme of reform, of re-engineering, to implement the package of measures agreed in the negotiations and to fight for new business.
Arising out of the acceptance last January by the workforce of cost cutting measures, I understand from the company that significant progress has been made towards making the plant viable. Packard Electric operates in a very competitive industry within a global market where there is continuing need for productivity improvements. Since January last, efforts by various consultants and engineering advisers to improve performance and productivity have continued. The workforce has played a full part in this process. For example, it has contributed by working two extra hours per week without additional pay. However, much remains to be done and we would all be happier and more reassured if we knew now what the company further plans to do to achieve the required increase in productivity.
Last Friday, together with my colleagues, the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor and the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, I met representatives of Packard management from both Ireland and the parent company. At that meeting they assured me that the layoff period will be as short as possible and that they will act now to achieve the improvements in operations needed for viability. Like my colleagues, I was very disappointed at the scale of the proposed layoffs. The announcement came as a shock to the workforce. I understand the workforce has taken decisions today in relation to the working hours agreed earlier in the year and propose to revert to earlier working hours after a period of seven days notice. It has also mandated its executive in respect of industrial action if negotiations fail.
We are clearly at a very delicate point in the solution of this problem at Packard Electric. I ask Deputies to refrain from adding to the heat of the discussions. This is a time for calm. There has been much confusion, particularly as a result of the development last night where there was a request for approximately 720 layoffs immediately following a redeployment.
It is an improvement that this has been taken off the table and that we are back to the announcement of last Friday. What is needed now is a period of calm. The parties at local level must clarify the issues, where they stand on them and avail of the established industrial relations machinery which has served us well in dealing with disputes of this nature. That is the way forward. Everything must be done to seek to restore trust between management, unions, and the workforce. I urge both sides to avail of the industrial relations machinery to facilitate an early resolution to the current difficulties. Actions need to be carefully measured to avoid confusion and not to undermine the existing delicate situation and I expect both sides to act in such a manner.
Last Friday I received an assurance from the parent company representatives that they have a commitment to the future of the Tallaght plant. In this context I would point out that the company gave us a similar assurance last January. It was recognised at the time that competitiveness and profitability were necessary for securing employment and, on the basis of the cost cutting measures, every effort would be made by the company to minimise lay-offs arising from the loss of business.
It would be helpful if positive action could be taken in regard to the 42 workers who were laid off indefinitely about a year ago. Such a measure would at least help to create a climate for the negotiations on the proposed future lay-offs at the plant and would underline the company's commitment to tackle the current difficulties in a co-operative and constructive way. It is vital that negotiations between management and unions are strongly encouraged to work towards a solution that will alleviate and minimise the difficulties, involved. Obviously I want to see a solution as soon as possible and I fully appreciate the concerns expressed in this House and by the workforce about the future of the company. I assure Members that the Labour Relations Commission, the labour relations machinery and the IDA continue to be available to assist in the resolution of these problems.
What about the IDA programme?
What about the committee?
The IDA has been involved in the interim period in working with the company on its proposals.
Has it given the company money?
The IDA has provided money for consultants working with the company and has worked with the company on different re-engineering proposals, it has had several meetings at senior management level developing those proposals. As I said in my statement I would have liked to have seen more rapid progress on some of the re-engineering issues but this is the responsibility of the company. We provide assistance but it is up to the company to implement decisions.
What about the committee?
That is the committee to which Deputy Harney referred comprising IDA, IPC, and trade union representatives which brought forward proposals. The IDA continued to work with those proposals but, as I said, we would be keen to see greater progress. There have been difficulties, the loss of trust and the lack of coherence in the way the problems have been addressed. Let me reiterate, however, that we are at a very delicate period. It is a time when both sides must look to creating the space for negotiation on a constructive future and I request them to use tried and trusted industrial relations negotiation procedures available from the Labour Relations Commission and from the Labour Court to asist them in the resolution to their difficulties.
The Dáil adjourned at 9.25 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 11 May 1995.