Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 24 Sep 2009

Vol. 690 No. 2

Adjournment Debate.

Industrial Disputes.

Deputy Chris Andrews

I am concerned by the length of the dispute between Marine Terminals Limited, MTL, and the men and women working for the company in Dublin Port. This dispute has resulted in pickets being placed on port installations by the workers who are opposed to the unilateral imposition of mass redundancies and cuts in pay and conditions by management. This dispute is in its 13th week and MTL has exacerbated the situation by seeking several injunctions in the High Court against the people working there, trade union leaders and members of the local community.

The company's refusal to engage in full industrial relations procedures has severely aggravated the situation and is damaging the image of the port. I welcome the presence of the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Calleary, who as a former member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment is showing a great interest in his brief. I call on him to ensure that all the dispute resolution machinery available, the industrial relations infrastructure, is deployed to resolve this dispute and ensure that MTL engages in a meaningful way, which it has not so far done in this dispute. It must comply fully with the employment law of this State.

MTL has shown a complete disregard for the workers and for employment law. The men and women involved are not firebrands or radicals. They are ordinary people whom I know, living in Ringsend. They just want to get on with their daily lives, doing an honest day's work. John Whittaker, who owns Peel Ports, is worth £1.3 billion yet he shows contempt for Irish legislation and work practices, and the local community around the port. He wants to ride roughshod over these people and make more money to add to his estimated £1.3 billion. It is sickening. It is probably that sort of arrogance that has led us into the difficulty we face now. People like him have ruined the banking system and the property market.

On 27 August two men, Eddie Byrne from Ringsend, and Gerry Brannock, were on boats on the Liffey when small boat-owners staged a protest in support of the MTL workers. Both were named in proceedings by the Dublin Port Company when it sought an injunction against the protestors in the High Court. These two men have committed their lives to working for the community and are still involved in local community events. They are old age pensioners. Mr. Eddie Byrne is diabetic, suffers from various blood pressure issues and has an underlying heart condition. He has to take up to 14 different types of medication every day. Mr. Gerry Breathnach also suffers from blood circulation problems, has high blood pressure and had a stroke several years ago.

Compassion must be shown in the attempt to pursue these men for costs because they are pensioners and are not able to deal with it. Commonsense must prevail and the action of chasing these men for costs must be dropped. The workers understand there may have to be redundancies but there has been no attempt to discuss such redundancies and this is not the way business should be done.

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Deputy Dara Calleary)

I thank Deputy Andrews for raising the matter and acknowledge his constant contact on this matter over recent weeks.

The industrial dispute involving workers from Marine Terminals Limited has resulted from workers' concerns over the company's initial cost-cutting proposals involving 13 compulsory redundancies and the introduction of new contracts of employment for the remaining workforce. I understand that a number of workers have voluntarily availed of the redundancy offer. The company offered a severance package of two weeks pay per year of service, in addition to statutory entitlements. The new contracts proposed by the company would involve a reduction in pay and allowances averaging, according to company figures, €15,000 per worker. Up to 50 workers, who are represented by SIPTU's MPGWU Branch, have been involved in the dispute.

On 20 May 2009, following two months of local talks, the parties attended at the Labour Relations Commission for conciliation talks. However, I understand there was disagreement about the presence at talks of security personnel accompanying the employer representative and, accordingly, the talks did not proceed.

Subsequently, the union referred a complaint to the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment under the Protection of Employment (Exceptional Collective Redundancies and Related Matters) Act, 2007 which was referred to the redundancy panel. The panel advised the Minister to seek the opinion of the Labour Court. The Labour Court's opinion was that the 13 compulsory redundancies were legitimate redundancies. Shortly afterwards, these workers were made redundant by the company. However, the court felt that if workers were made redundant for not accepting new contracts of employment, as had been threatened by the company, an exceptional collective redundancy situation could arise.

I understand that the company subsequently introduced short-time working and replaced workers who reported sick with workers from elsewhere in the group. I understand that the company may have provided living and sleeping facilities at the MTL terminal for some or all of these workers, who come from Belfast and Scotland.

On 3 July 2009, pickets were mounted at Marine Terminal and have been ongoing since. Protest marches have also been organised. According to the union, the company issued P45s to more of the workers. Talks in mid-August failed to progress the issues in dispute and the company rejected a proposal to refer the issues to the Labour Court.

Two injunctions were obtained by MTL against the union and named individuals. The first was obtained in early July and limited the picket at the company's cargo terminal to communicating information, or peacefully persuading people to abstain from work. The second, obtained at the end of August, resulted from allegations of intimidation and harassment of workers. Following a protest which involved boats attempting to blockade the port on 27 August, Dublin Port Company obtained an injunction against a number of people. I assume these are the people to whom Deputy Andrews referred.

Talks were held at the Labour Relations Commission in late August and early September. Unfortunately, no agreement was possible and the union referred the issues to the Labour Court, pursuant to section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. Under this provision the union would be bound by the court's subsequent recommendation.

I understand that the court has scheduled a hearing for the afternoon of Monday 28 September and has invited the company to attend. The experience and expertise of the court, in my view, now offers the best avenue for resolving the issues in dispute. I urge the company to agree to attend the Labour Court hearing and for both parties to engage fully in the process. I urge the parties to put their difficulties and differences behind them and approach the court hearing in good faith and with a view to accepting the outcome of the process, namely, the Labour Court's recommendation.

Ireland's system of industrial relations is, essentially, voluntary in nature and responsibility for the resolution of industrial disputes is a matter for the parties involved. The system of industrial relations in Ireland is designed to help and support parties in their efforts to resolve their differences, rather than imposing a solution on the parties to an industrial dispute. Responsibility for the settlement of this dispute rests, ultimately, is with the parties themselves. The obligation lies with the parties to seek to resolve their differences and to carry their efforts through to completion.

Deputy Finian McGrath

I thank the Chairman for giving me the opportunity to raise this important matter in the Adjournment debate. Today I support the Coca-Cola workers who are in dispute. I speak as a former Coca-Cola worker who worked on the company's lorries as a helper for many years. I urge the Minister of State to support the SIPTU members concerned and I urge the company to listen to the genuine grievances of the staff. This is the fifth week of the dispute and the company will not listen to the Labour Court recommendations.

At a meeting in Liberty Hall in August it was decided by the SIPTU strike committee that pickets would remain in place at Coca-Cola Hellenic Bottling Company, HBC, Ireland depots in Dublin, Cork, Tuam, and Tipperary, because of the company's refusal to address the issues at the centre of the dispute, including its decision to outsource the jobs of 130 distribution and warehouse staff.

Coca-Cola HBC revealed profits of €201 million in the six months to the end of June and has begun a process of restructuring in Ireland, Austria and Italy, cutting almost 5,000 jobs since 2008. Coca-Cola Hellenic Bottling Company Limited is a Greek-based company in which the US Coca-Cola company has a 23% stake.

The strike committee has always said that any discussions to resolve the dispute must be without preconditions and that the company must follow agreed industrial relations procedures and allow all parties to air their views. This dispute will continue for as long as these workers are denied the right to be employed by Coca-Cola HBC. I am appalled at the manner in which a multibillion euro global company is treating 130 Irish workers. This is before we have the vote on the Lisbon treaty and the rights of workers. It is happening in Ireland today, pre-Lisbon.

Coco-Cola HBC has threatened and intimidated these workers into accepting a redundancy package which they do not want. The company has threatened workers with injunctions and, to date, two workers on the picket lines have been injured, one requiring hospitalisation, as a result of having been hit by a vehicle that crossed the peaceful picket lines.

It is ironic that in 50 years of relationships with SIPTU and the former ITGWU there was never the need for any form of industrial action. The new management's attitude to industrial relations in the company and towards the institutions of the State is a breach of all previous agreements which have served both parties very well for more than 50 years.

I pay tribute to, and to support the staff of the Tuam plant. I commend Eugene Carty and the SIPTU members for their dedication, efforts, dignity and patience over the past five weeks. I stand by them in the Dáil today. They have a genuine grievance and all our industrial relations machinery has proved them correct.

It is not good enough for the company to act in an arrogant manner, especially in the current economic climate. I call on the management team to meet soon and resolve this matter. It is a blatant injustice to leave these workers out in the cold for five weeks. I urge the Minister of State to use any clout he has to force the company to move. Stagnation is not an option. All that the SIPTU members want is fair play and justice.

I urge all Members of the Dáil and Seanad to support the SIPTU Coca-Cola HBC strikers and do their best to end this dispute.

Deputy Dara Calleary

I thank the Deputy for raising this important matter and I also acknowledge recent representations I have received from Deputy Michael Kitt.

The background to this dispute is that last June, Coca-Cola HBC announced its decision to outsource those remaining elements of its distribution and warehousing operations which had previously been done in-house, affecting 130 of its employees spread across six sites in Dublin, Cork, Killarney, Tipperary town, Tuam and Waterford. The company allowed a period for consultation to examine any viable alternatives to outsourcing. This period of consultation did not result in an agreement, with the sides being too far apart on the wages that would apply if an in-house operation was maintained. The company has said that the workers could choose between taking redundancy or transferring to the three new outsourced contractors on the same terms and conditions. The three employers to whom the workers had been due to transfer are now the permanent providers to Coca-Cola of the services that had been provided by the 130 workers. SIPTU has questioned whether the same conditions would be provided by the three new employers. The union argued that outsourcing could still be avoided through an internal rationalisation.

The issues were then referred to the Labour Relations Commission. However, efforts by the LRC to bring the parties together for discussions were unsuccessful as the different agendas on both sides did not leave room for mutual agreement. The company was willing to talk about a transfer of engagements to outsourcing companies and an accompanying redundancy package. SIPTU was not amenable, however, to pursuit of the outsourcing option.

The union served notice of strike action, which began on 27 August. This was followed on 8 September by the company's implementation of its decision to outsource the warehousing operations to three new third-party providers. A revised severance offer was subsequently made by the company. The company held off on issuing redundancy notices for a week after 8 September, to allow workers to ballot on the new offer. The union did not recommend acceptance of the offer, however, and it was rejected by the workers. Redundancy notices were subsequently issued by the company.

A Labour Court hearing was conducted on 18 September under section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, which makes the court's recommendation binding on the party that brought the case, in this case SIPTU. I understand the union informed the court it was seeking the implementation of change along the lines of the SIPS, single island production system deal that had been negotiated between the company and the union in recent years. It also requested a feasibility study on the Ballycoolin plant to see how many jobs could be maintained there on existing terms and conditions. The company informed the court that the Ballycoolin operation had already been outsourced. It claimed also that the final severance offer had been rejected by the union, even before a ballot of the workers took place. It maintained that management had acted in accordance with all relevant legislation and best industrial relations practice. The court issued its recommendation on Monday, 21 September. While the Labour Court's recommendation is still strictly confidential to the parties, I understood from media reports that the Labour Court has recommended that the company should offer a redundancy package along the lines envisaged in the SIPS programme. The company's operations in the Republic and Northern Ireland had previously been restructured in the context of the change programmes negotiated with management through programmes such as SIPS. I understand also that the court recommended that the company and the union involved, SIPTU, should have further discussions on the union's proposal to have a feasibility study conducted in relation to the Ballycoolin site in Dublin. About half of the 130 workers are based there, with the remainder in five other sites around Ireland.

The Labour Court recommendation in this case is binding on the union and the 130 workers involved, but not on the company. In this context, I understand that the company is still considering the recommendation. In my view, the experience and expertise of the Labour Court undoubtedly offers the best avenue for resolving the issues in this difficult dispute. In this context, I urge the company to give positive consideration to the court's recommendation on the dispute. In view of the good industrial relations climate within which significant steps have been taken hitherto on an agreed basis and as referred to by Deputy McGrath, I urge both sides to bring the same spirit to bear on the current situation in the interest of achieving an agreed outcome.

Juvenile Offenders.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

I appreciate the presence of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government but I am a little concerned that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, is not taking this matter and I would like to hear his views. I hope Deputy John Gormley will engage with some of the questions I am posing and respond to them and not just read a prepared script.

We are all aware of the growing problem of juvenile crime and of the many communities which are plagued by anti-social activities some of which can be very serious and is often engaged in by people under the age of 18 as well as over the age of 18. Yesterday in this House my party leader, Deputy Gilmore, raised the issue of the closure of the Shanganagh facility and called for it to be reopened, given the demand that exists for places. It is very frustrating for public representatives, gardaí and communities that there is an insufficient number of detention places for young offenders. Many of us are familiar with the situation in which one is aware of particular individuals in our communities who are wreaking havoc on their neighbours and against whom there may be dozens of charges yet they are left to strut around their communities because the justice system cannot accommodate them.

Against this background it is of particular concern that there are plans to close the excellent facility of the Finglas Child and Adolescent Centre. Over the past 37 years this centre has provided excellent service to the courts, the youth justice service and previously to the Department of Education and Science in the area of child care and assessments. One has to ask what is being put in its place.

The centre has at times looked after very disturbed children who could not be cared for by any other statutory agency. Its record is outstanding and has been complimented many times by the Judiciary. It was inspected by the social service inspectorate of HIQA and received glowing reports as one of the best run detention schools in the country, having managed to achieve the correct balance of detention and child care.

The report of the working group appointed by the Irish Youth Justice Service recommends that further work be carried out over the next three years until the new development at Oberstown is complete to identify and develop the appropriate range of assessment services for detained children in the new facility at Oberstown and for all other young people, offending or non-offending, in the community. It also recommends that the Finglas centre will need to continue in operation until such time as the remand, assessment and committal services currently provided there can be provided at Oberstown.

What plans are in place for the orderly transfer of the services of the Finglas Child and Adolescent Centre to the Oberstown campus, which now appears to be imminent? Under the present management of the director, Colette Walsh, the staff of the Finglas centre are recognised as some to the best qualified to care and assess children. The report of the working group states:

The Working Group recognises that the staff in FCAC have a wealth of experience and expertise in child care, managing behavioural problems, delivering offending behaviour programmes and in particular, in carrying out assessments. They represent a significant number of well trained and well qualified people in whom the State have invested heavily and who have invested their time and commitment in working with challenging and difficult young people. It is vital that the youth justice and child care services do not lose this expertise.

How then does the Minister hope to keep this staff in the service, as recommended by the working group? There are currently 21 staff with fixed term contacts. Are these contracts to be renewed on 30 September 2009? Will all the current full-time staff be accommodated on the Oberstown campus? Are there arrangements to allow current full-time staff to avail of early retirement so the people on short-term contracts can take up those posts and the expertise will not be lost? In the area of child care, are the children on assessment to be accommodated separately on the Oberstown campus, as required by law and best practice and as recommended by the working group? Will the Minister say how many child care places for young offenders will be available in the State? The indications are that there are currently only about 50 places while the recommended number is 167. These are critical issues for tackling crime which both the Minister and I experience in our constituencies. Unless we have the accommodation to provide adequate assessment and remand places for young offenders we will lose the battle against crime.

I would welcome the Minister's replies to those questions.

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy John Gormley)

I thank Deputy Shortall for raising this issue. I am not the Minister with responsibility for this area so I will read a prepared script. I hope it goes some way to answering some of the questions she has raised.

The future of the children detention school located in Finglas cannot be divorced from the future development of children detention schools services generally. The Irish Youth Justice Service, IYJS, which is an executive office of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and part of the Office of the Minister for Children operates the four children detention schools. Three of the schools, Trinity House, Oberstown Boys and Oberstown Girls, are sited on a 65 acre site in Lusk, County Dublin, and the fourth detention school, the Finglas Child and Adolescent Centre, is located on a separate site in Finglas, Dublin 11. The four detention schools have a capacity for 77 children and currently have 38 places occupied. There are also approximately 60 boys aged between 16 and 18 years currently detained in St. Patrick's Institution, a centre for young offenders aged 16 to 21, within the Mountjoy Prison complex.

In March 2008, the Government considered the report of a cross-departmental expert group on the future development of children detention services. The Government approved the recommendation of this group to develop new national integrated children detention facilities on the campus at Oberstown, Lusk, in order to facilitate the expansion of the detention school model to 16 and 17 year old boys, who are currently held in St Patrick's Institution. The Government also approved the establishment of a working group to consider the future of the site and the future role for the Finglas Child and Adolescent Centre, FCAC. This group was established with representatives from Departments and agencies with responsibility for the provision of services for offending and vulnerable children in the welfare and justice systems.

The working group completed its work and presented its report to the Minister of State with responsibility for children and youth affairs. The Minister of State has decided to accept the group's recommendations, including the following:

The planned new children detention school development at Oberstown will provide remand, assessment and detention services for all young offenders, boys and girls, under 18 years of age. It will provide all of the services currently provided by the FCAC.

The working group is of the view that the experience and skills of the FCAC staff will form a necessary part of the integrated detention school in Oberstown and recommends that the staff and services in FCAC transfer to the new development.

The development of FCAC as a hybrid facility for both care and offending young people would not be permissible under law and would not address any gap in services.

The working group does not see a continuing stand-alone role for residential assessments at the FCAC.

The buildings on the FCAC site are not suitable for long-term use as children's detention facilities. They would require significant mechanical, electrical and structural work simply to be maintained, even in the short term, for any purpose. The estimated costs for replacement of the buildings, which would be required for any long-term facilities, are prohibitively high. The working group does not see a long-term use in the area of children's detention services for the site and recommends that the site be returned to the OPW to determine its appropriate future use.

The boards of management, director and staff were informed of the decision. Discussions are ongoing with staff and their representatives to implement the decision and to facilitate a smooth transition. The Minister of State is mindful of the need to finalise future plans as this will have implications for the staff currently employed there. The matter has been referred by the staff unions to the Labour Relations Commission and discussions took place there today.

The IYJS is responsible for providing safe and secure accommodation for children detained by the courts. The Minister of State with responsibility for children and youth affairs is satisfied that IYJS will be in a position to provide sufficient places within the existing detention school facilities to meet the needs of the courts for the detention of young offenders and, where appropriate, assessment.

Dublin Mayor.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

I appreciate the Ceann Comhairle allowing me to raise this very important issue and I am pleased that the Minister has taken the time from his busy schedule to be here to respond to the matter.

A directly elected mayor of Dublin is at the core of Fine Gael's policies for reform of local government. The proposal is a positive step and I welcomed the Minister's announcement in this regard. So far, the Minister is heavy of rhetoric and light on detail. Coincidentally, my colleague, Deputy Leo Varadkar, raised this matter this morning on the Order of Business. The Tánaiste did not seem to be well briefed as to the Minister's plans or his timetable.

The concept of a directly elected mayor for Dublin has huge potential. This person would, potentially, be responsible for and accountable to almost a third of the population of the country. It would be a hugely esteemed and important position of accountability. As we heard throughout the debate on Private Members' time last night, there is an appetite for accountability in public life, particularly at this time.

We have not yet seen any meaningful progress on this matter. The local government (Dublin mayor) Bill, which is on the Government legislative programme, is only contained in section C, Bills in respect of which heads have yet to be approved by Government. When does the Minister expect the heads of the Bill to be at a point where they could be approved by Cabinet? The plans appear to be in disarray. The heads of Bill have not been agreed but the Minister seems to be confident that elections will be held next summer. It seems to be that the Minister is hoping for the best and that things are not really moving along. The position has potential and should not be allowed to fail due to lack of planning or detail at an early stage.

The proposal can only work if it is introduced in tandem with real and meaningful local government reform, something the Minister has long espoused as being at the core of what he and his party are about. I would like to see some action on this matter. We need clarity. For example, what responsibilities will the mayor have? Can the Minister give a concrete example of the executive powers proposed for the mayor? Will the office be a smokescreen or fig leaf or will it have real and meaningful powers?

What relationship will the mayor have with the four Dublin local authorities? Most people assumed the directly elected mayor would take the place of the Lord Mayor of Dublin. It seems that will not be the case. How will we deal with three country mayors and a city mayor? Where will the mayor live? What about the Mansion House? What role will the mayor have in relation to county managers? Will the county managers be directly accountable to the mayor of Dublin? We need clarity on all these issues.

All local authorities are starved of funding. Budgets have been slashed. What budget will the mayor have? Will he or she have a budget to implement his or her own policies? Will the mayor be able to appoint people to posts of responsibility in health, environmental and waste services? Will the mayor be in a position to appoint a sort of cabinet which would be directly responsible to the mayor? We have no clarity on these issues.

Councils need to plan. A new city council and three new county councils were elected in Dublin in June of this year. How can they plan for the duration of their terms of office? Will the newly appointed mayor be in position for four years or does the Minister intend the mayoral election to take place in tandem with council elections? We need clarity in this regard.

Dublin needs a directly elected mayor. It needs a local government capable of responding to its citizens' needs. I hope that the Minister's proposals for a directly elected mayor will respond to those needs.

Deputy John Gormley

I thank Deputy Creighton for raising this important issue for the people of Dublin. On 12 May, I announced that the Government had decided to introduce a directly elected mayor for the Dublin region in 2010. This decision arises from a commitment in the programme for Government and from the considerations in the Green Paper on local government that I published in April 2008. A central theme of the Green Paper on local government is the need for a renewal of local democratic leadership. The Government's decision to introduce a directly elected mayor will deliver significantly strengthened leadership for the city and region, with enhanced accountability and a direct connection with the citizen.

My Department is drafting the necessary legislation and it is my intention that the mayor will be equipped with a suite of substantial powers across the functions of local government and will have the authority and power to deliver real leadership for the city and region. It is my intention that the mayor will primarily act as a strategic policy maker who will also work to integrate the activities of local government and the wider public service in and across Dublin.

The details of the mayor's responsibilities will be set out in legislation. I envisage that the mayor will have the following roles, namely, setting the framework for the future physical development of Dublin city and region by setting out regional planning guidelines by which local authorities must abide; delivering reliable, sustainable and integrated public transport by leading the Dublin Transport Authority; ensuring the delivery of an environmentally sustainable approach to waste management by proposing and overseeing the implementation of the Dublin region waste management plan; maximising the conservation and efficient use of water resources and the safe treatment of waste water through proposing and overseeing the implementation of the Dublin regional water services plan; promoting a dynamic, enterprising city region renowned for its rich culture and heritage by bringing all key public and private sectors together in a new regional development board; promoting quality housing and sustainable communities; and promoting the protection and enhancement of Dublin's environment. The mayor will primarily be responsible for strategic leadership and oversight of operational implementation. Operational matters including budgets will largely continue to be a responsibility of the Dublin local authorities, subject to close co-operation with the mayor and his or her office.

The Government's decision on the Dublin mayor marks the first phase of the transformation of local government in accordance with the programme for Government. The White Paper that I propose to publish will address a broad suite of local government development and financing matters and will be published following, inter alia, Government consideration of local government financing in light of the report of the Commission on Taxation. It will include the more detailed approach in respect of the mayor, which will be underpinned by the legislation currently in preparation. Given my intention to hold mayoral elections next year, it will be necessary to have the relevant legislation in place well in advance. To these ends, I will bring my legislative proposals to the Government in the coming weeks.

To answer one of the Deputy's questions, where the mayor lives does not matter. I lived in the Mansion House while I was Lord Mayor and Ken Livingstone lived at home. The point is to have a mayor who is not just symbolic, but who has real power.

Future elections will take place in tandem with local elections. For this reason, I would like the first term of the new mayor, whoever he or she may be, to be for four years and thereafter for five years. This is the best way to do it and is the reason I needed to introduce the legislation. The mayor's role will evolve as it did in London, where it has proven to be a significant success.

The Dáil adjourned at 5.25 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 6 October 2009.