John Bruton
Question:5 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he has responded to the letter sent to him recently by SIPTU in relation to Ryanair. [8016/98]
Ceisteanna—Questions. - Ryanair Dispute.
Ruairí Quinn
Question:6 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the nature of his response to a letter recently received by him from SIPTU on the baggage handlers' dispute at Ryanair; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8027/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 and 6 together.
I responded to the general president of SIPTU by conveying my view that any perceived breach of the terms for resumption of work, in which I was personally involved, was a matter for the inquiry team. The commitment agreed to by all the parties on a resumption of work was that there would be no victimisation by either side and that any breach of this would be reported to the inquiry team. I understand the inquiry team is considering the matters complained of by SIPTU. I have received a communication from the chief executive of Ryanair reaffirming the company's commitment to co-operate with the inquiry team in discharging its brief, including any alleged breach of the terms for a resumption of work.
I urge all the parties involved to co-operate fully with the inquiry team to enable it to bring its work to an early and satisfactory conclusion.
Does the Taoiseach consider there has been a breach of the back-to-work formula which he was involved in negotiating by virtue of the Ryanair decision in regard to three baggage handlers?
When the agreement was finalised the understanding was that any allegation of a breach would be the subject of a full investigation by the inquiry team. I have received detailed letters from SIPTU and Ryanair. They do not agree with each other. It is a matter for the inquiry team to examine the issue and report on it. It would be wrong of me to prejudge it.
Has the Taoiseach contacted the inquiry team since receipt of the letters and, if so, what was the nature of his discussion with the inquiry team?
I have not been in contact with the inquiry team but I understand the Tánaiste has. I forwarded the correspondence I received.
Does the Taoiseach believe the inquiry team should make it a priority to decide in advance of a final recommendation on the issue generally whether this incident represented a breach of the back-to-work formula? Does he believe the talks can continue in a productive way while this matter remains unresolved?
The inquiry team will be able to wait, although I am aware it is anxious to complete its work. The union would have taken partial satisfaction from the statements made by Ryanair that it was committed to working to the agreement. That provides some reassurance. It is important that the inquiry team examines the issue of further alleged breaches in the period before the report is produced.
Having had consultations with the Tánaiste on this matter, is the Taoiseach in a position to indicate when he expects the inquiry team to complete its work, whether its report will be referred to both parties or whether it will refer both parties to a third institution such as the Labour Court or the Labour Relations Commission?
I am not sure what process will be followed in the context of the report, but I know the inquiry team is anxious to have the matter dealt with by Easter.
Does the Taoiseach think it is time for Government spokespersons to stop soft-soaping Ryanair and treating its management with kid gloves? Will he clearly state that the dismissal of three low paid baggage handlers by a Ryanair executive who pocketed a massive bonus of £17 million not so long ago, thereby depriving them of their modest income, amounts to an obscene abuse of working people and an extremely arrogant provocation by Ryanair management? Does the Taoiseach agree that this action seems to constitute clear notice that Ryanair management has no intention of genuine dialogue with those among its workforce who wish to join a trade union? Does he agree that it underpins the urgency of introducing trade union recognition legislation?
It would be unhelpful to give a positive answer to the question raised by the Deputy. To do so would not help Ryanair or SIPTU. All of us must urge both sides to work together and come to an understanding on the issues dividing them. It has been a bitter dispute and there are still arguments about what precisely happened. Ryanair would reject the idea that it sacked or fired people while SIPTU has an alternative view. It is best for the House to leave what is an industrial relations matter to the inquiry team. Perhaps later, as indicated by Deputy Quinn, it may be necessary to refer the issue elsewhere. It is a matter for the inquiry team, which has vast experience, to decide on the best approach.