Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 31 May 1995

Vol. 453 No. 7

Private Notice Question. - Threatened Job Losses at Tallaght (Dublin) Plant.

asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment the current position on the crisis at Packard and the steps, if any, he is taking to deal with the matter in order to achieve the continuation of the 800 jobs there.

The current situation in relation to the dispute at Pack ard Electric is that following the breakdown of talks under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, the Labour Court intervened in the dispute in accordance with the terms of section 26 (5) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The court had discussions with both parties yesterday and issued a recommendation this morning. I appreciate that the terms of the recommendation require compromise on both sides. It is in my view a balanced attempt by the Labour Court to reconcile the conflicting aspirations of both parties and should be seen as such by all concerned. I would hope that the recommendation provides the basis for an agreement between both parties. It is up to the parties to decide on the issue and both sides are no doubt aware of the consequences if agreement is not reached. In view of the fact that the recommendation is being considered by the parties it would not be helpful for me or any other third party to make further comments at this stage.

I thank the Minister for his reply but on every occasion I raise this issue I am told that it would not be helpful to speak further on the matter.

As the Minister will be aware, the full details of what has emerged was broadcast on the airwaves and the job sharing option, should it be available, has been floated. This was discussed openly and freely on the radio by various commentators. For the Minister to say that he would find it distinctly unhelpful to respond further is, I think, dodging the issue. I understand his point that both parties are discussing it but it is in the public arena and has been commented upon on the national airwaves. That being so, I think the Minister should give details of the arrangements that have been put to the two separate groups so that we can then discuss them.

As the Deputy recognises it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the acceptability of the arrangements to either party. The Labour Court recommendation deals with the issue of a 31 hour working week, the redundancy package for the 42 people and the lay-offs taking effect next month as well as the issue of job sharing. The package covers the issue of concern to the different parties. The parties have the opportunity to consider that package and, as I said in my reply, I think the Labour Court has put together a balanced package seeking to deal with the concerns of both sides in a manner that gives them a way forward.

It may well be balanced in that it addresses each difficulty in a separate fashion but it is a very hard pill to swallow for everybody concerned, particularly the workers. We all recognise that they will have to make hard decisions, decisions about possible lay-offs, and job sharing that will affect every worker in the firm. The ramifications of the decisions may bring heartache and will require a spirit of generosity from everyone in the firm. What time frame is available to them within which they must make up their minds on the 31 hour week, the 42 redundancies, the 400 people affected and job sharing? I hope that whatever arrangements are reached will be clear and that no one will be under any illusion about the length of the working week, the number of people affected and the likelihood of job sharing being a realistic objective for a stated length of time. Workers were under the impression last January, for whatever reason, that if they worked a 31 hour week, which they did, there would be minimal redundancies in June. That proved to be incorrect. I showed the Minister the communication I had on the last occasion. My understanding is that political assurances were given at that time that there would be minimal layoffs despite political knowledge that this would not be so. Will the Minister ensure that the facts are made clear? The workers have suffered much pain and there is more ahead.

The question is overlong.

The workers should be allowed the dignity of having the facts fully explained to them.

There is an arrangement with the unions to ballot on the issues so they will proceed to reach decisions quickly.

When will the ballot be held?

I understand the intention is to hold it today. I do not have confirmation of the detailed arrangements envisaged for doing so. One element of the recommendation I omitted to mention is that in the event of people not being taken back in 1996 there will be discussions on the issue of redundancy not just for 42 people but a greater number of workers. That is part of the package.

There was much toing and froing between management and others and in the maelstrom of the discussions many scenarios were painted. We did not mislead anyone or shroud anything in mist. Mr. Schramm may have indicated in January that he envisaged the possibility of 400 layoffs. When I received his letter I indicated categorically by direct reply that this was not in accord with our discussions. I indicated that to suggest it was would be misleading and that if it was his understanding of our discussions it would be conveyed to the work force. I indicated that my interpretation of the suggestion of layoffs on that scale was in the context of the company not securing agreement in January. Agreement was secured and the company gave a commitment to make every effort to secure new business. The issue of political shrouding, if that is what the Deputy suggests——

I am not suggesting it; I am saying it.

I stated categorically that such a suggestion was made on one occasion and I clearly signalled to the management that it did not reflect our discussions. It did not arise in the discussions then or subsequently. I indicated to management that was not our understanding but was new material. I had a telephone conversation with Mr. Schramm at the time and understood that such scale of redundancy was in the context of agreement not being reached in January. No one on the political side misled the workers. It is not my intention to mislead them.

The Labour Court has made a balanced recommendation to deal with the outstanding issues which I urge the parties to accept.

Is it Government policy to have a hands off approach in respect of vital jobs which are at risk in areas such as Tallaght where the socio-economic factors are much the same as those in Blackpool in Cork which is facing the loss of 175 jobs? Will the Minister assure the workers in Tallaght or Sunbeam that the Government is concerned about their future?

In dealing with industrial disputes I rely primarily on the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court. However, that is not to say we have adopted a hands off approach to finding solutions.

In Sunbeam?

There is no industrial dispute in Sunbeam.

The Minister without interruption.

We had countless meetings with all sides in the Packard dispute in an effort to make progress and find an acceptable solution. We went to Coventry to buy time during which an agreement could be reached and the company secure crucial contracts. Since then we have been engaged in discussions with management at the highest level and with the trade union. We endeavour to assist the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court if we can do so usefully. By and large it is up to the parties in dispute to resolve it and use the labour relations machinery. I Hope the Labour Court recommendation will help resolve it.

On the last occasion we discussed the issued I asked the Minister if he had received a communication from Packard in which 400 jobs were mentioned and the Minister categorically said on two occasions that he had not. He said he did not know what I was talking about. He stated: "no figure for prospective layoffs was included in any arrangement with us". When I asked the Minister if he had received correspondence which referred to a figure of 400 redundancies he said he had not. Did he receive correspondence in January from Mr. David Schramm which referred to 400 or more lay-offs? I understand this correspondence was addressed to the Minister but it may have gone to his Department. Did he have any knowledge of the letter and, if not, why did he not say so when I raised the matter in the House? The Minister should stop trying to fool the workers and outline the position to them.

I received a letter on 10 January prior to the——

Was it addressed to the Minister?

Yes. This was during the discussions at Coventry and prior to the emergence of a final agreement. In that letter Mr. Schramm referred to redundancies of the order of 400 but he was obscure about the context in which this proposal was put forward. This was in the midst of the many scenarios being put forward in the discussions on the issue. In my reply on 13 January I stated categorically that this was a distortion of what had been discussed between the parties——

Was the figure of 400 mentioned?

But the Minister told me in the House it was not.

The question I was asked at that time related to the crisis as it applied last week and I did not have the full file with all the correspondence. This was one letter in a long series of scenarios——

It was a very important letter.

I immediately responded to it——

I accept that point but that is not my question.

—— and indicated that this was not consistent with the agreement we had reached and if that was his interpretation of the agreement there would be an obligation on him to convey this to the workers so that they would know the position.

If the Minister responded to it immediately why did he not know about the letter?

I indicated to him that my interpretation of his letter and of the telephone conversation I had with him after the dispatch of his letter on 10 January——

So the Minister knew about the letter?

I am saying that I know about it now.

The Minister said he replied to him at that time. How could he reply to him if he had not seen it?

The Minister without interruption, please.

I hope I am not confusing the Deputy.

If the Deputy gives me an opportunity I will explain the position. We received the letter——

Was the letter addressed to the Minister?

Yes. It referred to 400 redundancies. I immediately replied that this had not come up in the discussions and was not part of any agreement. I further indicated to him that my understanding, as confirmed in a telephone conversation with him on 11 January after the dispatch of his letter, was that redundancies of that scale were in the context of no agreement being reached.

Why did the Minister not know this on 17 May?

Because it was one of a series of issues——

It was a very important letter.

Yes. I stated categorically that this was not our understanding and not part of the agreement. He did not respond to that or indicate that this was his understanding, and I took that as acceptance of my view.

Careless attention to letters seems to be a Bruton fault.

Who is official A?

Let us listen to the Minister's reply.

The fact that he did not reply indicated clearly that he was not contesting our view and that redundancies of that scale were in the context——

The Minister told me an untruth in the Dáil.

If I inadvertently misled the Deputy it was because I did not have all the details. It was one of a series of scenarios which had arisen before an agreement was reached. The Deputy's questions were primarily in the context of an agreement.

No, I asked if a figure of 400 had been mentioned and the Minister said it had not.

We cannot have this type of discourse across the floor.

I admit it was an error of recollection——

Is it mature or immature recollection?

The critical point is that the final agreement was reached subsequent to that and at no stage did the management raise the issue of redundancies on that scale.

The Minister knew of a possible figure of 400.

I knew of their scenario of 400 in the event of no agreement——

The Minister fooled people.

——or commitment by management to pursue the recovery of the business lost. The subsequent agreement was reached on the basis that the management would strive to find new business and that the new working arrangements were agreed. That is the context in which an agreement was presented to workers. The letter had fallen completely out of the reckoning, it was a single letter which bore no relationship to any of our negotiations. I clearly indicated to Mr. Schramm that it bore no such relationship and he did not come back on that issue. Mr. Schramm and the management of the company have indicated on numerous occasions since then that they could not have predicted the level of lay-offs until they had seen how the agreement reached in January worked and how their efforts to secure new business proceeded. This is why they were not in a position until the end of April to indicate the position to the workforce.

That concludes questions for today.

The Minister received a letter which forecast 400 job losses——

I must bring this to a conclusion.

——yet he denied this on 17 May.

Top
Share