I will call on Deputies who have tabled questions to the Minister in the order in which they submitted their questions.
Private Notice Questions. - Aer Lingus Dispute.
asked the Minister for Public Enterprise if, in view of the planned industrial action by cabin staff employed by Aer Lingus on 7 February 2001 which will lead to a total grounding of the airline fleet and consequent disruption for travellers, she will state the steps which are being taken to secure a settlement of the dispute and if she will make a statement on the matter.
(Mayo) asked the Minister of State the Department of Public Enterprise the steps it is proposed to take to end the industrial relations chaos in Aer Lingus which has culminated in the decision by the company to ground all of its flights tomorrow and if he will make a statement on the matter.
asked the Minister of State at the Department of Public Enterprise if he will outline what action he proposes to take with Aer Lingus regarding serious industrial staff problems which have led to industrial action already and which will see cabin crew on strike tomorrow leading to the cancellation of all Aer Lingus flights causing huge disruption to air passengers.
I regret the inconvenience caused to Aer Lingus customers as a result of the current industrial relations dispute in the company. Cabin crew, represented by IMPACT, served notice on Aer Lingus of a 24 hour stoppage tomorrow, 7 February, following its members' rejection of the Labour Court recommendation on the cabin crew claim. The Labour Court recommendation of 22 January 2001 addressed all the issues in dispute. This recommendation was accepted by Aer Lingus but, regretfully, rejected by IMPACT. Aer Lingus, while indicating its extreme disappointment with the IMPACT position, advised that the company was willing to discuss IMPACT's concerns in relation to the Labour Court recommendation. As a result, two days of direct talks took place between Aer Lingus and IMPACT last week but the sides failed to reach any agreement.
We understand from Aer Lingus that during these talks IMPACT retabled the main elements of its original negotiating position, notwithstanding that the Labour Court had examined the union's argument in reaching its recommendations. Aer Lingus has stated that conceding the IMPACT demand would add £3 million to the cabin crew pay bill on top of the £5.7 million cost of the implementation of the Labour Court's recommendation.
This additional burden on the cost base of Aer Lingus, on top of the Labour Court recommendations and the various PPF awards, is unsustainable from the company's viewpoint. Moreover, Aer Lingus is concerned that any settlement of the cabin crew dispute must take account of settlements reached for other groups, such as clerical and operative groups. To do otherwise would not alone have serious cost implications but could also give rise to follow on claims which could undo the successful work of the Labour Court in these areas.
The Labour Court re-entered the dispute last weekend. During negotiations Aer Lingus proposed that the Labour Court recommendation be implemented immediately and, without prejudice to the union position, it should be followed by the establishment of a joint working group to draw up, over a period of a few months, measures on pay and structures to suit the current needs of the airline. IMPACT rejected this proposal. The Labour Court then indicated that it was unable to resolve the matter due to the gap between the two sides.
Tomorrow's stoppage should have been avoided not just because of the damage it will do to Aer Lingus and the impact on its customers but having regard also to the recently renewed emphasis in the PPF on settling differences without recourse to industrial action. I urge the parties to resume the talks as quickly as possible to work out their differences. The Labour Court remains available to assist in whatever way it can.
What action, if any, has the Minister taken, since chaos first struck the airline last October, to ensure that a wage dispute which everyone accepts is legitimate did not ground the airline? Did that action fail? Why are 18,000 people facing a nightmare at our airports tomorrow? What action has been taken since the emergency talks broke down on Sunday night? Will the Minister accept that the management position, which would entail the workforce accepting a package that 98% of them rejected six days previously, was unrealistic? Was the Minister aware, in advance, of the management's nonsensical offer on Sunday, which has led to the airline shutting down? Will the Minister now instruct management to realistically engage in these vital talks?
The Department is obviously closely monitoring this dispute—
With a long spoon.
—but ministerial involvement is not proposed at this point. The State has a range of mechanisms to resolve industrial disputes and they have been beavering away on this issue. We exhort all concerned to utilise these mechanisms. There is no need for this dispute to continue. Aer Lingus proposed last week that the Labour Court recommendation be implemented immediately and, without prejudice to the union's position, it should be followed by the establishment of a joint working group to draw up measures on pay and structures to suit the current needs of the airline.
On behalf of the Government, I exhort all concerned to revert to the talks process.
(Mayo): Exhortations are not much good at this stage. Is it not true that the situation in Aer Lingus is an industrial relations disaster? In the past three months the company has stumbled from one industrial relations crisis to another. The cabin crew were on strike before, as were the clerical staff, catering staff and baggage handlers, while the pilots also threatened industrial action. Now it is back to the cabin crew again. Is it not a fact that no commercial company can survive that type of performance? This is not a private company, it is Government owned. If the existing industrial relations machinery has broken down, as it obviously has, given that the gap is so large it cannot be bridged, it is up to the Government as the owner of the company—
Brevity please, Deputy. A question for the Minister.
(Mayo): The Government has an obligation to the travelling public to get a grip on the situation. Is it true that it will take 35 years for existing cabin crew staff to reach the maximum salary scale of £25,000 per annum?
As far as Aer Lingus is concerned, it has acknowledged a legitimate case for improving cabin crew pay and has responded accordingly. However, it cannot sustain uncompetitive pay increases. That is the gist of this problem. Similarly, ongoing disruption of the services will have a serious impact on the company's finances, which is not in the best interests of the staff, customers, tourism or business interests. The airline has acknowledged the legitimate case that existed and has responded accordingly.
Is the Minister's middle name Pontius Pilate? Is he not aware that the Government is responsible for what is happening in Aer Lingus? The Government is the sole shareholder in the company. Does the Minister not agree that to say the company cannot embark on uncompetitive practices with regard to people whose salaries are as low as £6,000 and £7,000 per annum is an insult to those people? Will he not accept that the offer Aer Lingus made on top of the Labour Court recommendation is utterly unworthy of the company? Can he not understand that the staff and cabin crew are grossly underpaid? They are frontline staff as far as the tourism industry is concerned. What will the Minister do to ensure that the cabin crew are dealt with fairly, get an equitable wage and can return to work without this Mickey Mouse offer being put on the table?
No insult is intended to anybody, least of all the cabin crew. It has been recognised by the company and by the Government that a legitimate case existed. That case was addressed. It might help if I outline what the Labour Court recommended. In so doing I will answer part of Deputy Higgins's question which I failed to answer earlier.
The Labour Court recommended pay increases ranging from 20% for those on the lower end of the pay scale to 10% for those on the upper end. It recommended a minimum increase of £2,000 to all cabin crew in addition to the PPF increases, the replacement of the 20 hours per week contracts with 35 hours per week contracts, a shortened pay scale where staff reached the top of the scale after 15 years and a long service increment of £500 per annum at 25, 30 and 33 years service and £1,000 after 35 years service.
Again, I urge the parties to return to the table on the basis of the establishment of the joint working group to tease out further improvements that can be made.
The Minister appears to be putting a good spin on the Labour Court proposals. Does he agree that the percentages on very low rates, when completed, still amount to very low rates? Does the Minister of State not think it extraordinary that it would require 20 years' service for an employee to earn £25,000 per year, a figure which would be inclusive of promotion and bonus payments? The Labour Court proposals mean it would take an employee 35 years to reach that point. Given the price of housing in Dublin and other areas in which airports are located, that is not a wage on which people can be expected to live.
Does the Minister of State agree the Labour Court proposals represent a significant contribution to the resolution of this dispute and that IMPACT, in accepting the 15 year pay scale, has displayed a determination to resolve the dispute? Will the Minister of State use his influence in a positive manner rather than the negative manner we have witnessed here where he is, on the one hand, saying this is a "hands-off" situation in which the Government will not get involved and, on the other, is rejecting the staff's claim, thereby interfering negatively in the dispute? We are asking the Minister of State to attempt to facilitate the speedy and fair resolution of this dispute by contacting the management of a company owned by the State on behalf of the Irish people.
I am endeavouring to provide honest and accurate answers to questions on this important matter and I am not putting a spin on what I say. The company must consider the amount it can pay and has already indicated what it considers achievable in economic terms. The implementation of the figure which is being sought is unsustainable from a business point of view and that is not in the interest of the workers, the other sectors within the company or the com pany itself. I agree with the Deputy that the Labour Court has done its damnedest on this issue. It is ready, willing and able to receive both parties at any time to see what further progress can be made. There is ongoing communication between the Minister, the Department and company management. In the past, Ministers' involvement in disputes such as this has been counterproductive and has at times undermined the machinery, including State agencies such as the one the Deputy lauded, which exist to resolve these problems.
(Mayo): Does the Minister of State accept that IMPACT, which represents the majority of the Aer Lingus cabin crew members is an extremely responsible trade union which was one of the key components in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness? IMPACT is now threatening to escalate the dispute and embark on further industrial action. Does the Minister of State accept we simply cannot allow flights to be cancelled, delayed or disrupted again? Given that the industrial relations machinery is not capable of bridging the large gap which exists and that the Department has appointed nominees to the board of this State-owned company, does the Minister of State accept there is an onus on the Government to engage in meaningful dialogue at this juncture to see what can be done to bridge the gap?
There is no doubt about the bona fides of IMPACT or the other trade union which represents a smaller number of the cabin crew employees. I have more confidence in the machinery of the State, particularly the Labour Court, than the company. While the one day stoppage is very serious and regrettable, it will not result in the entire Irish aviation sector grinding to a halt. Some 40% of Irish airline services are provided by Aer Lingus but the 60% provided by other airlines will keep the commercial wheels rolling. Other airlines will endeavour to provide increased service during the course of tomorrow's unfortunate stoppage. On behalf of the Government, I exhort all of the parties involved to resume talks on this matter.
Will the Minister of State assure Members that, on leaving this House, he will personally contact Aer Lingus in an attempt to prevent tomorrow's strike proceeding? The Minister of State assumes the airport will still function. Is he aware that 160 British Midlands staff are currently picketing outside the airport and that the airline has had to cancel flights because of the manner in which its employees are being treated by their UK bosses in regard to another company taking over ground handling services?
The Deputy is straying from the substance of the question.
The Minister stated that other airlines would pick up the 40% of passengers who would have travelled via Aer Lingus tomorrow. British Midlands has already cancelled flights today. Will the Minister of State take some positive action on leaving the House today to ensure cabin crew staff do not have to walk the streets tomorrow?
I remind the Deputy that the question refers specifically to the Aer Lingus dispute. We do not want to broaden the scope of the question.
The Minister of State raised the issue of other airlines taking up the extra passenger numbers and British Midlands is one such airline.
My purpose in mentioning that other airlines would increase their services was to prevent the prophets of doom and gloom creating panic. Every effort will be made to resolve this regrettable matter. The cabin crew members' case has been deemed to be legitimate and has been addressed in the context of the company's sustainable economic limits.
That has not led to any resolution.
The company has proposed further mechanisms to address the matter more comprehensively in the coming months. The positive rapport between the Department and the company will continue in an attempt to resolve this matter.
Does the Minister of State accept that Government taxation policy has impacted adversely on Aer Lingus cabin crew? Higher earners have benefited disproportionately from low wage earners as a result of Government taxation policy. The Government is already involved in the seeds of this dispute. That being said, does the Minister of State accept the Government has an equal responsibility now to undo the damage it has done by providing an assurance that low paid workers will not continue to suffer under this regime?
The Government, the Labour Court and the company have recognised the legitimacy of this case which affects low wage earners. I outlined the manner in which the Labour Court has addressed this issue in the context of the company remaining viable and sustainable and the further measures the company has proposed. They should be allowed to get on with that over the next few months without disruption and without further damage to Aer Lingus.
Will the Minister of State not accept that he is washing his hands of this issue, given that he referred to the reluctance of the Minister to get involved in this dispute? Will he not accept also that his predecessor got involved, on a satisfactory basis, in other disputes? Will he accept that this situation has been brought about by the sacrifices made by the workforce in Aer Lingus from the time of the Cahill plan and that as a result of those sacrifices, they are now in the low pay category? Will the Minister of State give a commitment this afternoon that he will get involved and get on to the management so as to ensure that before 12 midnight tonight, real and meaningful negotiations can be embarked on to bring this dispute to a conclusion and ensure also that Dublin Airport is not closed down tomorrow and that the other disputes at the airport can be resolved?
There is no washing of hands by this Department, the Minister for Public Enterprise or the Government in relation to this matter. As I said repeatedly in the course of this session, there is ongoing contact. In the context of the question the Deputy poses, the management of Aer Lingus is totally in acceptance of that which the Labour Court recommended, yet the stoppage is occurring. That is disappointing, particularly having regard to the industrial peace provisions under the PPF which everybody in this House advocated. I again urge all the parties concerned to resume the talks as expeditiously as possible.
(Dublin West): Will the Minister of State agree that a low wage regime for a significant section of the Aer Lingus workforce is the fundamental reason for the industrial relations problem within that company? In light of that, quoting percentage increases or amounts that have been offered does not hold validity, as the Minister has tried to portray them as being generous, when one is coming from a very low wage base. In view of Aer Lingus's £50 million profit last year made by the workers, does the Minister not agree that the workers deserve a meaningful section of this profit? Will he agree there is something badly wrong with the attitude of the management at Aer Lingus when so many groups of workers are obviously alienated and frustrated, that perhaps a management that has one eye on privatisation while keeping up profits at the expense of workers' wages is not the best management to deal with the problem and that an entire change of culture of bringing the workers into real democratic participation in Aer Lingus is the way to create a vibrant airline?
Will the Minister agree it is reprehensible that a semi-State company would attempt to implement a two-tier working condition system for staff who do largely the same employment and that the introduction of the obnoxious practice of yellow pack workers, first introduced by the banks and such cut-throat institutions, should have no place in the public sector? Will he tell Aer Lingus that this must have no place in the development of the company and in trying to create relations with its staff, who are the backbone of the company, from now on?
A very long question. Where did the word "brevity" come from?
Nobody would endorse or advocate a low wage regime.
That is what it is.
As I said, it was acknowledged by all the players, including the Labour Court, that low wages obtained. I remind colleagues of the details of the Labour Court's addressing of the matter, and it was not just percentages. They were minimum amounts stitched in to address the situation. That emanated from the Labour Court and was readily accepted by the company. I do not think we will progress it any further. What has been said here today is obviously in the public arena and I hope it will have the effect of having all concerned return to the table to take up the offer of further talks and resolving the dispute.
The entire thrust of the Minister's replies has been to concede that there was a low pay regime in Aer Lingus and to imply or say that that has now changed. Is the Minister aware – I have the proposals that emanated from the Labour Court in front of me – that it would take a permanent member of cabin crew almost ten years to earn the average industrial wage under the proposals that have emanated from the Labour Relations Commission?
That is one of the big awards.
I ask the Minister to reflect on that. Is that situation tenable for what used to be considered relatively prestigious employment? I ask the Minister to say to this House that that position is not untenable and to direct the management of Aer Lingus to cause it within the medium term to be put right. Otherwise, given the competitive industrial situation at Dublin Airport, there will be no permanent resolution of this dispute.
I must come back to what the Labour Court said. The Labour Court issued its recommendations, which it deemed to be fair and reasonable. The management is now saying it accepts what the Labour Court recommended but it wants to talk about the matter further in the joint working group, which it is offering to establish, to see what measures on pay and structures can be agreed. There is no better road to travel on this issue. We have all had our own experiences of these industrial relations difficulties and it is obvious that is the correct road to travel.
Does the Minister believe there is a connection between the ongoing industrial unrest in Aer Lingus and the Government's announcement that it was considering selling off or floating this company?
Government policy on the flotation is still in place. That is widely known in this House. Obviously the timing of that is crucial, as are other considerations such as market conditions and industrial relations stability at a particular time. With regard to flotation vis-à-vis the industrial relations situation, in the present context, with industrial relations instability prevailing, movement on flotation is not relevant.
Does the Minister of State, as the main shareholder, believe he has a moral obligation to protect the interests of the taxpayer by ensuring there are proper industrial relations within the company if it is floated?
I will repeat what I have said in another way.
The Minister of State is not doing a good job of it.
Please, Deputy Barrett.
The Government will not move on flotation until such time as proper stable industrial relations are established within this or any other company.
What is the Minister of State doing to bring that about?
The question is, therefore, irrelevant at this point.
Given the questions asked, the Minister of State may think this is a Dublin issue. I wish to underline the position in Shannon where there is widespread concern among the business community and travellers. The unrest in the airline has caused much disruption and dissatisfaction. I urge the Minister of State to impress on the mechanisms available to resolve such matters that urgent attention be given to resolving this dispute which is undermining confidence in the airline. It is necessary to deal with this matter as a matter of urgency.
The Deputy is correct – the Government and I are aware of this – that this dispute impinges on all airports, and not just Dublin.
I will allow a brief question from the three Deputies who tabled the question.
How does the Minister of State square the Minister's decision to adopt a hands-off approach to this dispute with the fact that the Taoiseach, who has been present for the duration of the debate, largely made his reputation by adopting a hands-on approach to industrial disputes? Given this historic fact, I ask the Minister to review the policy in this dispute. Is the Minister of State aware that the public was absolutely stunned when it heard the rates of pay for what were regarded as glamour jobs in Aer Lingus?
That is correct.
Does he agree this dispute is a symptom of low pay in a large part of Aer Lingus? Does he further agree the staff in these low paid jobs made a major contribution to the success of Aer Lingus through their acceptance of the Cahill plan?
If the Minister will not adopt a hands-on approach to the dispute, will he say if he has a policy on the issue of low pay in the semi-State sector for which the Department is responsible? Does he have a timetable for the eradication of low pay? He should not tell us that bringing people up to the average industrial wage after 15 years is eradicating low pay.
I agree with the Deputy on the huge importance and meritorious nature of the cabin crew sector. I want to repeat that it has already been agreed by all the players, including the Government, that there was an insufficient pay situation in that sector. This is a hugely important sector, as we will see tomorrow when the aviation system stops working. The cabin crew plays a major role vis-à-vis air safety etc. and is trained to deal with emergencies. This role is recognised.
Without repeating what I have said – the questions have become somewhat repetitive at this stage – on behalf of the Government, I exhort the parties to return to the table. That is as much as I can say.
(Mayo): Given the chaotic industrial relations situation with Aer Lingus, where all sectors have taken industrial action over the past three months – we are now into round two with more strikes – will the Minister of State say if a case can be made for taking a hard objective look at the company in its totality? Does he consider there is merit in the proposal of embarking on an exercise similar to the one embarked on by the Minister in relation to Iarnród Éireann where the so-called three wise men were asked to objectively examine the company, its management and management performance as well as the industrial relations performance to bring to an end once and for all the kind of malaise which is quickly killing the reputation of what was once a fine and proud company?
As the Ceann Comhairle reminded us at an earlier juncture, we are talking about the cabin crew issue. If the Minister considers the action proposed by the Deputy appropriate in the overall context of dealing with the difficulties which obtain in the company, I am sure she will take it.
Is the Minister of State aware of the situation vis-à-vis the livelihoods of the cabin crew, most of whom live in constituencies represented by Deputies Ryan and Sargent, the Minister, Deputy Woods, the Taoiseach and me? Is he aware that a young couple who are both working as cabin crew staff – this happens quite often – do not even qualify for the shared ownership housing scheme because their salaries are so low? The most they can afford to spend on a house is £60,000 or £70,000, which would not buy a house anywhere. Does the Minister of State agree there needs to be a major leap in the base salary of these workers to allow them to enter meaningful discussions?
The Minister of State should forget the Department and speak for himself.
I appreciate the local knowledge of Deputy Owen and her colleagues of the difficulties and circumstances of these people who are domiciled in their constituencies.
They are real people with real lives.
As I have repeatedly said, the mechanisms are in place to deal with this dispute and it has been dealt with. It has been accepted by the company and rejected by the cabin crew's union. The offer is there for further discussions. This offer has to be taken up, which I believe it will be.
A final supplementary from Deputy Barnes.
I join with the comments made by Deputies, particularly the point made by Deputy Owen. When considering the low pay base and extraordinary contribution made by cabin crew over the years, I ask the Minister of State to recognise that this was a category only for women until the position was changed under the equal opportunities legislation. This makes it a special case and explains why this low base has to be increased. The arguments made in the House must be considered in the context of the history of the under-valuing of the work done by women and the low rates of pay they received.
The Government has already made up ground on the issues of low and equal pay vis-à-vis women's pay yesteryear. Every effort will be made to continue to make up further ground on the issues raised by the Deputy.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.