We come to deal with Private Notice Questions to the Minister for Public Enterprise on industrial action by train drivers. I will call on the Deputies who tabled questions to the Minister for Public Enterprise in the order in which they submitted their questions to the Ceann Comhairle's office. I call Deputy Jim Higgins.
Private Notice Questions. - Industrial Action by Train Drivers.
(Mayo) asked the Minister for Public Enterprise the steps being taken to resolve the strike by train drivers who are members of the ATGWU; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
On a point of order, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle moved directly from leaders' questions to Private Notice Questions.
I asked if there were any other matters on the Order of Business.
The Chair did not take other matters on the Order of Business.
I asked if Members wished to raise any other matters and there was no response.
There was a response. The Chair did not hear it.
Mr. Coveney
I also indicated that I wished to speak.
Nobody indicated to me that they wished to contribute. Generally, I keep a list of Members offering and nobody indicated a desire to speak. I asked whether there were any other matters arising.
I agree with the Leader of Fine Gael on this matter. I would certainly not like a precedent to be set that we move directly from leaders' questions to other business.
There is no question of moving directly—
You did so today.
There is no question of moving directly to Private Notice Questions after the leaders' questions. We move to ordinary questions on the Order of Business. I asked if there were any questions on the Order of Business.
Several people offered.
That did not happen.
Deputy Coveney offered.
If the Chair inadvertently did not see someone offering, he or she could have done what you did, Deputy Noonan.
Is the Leas-Cheann Comhairle giving an assurance that this is not a precedent?
I make that absolutely clear. When the Deputy sees the official report of the House, he will see the question was asked. I call Deputy Naughten on Private Notice Questions.
asked the Minister for Public Enterprise the action she will take to resolve the current ATGWU dispute in Iarnród Éireann and the prolonged industrial problems in the company; and the action she has taken to date to avoid such industrial action.
asked the Minister for Public Enterprise if, in view of the serious disruption caused to 100,000 rail travellers today and the threat of further disruption to rail services in other parts of the country in the coming days, she will outline the steps being taken to try to secure a resumption of normal rail services; if she has had or plans to have any discussions with ICTU regarding the dispute; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
asked the Minister for Public Enterprise to address the resolution of the industrial relations chaos in Iarnród Éireann, a situation which has been exacerbated by the failure of this and former Governments to properly invest in an efficient and modern public transport infrastructure where staff feel valued and properly remunerated.
As Deputy Joe Higgins is not in the House to put his question, I call on the Minister for Public Enterprise to reply.
I propose to take all the questions together. I thank Deputies Jim Higgins, Naughten, Stagg and Sargent for their questions.
I am concerned about the impact the inter-union dispute involving the ATGWU is having on the services provided by Iarnród Éireann. So far today, all mainline services out of Connolly Station have been cancelled, while DART services are disrupted. This action is significantly disruptive when this Government is investing unprecedented levels of funding in the railway network. Track and signalling are being upgraded, new rolling stock is being acquired and the standard of service for customers at stations is being upgraded. This strike does not have anything to do with pay and conditions.
Indirectly.
The average pay is £29,500, without overtime. It is not about low pay or working conditions. It does not have to happen at a time when we are trying to build public confidence in our railways.
I have had several meetings with the chairman of CIE and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in recent days to express my concern about the impact this dispute is having on the travelling public. Specifically yesterday evening, I asked train drivers, who are members of the ATGWU, to respond positively to the request from the general secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, Peter Cassells, to call off their threatened strike action. Mr. Cassells had offered to chair a meeting of unions at Iarnród Éireann today in advance of a formal hearing by the disputes committee of congress into the inter-union difficulties next Thursday. However, I now understand that ICTU has been in touch with all the unions concerned and there are indications that the ATGWU will participate in the ICTU meeting on Thursday. Since this reply was written, that position has changed. The headline on the four o'clock news, which I heard, said it will not participate in the meeting on Thursday. I do not know if that has been further changed. The current action by the ATGWU is unnecessary. This strike is unnecessary and I urge all parties to seek an early resolution.
As regards direct meetings with ICTU, a meeting was held last Wednesday between the general secretary, the deputy general secretary, the Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach, the Secretary General of my Department and me. I met Peter Cassells on Friday in Tralee at the communication workers' conference. A meeting was held yesterday afternoon between the officials in my Department, the chairman of CIE, the deputy general secretary of ICTU and the Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach. That was held in two sessions. The first session involved everyone and the second session involved the officials, the chairman of CIE and me. There have been a number of meetings since it became clear that one trade union was determined to disrupt rail services.
(Mayo): Despite the fact the Minister mentioned various meetings and initiatives, a key component was missing. Did she receive a letter from the ATGWU dated 19 April in which the union clearly set down its grievances about promises it was given last August if it called off its strike? I am not an advocate for either ILDA or the ATGWU. It was obvious from the letter that we could face serious industrial relations action which has now culminated in the withdrawal of train services today and a further escalation tomorrow and the next day. Why was that letter not acknowledged and dealt with? Why was follow-up action not taken to head off the catastrophe we are now facing, namely, ten or 12 weeks of industrial action and devastation similar to that which happened last summer?
I received a letter headed "Briefing Note". I presume it is on the letter the Deputy received. We sent that to the section in the Department of the Taoiseach which deals with matters arising directly under the PPF. It engaged with Peter Cassells of ICTU who is a party to the PPF, the implementation body. That was followed up. Is the Deputy's letter headed "Briefing Note"?
(Mayo): My letter is exactly the same but it is addressed to “Mrs. M. O'Rourke, Minister for Public Enterprise”. It is a briefing note to the Minister.
That is right.
(Mayo): One would imagine that given the letter contained serious material about grievances, which are now the subject matter of today's industrial action, some contact would have been made with the union. There has not been any contact with the union, good, bad or indifferent, to try to establish a common ground to broker a deal. I am not an advocate for the union.
As regards the line being argued by Iarnród Éireann that it is not in a position to negotiate with the ATGWU, is it not a fact that the company is already dealing with the ATGWU in relation to certain sections, for example, craft workers, etc.? It is dealing with the union on one aspect of labour relations, but it will not deal with this group, although ILDA has moved from outside the tent into the tent and is now part of a legally established negotiating body?
As regards the briefing note I received, that was sent immediately to the section in the Department of the Taoiseach which deals with disputes appertaining to the PPF. That section dealt immediately with Peter Cassells and has continued to do so, as I have also done. This is an inter-union dispute. There is a mechanism within congress for dealing with such disputes. It is not a matter for Iarnród Éireann to deal with a dispute which has the umbrella of congress to find a resolution. That has been made clear not just by me but by Peter Cassells and others who have spoken on the issue. An open invitation was issued to the union in question to come to talks chaired by a prestigious person, the general secretary of congress, but it was spurned and the needless route of a disruption to the rail service was embraced. The only way to solve this is through the ICTU. The method is laid out in congress procedures and to operate outside those procedures would be wrong. An apology to commuters from me may be seen as of little use but it is necessary for me to do so. I apologise for the fact that this disruptive route has been chosen by the ATGWU. That union is an affiliate member of the ICTU which makes the action very difficult to understand.
This morning 110,000 passengers were left on platforms because of this dispute. Is the Minister aware of the situation for students, many of whom had returned home to study and must sit exams tomorrow? They will not now be provided with public transport and parents will have to take a day off work to bring them to their exams. What action has been taken to resolve the dispute, which concerns the non-recognition of ILDA and now the ATGWU and which has been ongoing for the past 18 months? Now that there is a proliferation of inter-union disputes, what measures are being taken by Government to ensure these issues can and will be resolved? The situation in Irish Rail, Aer Lingus and numerous other companies show that inter-union disputes are causing major disruption within the transport sector. Why was it only in the past days that the Minister discussed this matter with the ICTU and Irish Rail?
We had a meeting last Wednesday which is almost one week ago. Prior to that, the section within the Department of the Taoiseach dealing with PPF had taken the matter up with the ICTU. It was not just today or yesterday that the matter was addressed. My Department had a meeting on the matter on Wednesday last, on Friday last and yesterday.
The dispute is hugely disruptive to the travelling public and is extremely damaging to the trade union movement. Inter-union disputes are doing enormous damage to the public perception of trade unions. There are many fine people in the trade union movement and I am a strong believer in that movement, but not in the disputes which arise among unions. It is unacceptable that the consumer pays the price for rivalries between two unions. The price is paid by the public yet the dispute rumbles on.
The first group which came to my mind when this dispute occurred were students, not just secondary students but also those at third level travelling to and from examinations. They will be severely disrupted. However, it is an inter-union dispute for which there is a formula for resolution within congress. Congress has extended the invitation to the ATGWU and has asked the union to come to talks at which other unions will be represented and at which the issues will be dealt with in the round. The ATGWU has not accepted the invitation so far. A radio programme claimed that the ATGWU would attend talks, but that has been discounted.
Does the Minister agree that this is an inter-union dispute about recognition of Mr. Brendan Ogle's maverick group, ILDA, and is not about pay and conditions for workers? I am a paid up member of SIPTU. Will the Minister agree that it is unhelpful to the settlement of this dispute, and has been unhelpful in previous disputes in CIE, for the Minister to go on the national airwaves and say that the matter has nothing to do with her? The Minister's good offices and influence are available and are being used, according to the Minister's account to the House. Why is the public not told this? Does the Minister support the case made by Mr. Peter Cassells, general secretary of the ICTU, asking the Amalgamated Transport and General Workers Union to call off its dispute and to use the mechanisms officially available within the ICTU for the resolution of disputes? There is a special committee in the ICTU for cases where affiliated unions are in dispute with each other. All sides of the House should call on the ATGWU to accept that invitation from Mr. Cassells to use the committee.
I strongly endorse what Mr. Cassells said on television today, and I endorsed it on Wednesday last, on Friday last and yesterday. That is the correct way to deal with this situation. If we allow the procedures demanded by the ATGWU, not alone will there be total chaos in the rail system but there is likely to be a disruptive effect on industrial relations in other arms of the public sector. Mr. Cassells said that the invitation was extended and I endorse that. The matter has much to do with my Department but I will not and cannot intervene in an industrial dispute between two trade unions. There is a procedure laid down in the ICTU for dealing with such a dispute. The ATGWU is an affiliate member of the ICTU and should accept the invitation to talks rather than cause the disruption which the travelling public suffered today. Deputy Stagg is correct that there is a special committee within congress for dealing with this type of dispute. I agree that the dispute is not about pay and conditions.
I am not sure I should be thanking the Minister, but if she had any role in guarantee ing the fine weather today, which was of considerable assistance to those at bus stops where buses passed by full and to others like myself who were able to cycle, she should at least take credit for that much.
Deputy O'Rourke is the Minister for Met Éireann.
That explains all the rain.
Does the Minister agree there is a need to persuade the various institutes of education and universities to give a second chance to a number of students who missed important exams due to today's industrial action? Will the Minister use her offices to make the message clear that those who unavoidably missed exams should be accommodated where possible? This has been done in the past. Will the Minister take up the strong recommendation from the Labour Court that everyone should avoid a process where some parties are treated less favourably than others? Will the Minister take steps to respond to the ATGWU on the basis of the letter to which Deputy Jim Higgins referred. Will she ensure that lines of communication are kept open and that she does her utmost to reach out so that there will be industrial peace in the company and so that we can say that the Minister was instrumental in bringing that about?
On the examinations due to take place today, I will speak to my colleague, the Minister for Education and Science whose office, I presume, will be in a position to ascertain how many students were affected. I am aware that examinations in third level institutions – oral, written etc. – commence in May. I was glad to see the fine weather this morning although it has not ameliorated the current problem.
The Deputy stated that all people should be treated equally and I concur with that. ICTU has clearly stated that this is a matter to be determined under its rules and procedures for dispute resolution. It has outlined that view repeatedly since last Wednesday when the General Secretary of ICTU informed me that he was under the impression, following a meeting with the ATGWU, that the matter was resolved in so far as its representatives were to attend a meeting he was to chair this morning. That plan unravelled by Wednesday night. The general secretary informed me on Friday that the situation had deteriorated much further than he anticipated and, today, he strongly reiterated ICTU's position. It would be incorrect, from a procedural point of view and from the point of view of the future conduct of industrial relations in any company, for one to intervene in what is clearly an inter-union dispute.
I accept that the dispute will do great damage to the travelling public but, sadly, it will equally damage the regard people have for the trade union movement.
I welcome the Minister's indication that she will not intervene in the dispute as that is quite proper. Does she accept it would be inappropriate for her to intervene at all in the management matters of semi-State companies and will she assure the House that she does not do so? Does she further accept that ongoing industrial relations difficulties, as witnessed in CIE in recent times, can always be attributed to bad management?
I thank the Deputy for his comments on intervention which echoed those of his leader, Deputy Noonan. I hold the firm view that a Minister should only deal with the chairman of any semi-State company which experiences difficulties or faces challenges, not with executives or line managers. The communication channel in regard to the exchange of views and information is between the Minister and company chairman and this has always been the case. The Deputy conducted his business in that way when he was a Minister.
I do not intend to give an opinion on the Deputy's contention that prolonged or frequent industrial relations difficulties are attributable to bad management as the current problem arises from an inter-union dispute. The information I received last Wednesday, Friday and yesterday was to the effect that if the request of the union in question were acceded to, the other two unions – SIPTU and the NBRU – would immediately pull out of all transport operations. This issue could not be easily resolved through my intervention with the Labour Relations Commission or the Labour Court. I reiterate that the ATGWU is an ICTU affiliate.
Does the Minister agree that the splintering of trade unions is not in the interest of workers, good company management or the public as it gives rise to maverick-type action? While accepting that the right to strike is sacrosanct, does the Minister agree that this action, which affects more than 100,000 people, is totally disproportionate to the grievance which the trade union in question is seeking to resolve? That union is not only affiliated to ICTU but is also affiliated to the Labour Party. I call on ATGWU's Irish branch secretary, Mr. Michael O'Reilly, to accept Mr. Cassell's invitation to attend the meeting of the unions involved and to call off this unnecessary action.
I agree that this action is totally disproportionate to the grievance outlined and that, in general, the splintering of trade unions does not represent workers' best interests.
(Mayo): I hope the negotiations due to take place on Thursday will proceed although we are unsure about their status. If they do not proceed and a further stand-off occurs, does the Minister accept that, notwithstanding ICTU's dispute resolution mechanisms, a case could be made for the appointment of a credible mediator, a person with a proven track record, who would be acceptable to all sides? In that way, the unions could sit down together at the negotiating table to hammer out some kind of rational solution to this problem to ensure the dispute is called off as soon as possible. I am thinking of someone like Mr. Phil Flynn who would have the necessary know-how in this area and in whom all parties would have confidence.
The Irish Congress of Trade Unions intends to hold a meeting on Thursday in any event to which they have invited representatives of the ATGWU although it is unclear whether they will attend. The Deputy asked about the possibility of appointing a credible third party to mediate in this matter. The resolution of this issue lies with ICTU and it will urge all sides to co-operate with the proposed resolution which will emanate from Thursday's meetings. The appointment of a mediator would be a matter for ICTU and, while I cannot comment on his potential role in this matter, I endorse the Deputy's comments about Mr. Phil Flynn.
(Dublin West): I apologise for my late arrival; I had to attend a committee meeting on an important matter. The Minister stated that this dispute is not about pay and conditions. Does she agree it is about a campaign of isolation against and the victimisation and mistreatment of a significant grouping of locomotive drivers?
That is dangerous rubbish.
(Dublin West): I will have something to say to Deputy Stagg in a moment. How else does the Minister explain that the company could, under the individual grievance procedure, hear the complaints of the seven workers but is refusing to do so because they are insisting on their right to be accompanied by a union member of their choice? How does she explain the failure of the company to respond to 56 invitations to conciliation from the LRC? The company dismissed the claims as spurious before a hearing has even taken place. It is time people got real about this. Members of SIPTU and the NBRU did not pass the picket today. Train drivers are supporting each other despite the disgraceful attempts of the Labour Party to undermine them here today. What would Jim Larkin say, the founder of the Labour Party who stood for solidarity among ordinary trade unionists and workers? Perhaps we need to talk to the leaders and not the ordinary members of ICTU and other unions who in recent times have been too cosy in bed with Government and employers resulting in them losing many members as happened in the case of Aer Lingus and so on.
A question, please.
(Dublin West): The Minister said recognition of this issue by the trade union would lead to chaos. Approximately 100,000 people were unable to find transport to work today, what does the Minister call that?
Exactly.
(Dublin West): This has happened as a result of the management of Iarnród Éireann dragging its feet and being unwilling to engage in dialogue with its members.
The Deputy is making a statement. This is Question Time.
(Dublin West): Will the Minister bang the heads of senior management in Iarnród Éireann and make them talk to their employers and respect them. Perhaps then we will get a proper transport service.
Whether or not he likes it, the matter referred to by the Deputy is one that is a matter of dispute between two trade unions. It is not a matter of banging anybody's head; it is matter of adhering to the procedures of ICTU laid out and accepted in the main by the unions affiliated to it. They have endorsed that with an invitation to the ATGWU to come to talks with them. Those talks, if the strike had been called off, were due to start this morning.
Yes, it is chaotic when 100,000 people are discommoded in their travelling arrangements. The people who created this difficulty are those who did not respond to the invitation.
(Dublin West): It is the fault of the people who failed to talk to them.
The current dispute aside, is the Minister aware that the public are losing confidence in the DART because of the unreliability of the service provided? Is the Minister aware that a sign stating that all DART services had been cancelled was posted outside Glenageary station last Sunday at 6 p.m.? When a constituent of mine inquired why the service had been cancelled he was told it was due to a lack of availability of drivers. Imagine the situation in which families from the city visiting Bray for the afternoon found themselves. What sort of service are we providing?
Will the Minister, when she next meets the Chairman of CIE, do something to restore confidence in an essential part of the public transport infrastructure in Dublin? It is an absolute disgrace.
The Deputy cannot broaden the question which relates to a particular dispute.
It is bad enough that the DART is constantly late. Imagine cancelling a service on a Sunday afternoon with no explanation to the public.
That situation is unacceptable. I will raise the matter with the Chairman. It is ironic, when money is being put into the system, that there have been a series of disputes as far back as early summer last year. It is unacceptable that people who pay money for a train service do not get it. That is not how it should be. I apologise for what happened and I will seek an explanation of the situation from the Chairman.
Will the Minister sit back and allow a long hot summer of discontent to ferment in the service as happened last summer? Does she realise how damaging this is to the tourism industry in which many real jobs are already at risk? This dispute will seriously damage many more employees and their prospects in that industry.
Has the Minister had any discussions with the Minister of State with responsibility for Labour Affairs on any role his office might have in this area?
We discussed the damage which this dispute will do to the tourism industry at Cabinet today. My colleague, the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Deputy McDaid, was very outspoken on the matter. The industry has already suffered the trials and tribulations of the foot and mouth disease crisis, which thankfully we appear to have surmounted, only to be faced with this problem. I do not intend to sit back when there are matters to be dealt with in my office. This matter is one for resolution by ICTU through their machinery. It is not a matter for resolution by the Labour Court or Labour Relations Commission. The path to resolution lies in accepting the invitation issued to an affiliate union of ICTU, a union party to PPF. That is the road to resolution.
Why was the briefing document posted to the Minister on 19 April by the ATGWU not acknowledged by her office? The Minister told this House earlier the document was referred to the Taoiseach's Department. Why did the Minister not take any action on the contents of that document given that Irish Rail comes within her responsibility? Was she not concerned about the contents of that document? If so, why did she not take any action at that point or contact the ATGWU?
Irish Rail is the meat in the sandwich between the unions involved. This dispute has been ongoing for some months. If Irish Rail agrees to the claim being made by the ATGWU the other two unions would pull-out. Why did Irish Rail not contact ICTU sooner to see if this issue could be resolved rather than allowing it to go to the wire resulting in people being left out in the street? Can the Minister give an assurance to this House and to the general public that we will not encounter a similar situation to that which prevailed last summer with ongoing rail disputes which crippled the tourism industry in the western part of the country?
Unless sanity returns to the union involved it will be very difficult to give an assurance about anything. It has been invited to talks by the general secretary of ICTU and it has refused to attend.
The document referred to by the Deputy is headed, "Briefing Note". There is no point in anybody suggesting it is a letter for resolution.
It is addressed to the Minister.
The section within the Taoiseach's Department dealing with PPF, congress and the unions affiliated to it have been dealing with this issue for the past ten days. We had a meeting only yesterday, the situation was not allowed to go to the wire. I engaged in meetings in this regard last Wednesday.
The document starts, "Dear Minister". It is addressed to the Minister.
Deputy Naughten cannot intervene without the Chair's authority.
It is very interesting that my copy is headed "Briefing Note".
That concludes Private Notice Questions.