Vol. 458 No. 5
26 Mrs. O'Rourke asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment the recent contacts, if any, he has had with the Irish and international management of Packard Electric; and if he will give an update on the industrial relations and commercial situation of the company. [17252/95]
My Department has maintained contact with Packard Ireland. A meeting involving my Department and senior officials of the Labour Relations Commission took place on 2 November with management of the European and Irish companies of the Packard group. The main purpose of this meeting was to explain to senior management in Packard the role and work of the advisory service of the Labour Relations Commission.
The company has been discussed in this House on a number of occasions over the past 12 months. Unfortunately, the company is still experiencing difficulties in achieving productivity levels that would assure viability. At this stage it is vital that the problems at the plant be examined critically with a view to improving its competitive position and securing its future. The advisory service of the Labour Relations Commission has the necessary expertise and experience to make a major contribution in this regard. Since it was set up the advisory service has helped numerous enterprises to bring about improvements in their industrial relations practices and procedures resulting in improved productivity. The company is considering whether to avail of the services offered by the advisory service. Discussions are continuing between management and senior officials in the Labour Relations Commission. The services of the Labour Relations Commission are available on a voluntary basis and it is up to management and the workers in any enterprise to decide whether to use these services.
In this case I hope all parties agree to avail of the services offered by the Labour Relations Commission as I believe this course offers the best hope for bringing about the improvements necessary to secure the future of the Packard factory in Tallaght.
I am worried about the Minister's tone and the content of some of his reply. It appears there are worrying signs in Packard. The Minister set up an industry intervention committee or one of a similar name when Packard experienced difficulties on an earlier occasion. That committee's role was to adopt a hands-on method of dealing with incipient or potential problems in companies generally and was not related specifically to Packard. Has that committee been active? The Minister did not refer to it in his reply. He spoke of the work of the Labour Relations Commission, with which we all agree. What work has been undertaken by the industry intervention committee? Has the Minister invoked its services to deal with the latest problems in Packard?
There is another question tabled on the Industrial Adjustment Committee and it may be in the Deputy's name.
We will not reach it today.
That committee has undertaken considerable work and is in a position to identify a programme that will be available to companies seeking assistance in repositioning to deal with competitive pressures. It is open to Packard to apply for assistance under such a programme. As the Deputy will recall, part of the approach adopted was to assist Packard earlier in the year regarding some of its requirements to meet higher productivity. The IDA had discussions with it regarding particular assistance it could provide in that regard. There is a willingness on the part of the industrial agencies through the adjustment measure and generally to assist in any way possible in dealing with some of the issues.
If I recall correctly the Minister stated that there were identifiable worries regarding productivity. Has this committee, about which there was a good deal of hype when it was set up to the effect that it would provide many answers on a cross agency basis, worked with Packard in identifying productivity requirements? What was the cause of the meeting on 2 November? Are there worries about productivity in the company? What issue in Packard is giving rise to tension and worries?
The industrial adjustment measure introduced under the industrial operational programme was a general one. That committee considered how that measure could be made available as a programme under which companies could apply for support. We will be in a position shortly to announce the precise way in which a company can apply for support, the areas of support that will be available and how it will be administered. The committee has developed a concept into a programme under which companies can apply for support. That committee has not been working directly with specific companies. It is envisaged that the agencies will be working with specific companies.
Packard is experiencing ongoing industrial relations problems. The purpose of the meeting on 2 November was to bring to the attention of management that the Labour Relations Commission has been a valuable resource for working out such difficulties and securing a better approach by companies to difficult productivity improvement measures. Packard is undergoing considerable repositioning and the Labour Relations Commission could usefully assist it in that regard. We have been encouraging the use of such machinery.
Will the Minister indicate what is causing Packard's difficulty in reaching desired productivity levels? Is he optimistic that the plant at Tallaght is secure?
I will not enter into a detailed assessment of the difficulties involved. As the Deputy is aware, we have had a troubled experience with that company. I believe it has a committed workforce and we need to adopt a better approach than the one adopted in the past to deal with the present difficulties. All sides can learn from the services provided by a body like the Labour Relations Commission. I continue to be optimistic about the plant's future. The company must get its cost base and productivity right and that poses a challenge to all sides in the plant. It is a competitive and cut throat business and one that requires considerable investment of commitment on the part of management and trade unions to make it work. That is what we need to enlist and are seeking to achieve through these meetings.
I agree with the Minister that the advisory service of the Labour Relations Commission should be utilised fully. Does he envisage that he or the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, who was centrally involved in this issue during past months, will become directly involved in ensuring that the advisory service of the Labour Relations Commission is utilised, given that today is 21 November, the last meeting took place on 2 November and time is running out?
I and the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, have an ongoing interest in this company achieving success and we will assist it in that regard in any way possible. These are not political issues. The approach to the Labour Relations Commission should not be made in the glare of political focus. The most useful approach is the one adopted, a low key meeting at which the merits of that approach were explained. As indicated in the reply the discussions are continuing and I hope they will be fruitful. I am responding to this because I want to assure the House of the continuing interest in this matter by both Ministers of State at my Department and myself.
