Vol. 467 No. 5
8 Mrs. O'Rourke asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment the progress, if any, that has been made with the international management of Packard Electric in relation to payment of the Labour Court recommendation on severance terms for staff. [13734/96]
13 Miss Harney asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment the representations, if any, made by him to ensure workers being laid off at Packard Electric in Tallaght, Dublin 24, receive appropriate terms. [13657/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 13 together.
On 6 June 1996, I advised the House of the main elements of the Labour Court recommendations on redundancy terms for the workforce arising from the impending closure of the Packard Electric plant in Tallaght. I also appealed to both sides to accept the court's recommendation on this matter in accordance with long established precedent in Irish industrial relations. As indicated to the House on 11 June 1996, I welcomed the acceptance by the unions and the workforce of the court's recommendation and expressed strong disappointment with the decision of Packard management to reject the court's recommendation.
Through ongoing contact with the parent, Delphi Packard, and General Motors in the USA, we have strongly urged that the recommendations of the Labour Court be accepted with a view to recognising the considerable contribution of the workforce over many years and to facilitating the provision of alternative employment for the Tallaght workforce. In addition, we stressed that a favourable decision would go a long way to ensuring that Ireland's image as an attractive location for international inward investment could be maintained. They were also made aware that rejection of Labour Court recommendations does not happen, except in a very small minority of cases, and that even in such circumstances the parties generally discuss the differences and find a resolution, usually with the assistance of the State's industrial relations machinery. The Labour Court and the Labour Relations Commission have a key role in promoting a harmonious industrial relations climate in Ireland.
Following the company's rejection of the LCR on redundancy terms, union representatives met me last week to request that I intervene with senior management in the US. As a result the US parent wrote to me as follows: "As a good faith response to your letter, I have authorised our representatives in Ireland to engage in further discussions in light of the Labour Court's findings."
Accordingly, the director of conciliation of the LRC invited both parties to discussions on Thursday, 20 June 1996. Unfortunately, no progress was made and at the request of the company the discussions were postponed until today.
I had a further meeting yesterday with the European management of the company which addressed the failure of the discussions on 20 June. The company set out its position on the relevant issues as follows. The company said it had agreed to put a stay on the sale of the plant at Tallaght and to secure it for two years to allow the IDA to find a suitable alternative industry or replacement industries; the company estimated that it was probable that there would be £1.5 million excess in the pension fund and that the company is prepared to cooperate in the excess being used in the manner deemed most beneficial to the workers. This excess could be used to lower the qualification age for eligibility for pension entitlement; and the company was now prepared to offer an additional amount of money towards the redundancy package or to offer the same amount towards implementation of the recommendations of the task force, and invited me to decide which was the more beneficial.
I told the company that the industrial relations issues and the work of the task force were quite separate and distinct. Any moneys available should go towards an enhanced redundancy package for the workers. I advised them that the Government was anxious to see an early and orderly resolution of the dispute on redundancy terms so that it could concentrate on the task of finding a replacement industry.
I advised the company that in my judgment a settlement was unlikely unless the core integrity of the Labour Court recommendation was protected and I appealed to the company to secure approval for sufficient flexibility to achieve that objective before returning to the LRC talks today. The company executives, whilst not giving any specific undertaking, promised to revert to their US colleagues in advance of the LRC talks being resumed today.
I met subsequently with the trade unions to brief them on developments and to request them to demonstrate creativity and flexibility at today's discussions. Otherwise a deterioration of the industrial relations situation could only serve to undermine wider discussions that are under way in the attempt to find replacement jobs.
I hope today's discussions, now under way at the Labour Relations Commission will be successful. The importance of a successful resolution for Tallaght, as a continuing location for investment, cannot be over-emphasised. The importance for workers, in terms of fair severance terms, is obvious. My intervention has been guided by those two objectives.
Does the Minister agree it is incorrect to attempt to effect a trade-off between the Labour Court decision on workers' entitlements against the future potential usage of the plant? To endeavour to find more moneys in the pension fund and ensure a general "feel good" factor about Tallaght are very desirable objectives which should be pursued and, hopefully, may lead to more jobs in Tallaght. Furthermore, does he agree that workers' rights and their awards by the Labour Court are entirely separate and are their due? I am dismayed at the manner in which Packard Electric is treating its workers, even at this eleventh hour, holding out in a very mean-spirited way to ensure they do not receive what was awarded them by the Labour Court. As we are all aware, the Labour Court is extremely prudent, if not parsimonious, in its deliberations and decisions and generally does not take profligate decisions in favour of one side or the other, taking a decision midway between the two. Does the Minister agree that the company's attempts to further reduce workers' entitlements is a very shabby way of treating its workforce, always remembering that the parent company made many a £2 million on the backs of its workforce at that plant?
I agree with Deputy O'Rourke that the industrial relations issues are quite separate and distinct from the question of the future of the plant and other issues to which she referred. However, in terms of finding a replacement industry, it is important that the future of the plant be secured. In this respect I welcome the company's decision in terms of its positive response to the IDA.
The pension issue arose by way of a response to a matter raised with the Labour Relations Commission by the trade unions representing the workers where they sought to establish if it was true there were excess funds in the pension scheme, if so, their extent and if they could be used to improve workers' entitlements. Normal pension age is 65, in certain circumstances it is 60 years and anything that can be done to reduce the qualification age for pension would be of help to a considerable number of workers.
On the question of the Labour Court recommendation and the central matter at issue, the difference between the court recommending five weeks' pay per year of service exclusive of statutory entitlement and the company offer of five weeks' pay inclusive of statutory entitlement, it is disappointing that agreement has not yet been secured on this. As Deputy O'Rourke said, it is normal practice — there are very rare exceptions — that both sides of industry would give their allegiance to the Labour Court's adjudications. The Labour Court is founded on a voluntary principle and, as the Deputy said, its finding is independent. The workers in this case accepted the recommendation and the company felt unable to do so. According to the company's figures, the difference is some £2 million. At the discussions I had yesterday the company indicated a preparedness to make an additional amount of money available towards the cost of the severance terms. I told the company that was not near what was needed to settle the dispute and I asked it to have regard to the necessity to protect the core integrity of the Labour Court's recommendation. Discussions resumed at 2 p.m. today, I can only reiterate my wish that they will be successful and that both parties will agree because the workers are entitled to reasonable severance terms. It is important that the Government and the agencies concerned proceed with implementing the recommendations of the task force.
Has the Minister succeeded in getting a written guarantee from the management of Packard on the disposal of the site at Airton Road? As the Minister is aware, a verbal undertaking was given some time ago, but it is important that it should be given in writing.
This matter is being handled by IDA Ireland and it is appropriate that should be the case. I cannot tell the Deputy whether the commitment is in writing, but in terms of the IDA's direct discussions with the company it is satisfied with the response that the company has entered into a commitment to secure that plant on a care and maintenance basis for two years and that the IDA is disposed towards accepting that as a reasonable offer in respect of this element of the dispute. I will establish whether that is in writing. I do not know if the IDA conducted its negotiations with the company on the basis of an exchange of correspondence but, if it has not, I have no doubt that will happen. The European managing director of the company told me yesterday that the company had two prospective purchasers for the site to which Deputy Harney referred and it was not amenable towards disposing of the site as requested, that its agreement with the IDA stands, that its purpose is to allow the IDA to introduce an alternative industry and that only then will the terms of handover be decided. In my judgment that aspect of it is safe and I suspect that the IDA will be successful, but I will raise with it Deputy Harney's specific point about whether there is a written undertaking to that effect.
That concludes questions for today.
