John Bruton
Question:2 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the main points discussed at his meeting with the board of the National Centre for Partnership on 4 December 1997; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22712/97]
Ceisteanna—Questions. - National Centre for Partnership.
I took the opportunity to address the board of the National Centre for Partnership on 4 December and will arrange circulation of the press release issued on that date. The main points I discussed with the board were: the role of the centre in supporting partnership in the private and public sectors; the importance of partnership at the level of the workplace in helping to secure competitiveness, viability and prosperity in enterprise and also in helping to realise expectations that the partnership approach has benefits for all involved; the public service change programme and its implementation in helping to secure sustainable growth by modernising and redefining the relationship between Government, market and citizens; and the overall and immediate work programme for the centre which includes identifying and disseminating "best practice", monitoring developments and facilitating training and development.
I assured the board of the Government's continued support for its work and I wished it well for the future. At my meeting with ICTU on Monday, 26 January it was agreed special priority would be given to the work of the National Centre for Partnership over the coming months in view of the contribution of social partnership to the development of the Irish economy over the past ten years.
Does the Taoiseach consider the approach taken by management in the Ryanair dispute is consistent with the partnership approach?
Is that relevant to the question?
I will try again. Does the Taoiseach believe the approach taken by management of Ryanair, which is represented by IBEC on the partnership body to which he referred, is consistent with the partnership approach?
That is a separate question. However, we believe the involvement of the industrial mechanisms of the State to try to assist in the resolution of that dispute is the best way forward and is one we support.
Does the Taoiseach believe it is consistent with partnership to refuse to recognise a union representing a group of workers who wish to be represented by a union?
The best approach is the partnership approach where union, management and workers are together. On some issues there are major conflicts where some staff opt to recognise unions while others do not. Those issues have to be resolved. The Government is endeavouring to come to an agreement with IBEC and the Council of Trade Unions to work out a formula where the recognition issue in all employments will be dealt with and the dispute mechanism would deal with it. It is entirely unhelpful and regrettable when these issues get to the stage of industrial disputes.
Surely the Taoiseach is not suggesting it is the approach taken by the staff in Ryanair that is resulting in this recognition dispute? Is it not the position taken by management? The question has to do with partnership in the workplace and the Taoiseach's Department is promoting a centre for partnership in the workplace. This is one area where this matter is at issue. The question is relevant and one on which I would expect the Taoiseach to be briefed.
The Deputy knows I am well briefed on these issues and is aware also of their sensitivity. It is not entirely helpful from the point of view of the workers or the management that the matter be turned into a political football on the floor of the House. In respect of all the issues dealing with building partnership it is far better that the industrial mechanisms of the State are used. In cases of difficulty in companies such as those mentioned by the Deputy, we are endeavouring to find a way of resolving these disputes with the social partners. I have always strongly advocated that the wishes of the social partners and workers should be accommodated by management whenever possible.
Will the Taoiseach indicate if on 4 December he expressed a general view, in the course of meeting the various social partners and the board of the National Centre for Partnership, on trade union membership and the recognition of trade unions in areas where workers had elected to have trade unions represent them in a professional way? Did he address that issue?
I did and reiterated my view that we have to try to get a national framework for dealing with these issues. In the past decade there have been a number of serious disputes in sectors of the economy where the recognition issue has been the only area of disagreement. At that meeting, at some subsequent discussions and at a launch of a presentation last week with the MSF union I again stated it is an area where we need to get an understanding. The Deputy will acknowledge that in getting an understanding we need to carry both sides of industry with us.
Will the Taoiseach agree it is highly desirable that the Government exercise leadership in this area and call on employers' representatives to encourage all employers, in the spirit of partnership, to recognise trade unions where a group of workers employed by them voluntarily ask to have a trade union represent them to maximise their position and to represent them professionally? Will he agree that the responsibility of leadership rests first and foremost with the Taoiseach, in whose Department the board of the National Centre for Partnership is located, and employer organisations who cannot have a two-way bet where they get a free ride on the discipline of the trade union movement within the social partnership on the one hand and at the same time refuse in individual companies to recognise the basic right of workers to be professionally represented in negotiating terms of conditions and pay.
The Government has put forward its proposals in the working group. A draft document was produced before Christmas and it received much support. Because of recent difficulties it has not been possible to finalise it. Within areas of the private sector people are expressing strong views. In recent weeks the Tánaiste and I have spelled out our views about the dispute mentioned which is ongoing but it is not the only one. The Deputy is correct, all companies have reaped the benefits of a decade of social partnership, regardless of whether they have signed up to collective agreements. Many companies negotiate with their staff. On most occasions they negotiate far more lucrative arrangements and conditions. This is acknowledged by the trade union movement, although it may not like it. The difficulty is that there are companies where conditions are not in line with the national norm or practice.
(Dublin West): Did the Taoiseach express the view to the board that workers have a fundamental right to join a trade union and that the management side should be compelled by law to negotiate? Will he consider introducing legislation in that regard? Will he also take the opportunity to increase the pressure on management in Ryanair by blowing them out of the water, politically, for adopting disgraceful and intimidatory tactics against young workers in the baggage handling area——
We cannot discuss a particular case. The Deputy should ask a brief supplementary.
(Dublin West): Is the Taoiseach aware that, far from partnership, the intention of management is to crush the trade union movement before it gets off the ground in Ryanair?
What the Government is endeavouring to do — this is not confined to trade union recognition in the partnership company — is ensure staff have freedom to join a trade union if they wish to do so. We are not in the business of legislating for it; as I am sure the Deputy is aware, it is not included on the Government's legislative programme or likely to be. Where there are disputes there has to be intervention. There are labour laws and mechanisms in place. That is how these issues should be dealt with, complex though they are.