Mary O'Rourke
Question:2 Mrs. O'Rourke asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment the latest arrangements worked out between himself, his Minister of State, his Department, management and workers at Packard. [11049/95]
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Packard Dispute.
In the unique circumstances of this industrial relations dispute and when it became clear that an acceptable settlement to both sides was remote and closure a very real probability, my involvement and that of the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, was to invite both sides in the Packard dispute to my office on the evening of Thursday, 1 June. We afforded both sides the opportunity to discuss the differences between them.
Over that evening, we heard from them both jointly and separately on their points of difference and on the obstacles to a resolution of the dispute. Those exchanges and the points of difference or difficulty that they identified were, of course, confidential.
However, as a result of those contacts, we gave each side a suggestion for bridging the gap between them on the following morning. The suggestion that we provided was given to the parties in the dispute for their assistance. While they based their final settlement on it, they amended it, I believe, in several material respects in the ensuing period of bilateral discussion. They finally came to a mutually satisfactory agreement bilaterally. That agreement is a matter between both sides and neither the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, nor I was party to its evolution or terms.
I understand that the main issues are already known and include the following separate but interrelated matters: redundancy terms for 41 workers already laid off for more than a year; adherence to the January agreement; terms affecting those going on temporary lay-off and investment in the plant.
I am pleased that this dispute has been resolved. The company has, I understand, committed itself to the future of the plant and it is now important that both sides work together, in the most co-operative spirit, to achieve productivity and costs that will assist the plant to regain business and return to full capacity utilisation and employment in the shortest possible time.
I share the Minister's sense of relief at the resolution of the dispute. I put down this question because the Minister neglected to tell me that last January Mr. Schramm had written him a letter in which he said there would be 400 layoffs in the middle of the year. He subsequently said he had received that letter. I understand from people within the company that the deal brokered by the Minister and the Minister of State on 1 June and put to the management and workers has been varied. Is the Minister satisfied that the workers know about this change or has he now embarked on a path where one side say one thing and the other side do not know what the changes are? The deliberate withholding of facts by the Minister and his Department last January played a part in the crisis which arose in April-May. I fail to understand why the Minister told me on that occasion that he had not heard of the figure of 400 when he had received a letter referring to this figure from David Schramm and had replied to it. On what day will 400 workers in Packard be let go?
The date for the 400 layoffs was 23 June. I roundly reject the suggestion that the Minister of State or I deliberately withheld facts from the workforce. That letter was totally out of context in terms of our discussions. I told the Deputy I had roundly rejected the letter in the first instance and had clearly explained to the management that if that was their interpretation they would have to explain this to the workforce, otherwise they would mislead them. The figure of 400 was not part of the discussions or arrangements and did not surface during the course of later discussions.
We indicated a certain basis for an agreement which we thought would be mutually acceptable. The agreement reached by the unions and the management in bilateral discussions, to which we were not privy, was along the lines of our agreement but it differed in material respects. Obviously the company and unions would be in the best position to explain this.
I am not particularly concerned about the hierarchies of the management or unions, I am concerned about the workers. When I asked the Minister if he had received a letter from David Schramm last January which stated there would be 400 layoffs he categorically said he had not. When I asked him the same question two weeks later he said he had received a letter from him and had replied to it. I do not understand how the Minister could have forgotten he had received a letter which said there would be 400 job losses when he had replied to it. I am not concerned about the context in which the Minister received that letter or the way in which he roundly rejected the suggestion in it; rather I am concerned that in reply to a question from me the Minister said he had not received a letter which referred to a figure of 400 layoffs. I am also concerned about the trust between the workers and management.
That is not what the Deputy was concerned about when she leaked the letter.
Every time I speak the Minister of State interrupts me. I am asking the Minister questions.
Let us have an orderly Question Time.
The Deputy behaved very irresponsibly during the dispute and tried to jeopardise the settlement by leaking the letter to a particular journalist. The Minister, the workers and I know this.
Please, Minister of State.
I apologise.
The questions are directed to the Minister and let us leave it so.
The Minister of State is silent in Cabinet and he must be silent here.
Nobody could ever accuse the Deputy of being silent.
Nobody has asked the Minister of State a question. I know who made the running on this.
I know who leaked the letter.
I now have confirmation that last January David Schramm wrote a letter to the Minister in which he referred to 400 job losses.
Let us not forget the time factor for dealing with priority questions.
Is the Minister satisfied there will not be a further display of mistrust on 23 June, that workers will not say there are material differences between the deal brokered by the two Ministers, the Department and management——
The Deputy has made her point.
——and the one presented to them?
On the previous occasion I said this letter was one of a number of communications. When the Deputy asked the question we were not discussing this matter and I did not have a full brief——
The Minister answered the letter last January.
Let us hear the Minister's reply.
When the Deputy raised the question I did not have the brief on the various exchanges which took place in January. I made it very clear during a later debate that that letter had been on the file and had been roundly rejected. It is very important to rebuild trust between both sides which we have been endeavouring to do. There is a basis for trust and I am sure the Deputy heard the statement by the shop steward that the workforce is committed to the future of the plant and to winning new business. This commitment by the workforce is a good foundation on which to build trust in the plant.