I call on Deputy Upton to put her question to the Minister for Agriculture and Food.
Private Notice Question. - Industrial Disputes.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the steps he plans to take to seek a solution to the industrial dispute now involving up to 900 members of staff of his Department, following his decision to remove 150 staff from the payroll earlier this week and the serious consequences of the dispute for services to farmers; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I thank Deputy Upton for raising this matter because I welcome this opportunity to tell the House the background to the action being taken by the CPSU in my Department's local offices. I regret to have to say that the union's action is contrary to the existing Programme for Prosperity and Fairness and the new Sustaining Progress Agreement.
My Department's decision to remove staff from the payroll was not taken lightly. The union members had decided not to perform normal duties arising from 'phone calls and faxes. In addition they refused to perform duties at reception desks. The services provided from our local offices are essential to the farming community, in particular in the context of cattle movements to factories and marts as well as the various direct payments to farmers.
CPSU members in the Department's local offices voted in favour of industrial action to secure what they considered improved promotional structures. The CPSU commenced industrial action in the local offices with effect from Tuesday, 18 March 2003.
The CPSU advised the Department that it would regionalise the dispute. The country has been split into four regions as follows: region one, Waterford, Cork, Tipperary north and Tipperary south and Clare; region two, Limerick, Kerry, Galway and Mayo; region three, Longford, Sligo, Roscommon, Cavan, Donegal and Monaghan; and region four, Carlow, Dublin, Kildare, Kilkenny, Laois, Meath, Offaly, Wexford, Westmeath and Wicklow.
Region one commenced industrial action on a regional basis on 25 March 2003. This involved a ban on 'phone and fax queries and counter duties in the afternoon. This action continued until 28 March 2003. CPSU originally intended to rotate the action between regions on a weekly basis as follows: region two from 31 March 2003 to 4 April 2003; region three from 7 April 2003 to 11 April 2003; and region four from 14 April 2003 to 17 April 2003. I emphasise that normal duties are being carried out by CPSU members in regions other than the one engaged in industrial action.
The CPSU has advised that the action will apply to FDS offices and regional labs in addition to local livestock offices and district veterinary offices. There are 790 CPSU members out of a total local office staff complement of 887 involved in the dispute.
The Department was advised yesterday that with effect from this morning CPSU members would picket the offices which are the subject of industrial action for this week. The offices affected by the picketing are those offices in region two, that is, Limerick, Kerry, Galway and Mayo.
The scope for agreeing any resolution to this matter is limited by the terms of the various social partnership agreements, the need to control public expenditure and the implications for other sectors of the public service if a concession is made in this case.
The action taken by the CPSU cannot be condoned and is contrary to the terms of social partnership agreements. Arrangements have been made to remove from the payroll with effect from 2 April CPSU staff members who refuse to perform core duties. This action applies in the region which is involved in the industrial action this week. The details are as follows: Galway – 58; Kerry – 37; Mayo – 43; and Limerick – 21.
Officials from my Department met CPSU representatives yesterday but unfortunately no basis for a settlement emerged. Yesterday afternoon the CPSU advised that the officers who have been removed from the payroll in Galway, Limerick, Mayo and Kerry will not return to work until the dispute is resolved. They also indicated that they would picket the offices involved from today. I now understand that non-local office CPSU members in the Castlebar office have refused to pass the picket. However, I would add that all of the offices are open, although, as expected, there is a disruption to the services provided to its customers.
The union demands that we increase the number of posts in the staff officer and executive officer grade. They have mentioned a figure to my officials which, by any definition, means their demand is a cost increasing claim.
The PPF, on page 35, provides as follows:
1. That no cost-increasing claims by trade unions or employees for improvements in pay or condition of employment, other than those provided in clauses 3 to 5, will be made or processed during the currency of the agreement; 2. Commits employers, trade unions and employees to promoting industrial harmony and; 3. Precludes strikes or other forms of industrial action by trade unions, employees or employers in respect of any matters covered by this agreement, where the employer of trade union concerned is acting in accordance with the provisions of this agreement.
The Sustaining Progress agreement reinforces this commitment. This agreement provides for a 7% pay increase for all civil servants and for the payment of the relevant awards made by the benchmarking body. In the case of the CPSU this involves a further 8.5% increase. My Department is prepared to examine the staffing of our local offices. However, any reorganisation involving upgradings would have to be dealt with against a background of the continuing need to control public finances. In any event, as I have said, the industrial action is contrary to the general pay agreements and I would appeal to the union to instruct its members to resume duty. My Department's officials are available for talks at any time.
Why was there no direct intervention when it was clearly flagged two weeks ago that this dispute was on the cards. The strike was imminent and there was a two-week gap in which some action could have been taken. What might be considered a pre-emptive strike was taken when 150 members of staff were suspended on Tuesday, two days before the meeting between the CPSU and the Department of Agriculture and Food. Would it not have been more appropriate to wait until after that meeting had taken place to give the union a chance to voice its side of the story before the suspensions were made?
Will the Minister describe in detail what services to farmers are being affected? In a time when farmers have much to be concerned about, it is important that they be given an assurance that measures will be put in place to alleviate their concerns in regard to the services that will be disrupted if this strike is allowed to continue for any length of time.
Does the Minister acknowledge that there is a lack of promotional opportunities in regard to the jobs involved in comparison with peer groups in other Departments? Will he meet the CPSU to try to resolve this dispute?
I regret that this dispute is taking place. There are very good staff relations in the Department of Agriculture and Food and we do not usually have to cope with this type of situation.
As I have said, it is contrary to the partnership programmes. It is outside the terms of those programmes and is causing serious disruption to clients of the Department, which are essentially farmers and representatives of the agriculture industry, and that is a pity.
The personnel section in the Department tried yesterday to find a basis for a resolution but it was to no avail. Decentralisation to a number of local offices may be giving rise to the problem. The staff there are entitled to promotion the same as staff in any other part of the Department but in some cases the promotional opportunity may be in another office which may be a cause of some difficulty.
We believe there is a basis within the partnership programmes for a resolution of this dispute. I again call on the staff concerned to resume their duties and we will see to what extent we can be helpful in sorting out the problem.
Perhaps I missed some of the Minister's reply to Deputy Upton's question as to what services to farmers are being affected. My understanding is that it will have an impact on the beef trade going to factories, which is a very serious matter. I urge the Minister to take whatever steps are necessary to resolve this dispute as soon as possible. This is a very difficult time for the farming community. Irrespective of what was agreed through the PPF it is imperative that the Minister becomes involved to put a stop to the dispute.
I agree with Deputy Timmins that essential services should be provided for farmers, such as those in regard to permits and the general information which they require to conduct their business. When farmers require permits to go to the mart they contact their local office and usually get a very helpful service. Phone and fax services that are usually provided have been out of commission in a number of regions and, unfortunately, since the placing of pickets due to the industrial action no service has been made available. Such issues should not arise when we have partnership programmes. Partnership deals are about precluding this type of action. I urge the staff concerned to call off their action and, in so far as it is possible, we will try to find a resolution to it.
Does the Minister agree that his Department's personnel section should have intervened before yesterday?
That is the point.
Some 150 people had already been suspended, which was not helpful in any way and was probably the direct cause of the escalation of the strike. Will the Minister intervene personally to ensure that this dispute is resolved, for the sake of the staff involved and the farming community?
There is a difficulty in so far as my intervention is concerned. The scope is limited because we have to accept the terms of the partnership programmes. The deal involved is specific and what the union is seeking is outside the terms of the partnership programme. The union is demanding that we increase the number of posts at staff officer and executive officer levels. The figure that has been mentioned to my officials goes way beyond the PPF, which, as I said, is specific in this regard.
Am I right in saying that this dispute predates the partnership agreements? It is a long-running one that should have been resolved but has not been.
It predates the current partnership arrangement but it is contrary to both the PPF and Sustaining Progress agreements.
The Minister's position is unclear. In reply to a supplementary question from Deputy Upton he said the response to the dispute is limited because of the PPF and the new programme. He also said that if the strike is put on hold he would do what is possible to resolve it.
If he had prior knowledge that the strike was imminent why did he not involve himself at an earlier stage, along the lines suggested by Deputy Upton and others, instead of bolting the door when the horse was gone? To what extent does he think he will be effective in attempting to slam the door now that the horse is gone?
The scope for any deal or resolution is very limited because it has to be within the terms of the PPF, which was the agreement in operation when the difficulties arose. It also contravenes the Sustaining Progress agreement which is currently in operation. The PPF specifies that no cost-increasing claim can be made by trade unions or employees for improvements in pay and conditions, other than those set out in the partnership programme itself. It commits employers, trade unions and employees to promote industrial harmony and precludes strikes and other forms of industrial action. Nothing could be clearer than that.
The Minister can do nothing at all in that case.
I am constrained in what I can do by the terms of the agreement which was entered into in good faith and in good measure.
I was able to put down a question last week because I knew this dispute was coming. This is causing, and will cause, great hardship for farmers. The Minister can see the frustration of the staff. He praised the commitment of the staff over the years and I agree that they are very helpful and work very hard. Can he not understand the frustration of staff in the west of Ireland when they are promoted by the Department and asked to go back to Dublin after they fought so hard to get out of the city. This issue is really about promotion. It is nothing new.
There are two Ministers of State present and I would like to see the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, protecting the west of Ireland and not allowing this to happen.
We did decentralise.
People in Mayo are now being affected because they do not have promotion chances. What is the Minister going to do about this? Is he going to allow it to develop? Did he sign off on the Teagasc deal today? That is the next dispute that will involve farmers as they enter a busy time of the year. People's payments will be affected, and the time will come, and rightly so, when others will not pass the picket. That is the next danger. Is the Minister going to get directly involved? If so, when? What is the situation regarding the Teagasc offices?
We have had a partnership arrangement in this country since 1987 and it has worked extremely well. The whole mechanism for sorting out issues like this when they arise is in place and I urge the unions concerned to use those mechanisms. There should be no way in which strikes occur, pickets are put in place and farmers are prevented from going about their normal business. I call upon the unions to use existing mechanisms to resolve this dispute.
Did the Minister sign off on the Teagasc deal today? He had to give it his approval.
I ask the Minister whether he has signed off on the Teagasc deal. Does he realise the serious consequences of that whole situation for the smaller and less-educated farmers who depend on their local Teagasc offices to fill in many forms? The closure of the office in Bailieborough, County Cavan, for instance, is an absolute disaster for that area. An office that has cost the Department no money is to be sold off.
The real issue, however, is the effect that the dispute in the Department of Agriculture and Food will have on farm incomes, if it lasts. The Minister has agreed with my colleague, Deputy Timmins, that the dispute will have implications for the issuing of permits to move cattle to factories or elsewhere. In the long-term, if the dispute is allowed to continue, when will farmers get paid the subsidies, premiums and so on that now literally constitute 100% of their incomes? The Minister was well aware that this situation has been emerging for quite a long time, and not just over the past few weeks.
The Department refused to extend my local office, so the number of jobs in it are limited and the scope for promotion small. It is wrong that an office structure already in place and that could be improved very easily was not extended to bring in the necessary staff for proper upgrading. I had to get the then Minister of State, Deputy Deenihan, to intervene in another dispute there six years ago, and nothing has happened since the extension that took place then. There are real problems that must be dealt with in order to allow personnel in these offices to achieve what they see as their entitlement to upgrading within their own areas and not have to travel to Dublin or elsewhere. This is an urgent issue, and if the Minister cannot intervene directly, then I urge him to do so through his staff. These are the bread and butter issues of rural Ireland and we cannot afford to allow these offices to stay closed indefinitely. That is what will happen if no effort is made on behalf of the Minister. Ultimately, the buck stops with the Minister. We can talk about partnership agreements and so on, but it is the personnel working under the Minister who will actually negotiate and decide this matter. Can the Minister intervene diplomatically and offer these people the necessary assurances to get them back to work?
The whole basis for partnership programmes is that a deal is agreed, after negotiations, among the partners to adhere to a certain process and mechanism for doing things for a long period of time. That arrangement has not been observed in this case by the union concerned. I regret that very much. It would be inappropriate for the relevant Minister in any Department to start wading into industrial relations matters under the partnership arrangement. That would not work. The only way of resolving this dispute is for the unions to call on their members to resume their duties. Staff within the personnel section of the Department of Agriculture and Food would then be happy to sit down with them and try to bring about a speedy resolution to this problem.
If this dispute continues or, worse still, escalates, there will undoubtedly be consequences in terms of hardship for farmers. There will be environmental consequences if, for instance, the REP scheme is affected. There may be animal welfare issues. I ask the Minister whether there are any contingency plans to take account of those potential consequences should the dispute escalate and fail to be resolved.
Why do I not get any sense of great urgency coming from the other side of the House on this issue? There is confusion as to whether this dispute is in breach of the partnership agreement, but the latest partnership agreement is only a couple of hours old, so it must be fresh in the minds of everybody, including the Minister, as to when the agreement was reached. I cannot but conclude that no attempt will be made to resolve the dispute because it is a self-serving exercise for the Department and will save it money. There will be a breakdown in the system of payments in affected regions, which will meet the requirements of the Department. I ask the Minister to give an undertaking to the House that this is not the purpose of the exercise. If it is, it is a very peculiar way of going about business.
I regret that this dispute has occurred and that it is causing hardship to farmers and the agricultural industry in particular. I regret the fact that when personnel staff within the Department of Agriculture and Food met the unions as late as yesterday afternoon, they were unable to find a resolution to the problem. There are mechanisms to resolve this matter, and they are the mechanisms established under the partnership arrangements. I call on the unions and the members concerned to seek urgently to address the problems through those mechanisms.
I plead with the Minister, through whatever procedure chosen by his Department, to make contact with the unions tomorrow to try to resolve this dispute in the next 24 hours. Farmers have suffered enough and cannot put up with any more hardship. To be fair, the relevant staff at the Department do an excellent job and have been loyal to the Minister, the Department and the Government over the years. When they have been asked in the past to do overtime to organise payments and other difficult tasks, they did the job for the Department on most occasions. I ask the Minister not to let this dispute escalate and to immediately have the relevant parties within his Department sit down with the unions and resolve this dispute in order to be fair to the people, particularly those in rural Ireland.
The Minister talks about decentralisation, but that will not work unless it is based upon fairness. The people involved in the dispute are rearing families and have other commitments. They do not want to be on strike. They want to be working and to get their salaries next week, but they also want fair play from the Minister and his Department. They are not getting that at the moment. I ask the Minister, as soon as he leaves this House, to have his officials contact the unions to try to sit down and resolve the dispute.
I have said many times in this House that the staff of the Department of Agriculture and Food are exceptional and do work above and beyond the call of duty. They take telephone calls from Deputies and try to sort out—
They are not the worst, in fairness.
They go to information meetings at night, sometimes held in draughty old halls. They are great at sending out cheques in the post to farmers. Some €1.6 billion in such payments were made in 2002, and they carried out this task on time. Of course I would like to see the dispute resolved, and I would like to see the unions asking their members to do this through the normal channels and processes. Our personnel people had a lengthy meeting yesterday evening. I would like to see them sitting down and sorting this matter out.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.