Vol. 476 No. 1
4 Mrs. O'Rourke asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment if he will intervene in the long-running dispute at Irish Life in view of the failure of all initiatives so far; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6197/97]
The company has made proposals, contained in its plan — Building a Force for the Future — to change the roles and responsibilities of the staff of its sales force. The proposals affect managerial and non-managerial staff. The dispute between the company and its managerial staff has been resolved.
The company is proposing to introduce new reporting arrangements and work practices for its non-managerial sales staff. The majority of this group is represented by the Manufacturing, Science and Finance union, while SIPTU represents approximately 60 of the 420 staff. The sales staff, known as personal finance advisers — PFAs — believe the changes will have a detrimental effect on their commission earnings.
The proposals affecting the PFAs have been the subject of negotiations between the company and the MSF union. The parties also attended conciliation conferences held under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission.
The parties then referred the dispute to the Labour Court on 26 November 1996. A Labour Court hearing took place on 10 December 1996. The Labour Court issued its recommendation on 17 January 1997 in relation to various aspects of the plan, including an improvement in the compensation payable to the sales staff for the changes required. The company has stated the recommendation will cost the company an extra £1 million. The members of the MSF union rejected the Labour Court recommendation.
The company informed staff that if they failed to co-operate with the restructuring they would be suspended without pay. Since 3 February the company is reported to have suspended 320 sales staff, all members of the MSF trade union. The suspended MSF members have been picketing Irish Life offices. Sales staff who are members of the SIPTU trade union and non-union members are not involved in the dispute.
In mid-February the parties resumed direct negotiations but no substantial progress was achieved. The Labour Court then requested the LRC to provide further assistance to the parties. As a result a number of LRC conciliation conferences have been held with the parties and this process is continuing.
The State's industrial relations apparatus has been fully involved in the attempt to solve this dispute. I strongly urge the parties to bring this dispute to an end at the earliest possible opportunity in the interests of the company, its workforce and its customers.
Has the Minister met with either side in the dispute? It is clear there are severe difficulties in this area. I have met both sides, the union, through its individual members and collectively on several occasions, and with the management on two occasions. The position has become intractable and I genuinely want to see it ended. It has serious consequences for a successful company, formerly a semi-State company. There is a need for an interest to be shown, leading to an intervention by the Government with a view to a resolution of the impasse. The personal finance advisers are upset at the dictatorial way in which the matter is being handled. Apart from a constituency level, has the Minister in his official capacity met with either side in the dispute? Will he encourage an intervention either from his Department officials or himself to solve this impasse which daily is becoming more intractable?
I appreciate the genuine concern expressed by the Deputy. Ministerial intervention would not be helpful in the dispute. We have a good track record in establishing the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court, to which the Deputy's party was a party. Their approach has been tried and tested in handling labour relations issues. They have tremendous experience in the field, a good track record and the confidence of the parties involved. They are continuing to work with the parties to find a solution. That is the correct approach to resolving these issues. The two sides have to come to terms with one another. These tested and proven professionals in the field are best placed to assist in finding those solutions.
The Minister did not answer my question about whether he had met the sides to the dispute at a constituency level or in an official capacity.
I have not met either side in an official capacity.
This is a serious situation in that up to 350 people are effectively locked out of work and picketing daily not only the office in Dublin but the Irish Life offices around the country. They say the matter is serious and that they are not getting a decent hearing of their case. The Labour Court recommendation was non-binding but provided that negotiations would be entered into and full consultations. That did not happen. I am aware they are currently involved in negotiation and I hope it concludes satisfactorily. There is something very wrong in the system when that number of people — not of a young and impetuous age — are determined to get their rights and apparently the managerial side is not co-operating with them.
It would not be in any way helpful for me to comment on the behaviour of either side in an industrial dispute of this nature which has serious implications. It is at a sensitive stage and the Labour Relations Commission is working hard to find common ground. That is the way forward. I urge the parties concerned to come to terms with one another and use the professional machinery available to assist them.
They are using it.
