We move to Private Notice Questions to the Minister for Public Enterprise on the disruption of rail services arising from an industrial dispute. I will call on the Deputies who tabled questions in the order in which they submitted their questions to the Ceann Comhairle's office. I call Deputy Olivia Mitchell.
Private Notice Questions. - Rail Dispute.
asked the Minister for Public Enterprise if she is aware of the inconvenience and disruption being caused to the public by the current industrial action by the Irish Locomotive Drivers' Association; the discussions she has had with management in Iarnród Éireann or CIE; and if she will request the State's industrial machinery to become involved in seeking a resolution of the dispute.
asked the Minister for Public Enterprise to outline what steps have been taken to deal with the serious disruption to train services as a result of the refusal of train drivers to operate new rosters; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
asked the Minister for Public Enterprise what mechanisms she is using to bring an end to the industrial action by the ILDA; if she will explain why S.I. 146/00 is not being used as a mechanism to bring an end to the industrial action; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
(Dublin West) asked the Minister for Public Enterprise to comment on the current difficulties in Iarnród Éireann; and if she will make a statement on why Iarnród Éireann is refusing to enter into dialogue with a significant section of the company's workforce.
I apologise to mainline and suburban rail customers for the disruption to services caused by this unofficial and unnecessary industrial dispute. I am deeply disappointed that the House must, yet again, discuss these matters. This is all the more regrettable since we have recently seen very welcome progress in the two bus companies, where drivers have accepted change packages by significant majorities. I am keeping in close contact with the company in relation to this dispute. I met the CIE chairman and the Iarnród Éireann chief executive last Thursday and was briefed by them.
During the past three years Iarnród Éireann has negotiated a restructuring package for locomotive drivers with its two officially recognised trade unions, SIPTU and the NBRU. Separate negotiations with DART drivers are not yet concluded. The package, which is called "A New Deal for Locomotive Drivers", was accepted at ballot by both unions. New rosters arising from it were implemented with effect from Sunday 18 June. SIPTU and NBRU locomotive drivers are operating the new rosters, but other locomotive drivers are not.
The new agreement brings significant benefits for locomotive drivers. It provides a guaranteed five day working week for drivers, bringing to an end six and seven day working. Drivers will now work five days out of seven. The agreement also provides for a significant reduction in the average hours at work per week. The new maximum average will be 48 hours, whereas in the past many drivers worked in excess of 60 hours. It introduces a new composite earnings package covering all overtime, Sunday and public holiday work and all allowances related to duty. This will replace a low basic pay of £14,500, plus the various add-ons, with a stable guaranteed income of up to £29,500. Pay for pension purposes will increase from £14,500 to more than £20,000. The agreement also provides for 96 rest days each year, 90 of which are guaranteed to fall on days when drivers are rostered. Some non-pay elements of the package will be phased in over a 15 month transition period while additional drivers are being trained. The package has also been safety validated by independent consultants, Halcrow Rail, on the company's behalf and the arrangements will be monitored.
The company's position is that it has negotiated an agreement with the recognised trade unions representing drivers and is now proceeding to implement that agreement. The company is not prepared to negotiate with the Irish Locomotive Drivers Association and considers that to do so would be unlawful, having regard to a recent High Court decision. Such negotiation would also be contrary to the orderly conduct of industrial relations. As Iarnród Éireann is not prepared to negotiate with the ILDA for the reasons outlined, there is no prospect of intervention by the State's industrial relations machinery.
I call on the locomotive drivers to immediately begin to co-operate with the introduction of the new rostering arrangements. It is unacceptable that rail users should be deprived of services by this unofficial and unnecessary action. I also urge the drivers to look again at the benefits which the new deal brings and ask them to consider the damage their action is causing to the image of the railway as an effective means of public transport at a time when the rail lines are being developed.
S.I. 146/2000 is a code of practice which provides guidance to employers, employees and their representatives. Iarnród Éireann has made it quite clear that it will deal only with recognised trade unions and not with unofficial groupings such as the ILDA. In adopting this stance, the company can point to a recent High Court decision which stated:
The ILDA, not having a negotiating licence and not being an accepted body within the meaning of section 2 of the Trade Union Act, 1942 is not a representative union within the meaning of section 55 of the railways Act and cannot lawfully conduct negotiations for the fixing of rates of pay, hours of duty and other conditions of service of locomotive drivers in the employment of Iarnród Éireann.
The High Court decision has been appealed to the Supreme Court.
I welcome the opportunity to raise this important issue and thank the Minister for her attendance. I do not need to outline our disappointment at having to discuss yet another breakdown in our transport system and the terrible inconvenience being caused to commuters, business interests and tourists at the beginning of the summer season.
I am aware of the difficulties associated with this issue and the need to treat it delicately. This is unlike cases we have discussed heretofore in that this is not a strike. Workers are turning up to work and are not demanding more money—
The Deputy should put a question to the Minister.
I am coming to that. Neither does the ILDA action seem to be a dispute, although it ostensibly relates to Sunday work and the rail safety issue.
I appeal to the Deputy to ask a question. A number of Deputies are offering and I would like to give them all a chance. If one Deputy makes a Second Stage speech, there will not be sufficient time to allow others to contribute. The purpose of a private notice question is to elicit information from the Minister.
I appreciate that. This is, in effect, an inter-union dispute and I would like to know the legal position in regard to S.I. 146/2000. I realise there is a difference between what we might like to be the legal position and the actual position and I also appreciate that neither CIE nor anyone else wants the negotiating position further fragmented. However, there is a case to be answered in regard to whether individual grievances can be addressed. If they cannot, there would not appear to be a way forward without the introduction of a third party. Can an independent third party be introduced to resolve this dispute? We cannot sit on our hands on this matter with CIE feeling it cannot talk and the industrial relations machinery being unwilling to do so.
Our standing orders are specific. I will not be calling Deputy Mitchell again.
It is clear that Iarnród Éireann and CIE are acting in accordance with the High Court decision which clearly stated that the ILDA, not having a negotiating licence and not being an accepted body within the meaning of section 2 of the Trade Union Act, is not a representative union within the meaning of section 55 of the Railways Act. Iarnród Éireann has concluded its negotiations with SIPTU and the NBRU which balloted their members and agreed to the proposals advanced. Those proposals confer much greater benefits on the union members.
The legal position is that because of the High Court ruling on a matter referred to the court by the ILDA, S.I. 146/2000 is not relevant. The statutory instrument envisages collective bargaining and I understand the ILDA is seeking to use the statutory instrument to enter into collective bargaining when the High Court has ruled that it does not have that right.
I thank the Minister for her reply and declare my interest in this matter as a paid-up member of SIPTU. Does the Minister agree this is not an inter-union dispute—
It is not.
—and that the unions representing workers in CIE have agreed a package of changes in conditions and pay which is a great improvement on the previous position? Does she also agree the majority of the people involved, including those who are not accepting the rosters, have accepted these new conditions? Does she agree that it is not in anybody's interest, other than people who wish to cause trouble generally, to have fragmentation of unions within CIE? That is not in the interests of the company, the workers or the travelling public.
I agree that this is not an inter-union dispute. The two recognised negotiating unions, SIPTU and the NBRU, agreed to this package by means of a ballot. The ILDA is a trade association. Working and pay conditions have improved, with wages quite rightly having doubled. I agree it is not in anyone's interest to fragment an existing arrangement. The decision appealed to the High Court by the ILDA – which was entitled to appeal the decision – overhangs this issue. The High Court issued an emphatic decision.
I am pleased the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment is in the House because I know that if it were possible she would want to deal with the labour relations element of this dispute, which is a matter for her Department as well as the Department of Public Enterprise. Can the Minister for Public Enterprise do anything further to encourage members of the ILDA to agree to the deal which has been negotiated? Will she clarify the content of S.I. 146/2000, section 4, paragraph (4) of which refers to a "registered trade union". The ILDA maintains that it is registered as a friendly society. Could it be possible that a mistake was made in the statutory instrument in the use of the word "registered" rather than "authorised"? Does the Minister agree this has given rise to the confusion which exists, with the ILDA stating publicly that it has the right to negotiate with the company? The timing of the publication of the statutory instrument, which was published on 26 May, only a few days before the judgment issued by the High Court on 1 June, was extraordinary. Could a mistake have been made in the statutory instrument?
I do not have any knowledge of a mistake having been made in the statutory instrument. I am sure a mistake would not have been made.
The High Court has ruled that ILDA does not have a negotiating licence.
Is the union registered?
ILDA does not have a negotiating licence and is not an accepted body within the meaning of section 2 of the Trade Union Act. The union does not have a negotiating licence, the other two unions have and have voted to accept the proposals put to them. The Labour Relations Commission would not enter into collective bargaining negotiations with an organisation which is not a recognised trade union for the purpose of negotiation. This case was clearly made by the High Court decision.
Is ILDA a registered trade union in the meaning of the word "registered"?
The Irish Locomotive Drivers' Association is a registered trade union under friendly societies legislation. It is not a trade union with negotiating rights.
(Dublin West): Does the Minister agree it is appalling and untenable that Iarnród Éireann refuses to enter into dialogue with the Irish Locomotive Drivers' Association when it represents 132 of the 280 drivers, which is 47%? If that figure were taken with the drivers from the other two unions which rejected the proposals of Iarnród Éireann, it represents a clear majority of drivers who are opposed to the deal being forced down the throats of the locomotive drivers.
Does the Minister agree it is an extremely responsible job to drive approximately 800 people at speeds of up to 100 miles per hour? The lives and limbs of up to 1,000 people are in one's sole care? In that context, does the Minister agree it is folly and irresponsible for an employer to flatly ignore the majority of people who do that responsible job and refuse to even enter into dialogue with them? Does she further agree it is incredible that until September 2001 drivers will be required to work up to ten and half hours per day for seven consecutive days, driving distances of up to 420 miles per day? Is the Minister concerned about safety? Will she listen to the people who drive these locomotives and who will have to carry the responsibility should these long hours take their toll and cause an accident which could have devastating consequences?
Is the Minister aware that the Labour Relations Commission invited the Irish Locomotive Drivers' Association to talks but then said the invitation was an administrative error? Is it not clear from the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment's directive, S.I. No. 146 of 2000, that ILDA is a registered trade union and Iarnród Éireann is obliged to negotiate with its members?
Does the Minister agree it is Stalinist for an employers' organisation to ruthlessly reject the concerns of drivers who do such a responsible job, to refuse even to speak with them and direct that they accept provisions with safety implications about which they have serious reservations which are supported by independent authority?
I am equally concerned that the truth be told and I am again glad to have the opportunity to place it on record. The Labour Relations Commission has informed me that an administrative error was made in writing the letter. I accept that is the case.
(Dublin West): No, they were got at.
The new agreement has been voted on by SIPTU and NBRU. Significant percentages in both those unions have voted in favour of the new arrangements. The High Court has ruled that ILDA is an association and not a trade union for negotiating purposes. This new agree ment, for which there has been union approval, provides a guaranteed five day working week for drivers, not seven days. This brings to an end six and seven day working. Long before I was a Member of this House, locomotive drivers sought a five out of seven day working week. The agreement guarantees a five day working week for drivers. They will now work five days out of seven.
The agreement provides for a significant reduction in the average hours of work, reducing it from 60 to 48. It introduces a composite earnings package covering all overtime, Sunday and public holiday work. This will replace a low basic pay of £14,500 with a stable guaranteed income of up to £29,500. It also increases drivers' pension entitlements. Iarnród Éireann had an independent safety study done which found that improved driver morale would greatly improve safety.
Any seven day service must involve Sunday working, but locomotive drivers will work a five, not a seven, day week. The incidence of Sunday working varies from one depot to another. Before the new agreement, it averaged one Sunday in three and under the new agreement it will range from one Sunday in three to one Sunday in four.
The truth must be told and that is the truth of the matter. I ask ILDA to look again at the arrangements which have been worked out and at the new roster, within which there is a significant improvement for locomotive drivers. The disruption being caused to the public is not warranted and is unacceptable. I ask members of ILDA to join their fellow workers in SIPTU and NBRU in accepting the new roster.
I had requested the adjournment of the Dáil under Standing Order 31 to discuss this matter but it is more appropriately dealt with by way of a Private Notice Question and I thank you, Sir, for allowing it.
Is the Minister satisfied with the level of public awareness of the temporary arrangements obtaining in the course of this dispute? It was stated this morning on a national radio station that only western and southern lines were affected but, travelling on a northern line, I was left waiting for an hour and a quarter with many fellow passengers. Will the Minister liaise with the management of Iarnród Éireann to ensure, notwithstanding the dispute regarding the status of ILDA, the public is not left wondering about arrangements? If the Minister is serious about encouraging people to switch to public transport the public must not be given wrong information, as is happening during this dispute.
Did the Minister make a Freudian slip when she said this dispute occurred at a time when we are developing the railway lines? Much of the origin of this dispute lies in the general low morale in public transport and its underfunding. Does the Minister agree there is a shortage of park and ride facilities, rolling stock and late night services and a lack of reliability in our public transport system? These matters must be at the root of the Minister's response.
No, I do not agree that ILDA is reporting for work but not to work the new roster because of lack of park and ride facilities. That is the kernel of the point made by the Deputy and I do not agree with it.
I am giving the Minister a wider perspective.
I do not agree that it was a Freudian slip because we are investing considerable amounts of money in the railway lines. I take the Deputy's point that people should know what services are running. Numbers are quoted constantly, both in adverts and in interviews on RTE. I take the Deputy's point about the line on which he travels, the Dundalk-Drogheda line to Pearse Station, that 70% of services were expected to operate today. The situation is altering by the minute because some lines are running fully, others are running at 50% but none of them are below 50%. That is still unacceptable when there are timetables which state at what times the trains should run.
I will undertake to tell the management of Iarnród Éireann that they should make all the changes in the timetable very plain by adverts, notifications and microphone announcements. It is a great injustice to the travelling public that this situation prevails in June of this year. I again ask the drivers in ILDA to look afresh at the proposals which have been put to them and to agree to work the new roster.
A brief question will be taken from each of the four Deputies who submitted a question.
Is the Minister satisfied that all the allegations by ILDA about safety are without foundation? It seems to be implying that there is at least a short-term problem with rail safety under the new arrangements.
ILDA made its allegations about safety some months ago and it produced an independent study. In answer to that, Iarnród Éireann produced an independent study. The two independent studies are at variance with one another.
Does the Minister agree that there is very little between the systems of Stalinism or Trotskyism and that under either of them, no trade unions would be allowed at all and that people like Mr. Ogle, Mr. Tobin and Mr. Bunting would probably be shot if they were in charge of the situation? I am not suggesting that as a solution.
I will not be shot by any of them.
Acknowledging the difficulty the Minister has in this matter, people are now being left standing at the tracks without a service in the south and west.
And the north.
Has she identified any steps she might take to improve the position? She promised us a transport forum. Is that being proceeded with? Did she hear Tim Hastings on the radio this morning suggest that the safety issues being identified by the Irish Locomotive Drivers' Association might be taken up by the other unions and perhaps the Minister could facilitate that to try to find a solution to this without breaking the law?
Yes, I heard Tim Hastings who was on the radio at lunch time and, as always, he had comments of great interest to make. The transport forum is set up under partnership and concerns the greater Dublin area but mostly concerns matters laid down for the future. The Deputy asked me, if I could, without breaking the law, encourage the other unions to review the safety aspects as identified by ILDA. That would be a matter for the trade unions. However, we must be clear about this. There are recognised trade unions. There is labour relations machinery for dealing with such matters set up by the State and in the main, it functions very well.
We might all, from time to time, make various comments, but in the main, people have a right to strike if they are in a recognised trade union. They have a right to have their grievances heard and that is happening. I return to the main point that the High Court has ruled this is not a trade union for negotiating purposes.
Will the Minister accept that the long-suffering public, who are suffering because of the lack of trains, not just in the west and the south but also in the northern line, where many commuters could not get to work this morning or had to take their cars and spend an extra two hours on the road as a result, are not interested in the various disputes between trade unions? As a result of what I have heard today, will the Minister ask her colleague, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, to make an unequivocal clarification about S.I. 146/2000, which seems to be the reason why ILDA is gaining credence in its argument that it is entitled to be negotiated with? If this statutory instrument does not give them that right, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment needs to say that unequivocally and if she has used the wrong word in it, she needs to change the statutory instrument.
The High Court is quite clear.
That is quite separate.
The High Court has stated in a very clear ruling that it is not a trade union for "negotiation purposes".
Statutory instruments.
I agree with Deputy Owen that ILDA, SIPTU and whatever statutory instruments are concerned bear no relation to the situation of a person standing on a platform where there is no train coming. People have not the slightest interest in all of that. However, we have to work to rules and rightly so. Labour relations machinery works to rules, courts work to rules and deliver verdicts and we must live by the shape of those.
(Dublin West): When the caucus with the Tánaiste is over – I can understand why there might be a little miscommunication between the two because there is such patent contradiction here – will the Minister deny that up to September 2001, train drivers can be required to work a seven day week in a row and a ten and a half hour day? Does the Minister agree that the High Court has not prohibited Iarnród Éireann from discussing or having a dialogue with the Irish Locomotive Drivers' Association? It has not prohibited this. Therefore, according to the Tánaiste's statutory instrument, it is obliged to do so because it is a registered trade union, which has been clarified.
Is the Minister for Public Enterprise aware of reports that the Labour Relations Commission was subjected to pressure, after issuing an invitation to the Irish Locomotive Drivers' Association to meet it, to withdraw the invitation? Does the Minister agree that the independent study carried out at the behest of the Irish Locomotive Drivers' Association must carry much weight, that the person mainly responsible has much experience in Britain, in particular, where there have been some major rail disasters and does she accept that the study which Iarnród Éireann has now produced in response is only out for a matter of days and still needs to be analysed?
Returning to the main point, the High Court said it did not have a negotiating licence.
(Dublin West): It did not prohibit it.
But it stated that it does not have a negotiating licence and it cannot lawfully conduct negotiations for the fixing of rates of pay, hours of duty and other conditions of service. That is on appeal to the Supreme Court and that is another day's work, but as of now that is the High Court ruling. With respect to the Deputy, it is not for him or me to dispute that ruling.
Is the Minister saying a statutory instrument is unlawful?
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.