The Taoiseach said then that he did not want compulsory arbitration, that he was against it. We were dealing with the situation in 1961 which required an emergency measure. That difficulty was overcome and as a result a tribunal was appointed to see if we could avoid those difficulties arising in the future. Busy people were asked to spend their time on that tribunal. They considered the problems for some months. They came forward with recommendations. One of those recommendations was that the Board of the ESB and the unions should sit down and agree on conditions of service generally. There are various unions in the ESB and the tribunal recommended that they should all sit down and lay down conditions of service and rates of pay. That was a very sensible contribution towards solving a very difficult problem. There are a great number of unions involved. That agreement was worked out and it was signed. What did the Minister do in relation to the other main proposal of the tribunal, that is that the two tribunals should be merged in one? It was considered in 1961 that the two tribunals were at the root of the trouble in the ESB but what did the Minister do about this? He did nothing. Senator FitzGerald has already said that because of the circumstances of their employment the strike weapon of those workers is so powerful, because they are employed in the ESB, that it cannot be used. I suggest the ESB have behaved deliberately in those circumstances. They know the power of the strike weapon. They are not prepared to co-operate with those workers in those circumstances. We know that there are fitters employed with similar skills in other concerns and it has been agreed, and the employers have agreed, that there should be special additional rates of pay because of the skills involved.
We are inclined to think of a fitter as a man who goes along opening and tightening nuts and bolts, which is ridiculous. Fitters are highly skilled craftsmen. Their claim has been in since December, 1964, and the Board, with the Minister behind them, have dilly-dallied and behaved in this reactionary way instead of solving the problem before it came to this head. What are the workers supposed to do? Are they supposed to wait another ten years to talk effectively to the Board? One of the complaints is that they never meet the executive of the Board, only a personnel officer who goes to and fro and comes back with a message from the Board. This is insulting to the people who are attempting to negotiate a settlement.
I lay particular stress on the Minister sitting here. A tribunal was appointed five years ago to look at the problem and the Minister has not acted in the responsible way he should have. I know what the Minister for Transport and Power has been up to because I have experience of that same gentleman in other semi-State bodies. We in the trade union movement have been very conscious that one of the difficulties in trying to negotiate with employers in recent years has been because the leadership, which was originally reasonably progressive, has got into the hands of reactionary elements among the employers, among them representatives of semi-State undertakings governed by and responsible to the Minister for Transport and Power.
That same Minister tells us he occasionally meets representatives of the semi-State undertakings, the ESB, CIE and Aer Lingus, and that he talks to them about their problems. I know, and the Minister here knows, that it goes much further than that—that that Minister directs the policies of these undertakings, that they cannot do anything without his approval—yet he will say when questioned in the Dáil about them that he has no function. That has been happening. I know the people in the semi-State undertakings are embarrassed by the policies they are forced to adopt by the Minister for Transport and Power.
I shall give the Minister for Industry and Commerce another instance, of which he may be aware. The situation in CIE is that the Minister for Transport and Power has ignored completely what the Houses of the Oireachtas have said and decided. The legislation in relation to CIE lays down that that body, in conducting their affairs, shall have regard to the maintenance of reasonable conditions for their employees. The Oireachtas wrote that into the legislation—reasonable conditions of service for the employees. We interpret as reasonable what has applied or should apply in other similar employments. That Minister has come along and said, in spite of what the Labour Court or the internal machinery recommend as reasonable, that the Board of CIE must disregard that and refuse to give the conditions laid down in legislation.
That is an example of the reactionary attitude of the Minister for Transport and Power—the way he has been going on outside the Houses of the Oireachtas, utilising the semi-State undertakings for the sake of bringing pressure to bear on the trade unions, provoking strikes in many cases. This prompts the question: have the workers suddenly changed their habits, have they become different to what they were in previous years? Why all these strikes? It is because the employers have not been prepared to face up to the problems and they have been assisted and, I think, encouraged in many cases by the Minister for Transport and Power.
Here we have the situation in which the ESB are in difficulties and because of those difficulties the whole country is in a state of crisis and we are asked to approach the problem and attempt to solve it along certain lines. The lines are ridiculous. They are an insult to the House, an insult to the Government, an insult to the State. We are back again to compulsory arbitration and we are for the first time approaching forced labour.
According to the Bill, people will be compelled to work for the ESB even if they do not wish to. Is the Minister serious in suggesting that he can get Irish workers to work against their will, that their trade unions will be fined, that the workers will be fined and imprisoned for non-payment of fines, that they will be compelled to work? The Minister knows we all have within us that bit of Irish, that we are not inclined to tolerate being pressurised. We will take leadership, we will take guidance, but we have not been getting leadership from the Government. We have not been getting it from the semi-State undertakings, from the Minister for Transport and Power. I am inclined to ask what faith workers have in the Minister for Transport and Power. I think it is nil.
Now we are asked to approve this measure which will compel the workers, because of the power they have in the strike weapon, to work against their will, where the Board, encouraged and I am sure directed by the Minister for Transport and Power, act the dog and will not agree to have reasonable negotiations on this problem. Let me remind the House again that this claim was lodged in December, 1964, and that it has not been disposed of. I suppose many Senators will assume that because these men are very skilled people working for the ESB who pay such good salaries that the rate of pay is very good. In fact it starts at £13 10s 1d for a fitter working a 42½ hour week in Dublin. After five years it goes to £15 0s 2d. Thereafter, increments start —I shall not bother the House with details—and after 20 years there is a further pound, bringing the maximum wage up to £16 0s 2d for a 42½ hour week in Dublin. Elsewhere, a 45 hour week operates and the rates are slightly better, going up to £15 17s 10d after five years and then, after 20 years, there is a further pound a week. These are not extraordinary rates of pay.
Many Senators will agree that they are low rates for very skilled craftsmen working for a concern who can afford to pay workers properly and give reasonable conditions of service. That is not the whole story, and this is the kernel of the problem. These workers see a supervisor over them, a skilled fitter also, who has been fortunate enough to have been promoted. They see him getting £34 a week, paid by the same Board. He has the same skill but he is a supervisor. He also comes under the other tribunal. I do not say £34 is reasonable or unreasonable but in relation to the rates I have been talking about it is significant.
A supervisor has more than double the skilled craftsman under him—a fantastic situation. I could not find it anywhere else. Is it reasonable to tell those workers: "Look, you cannot process this claim; you cannot have your right of taking strike action; after nearly two years you still cannot go any further with this, you will have to leave it alone because your right to strike is so great it could give rise to such hardship it would be disastrous to the whole community. You will have to suffer." It is the worker here who is suffering.
I agree we should not have a situation in which the whole community should suffer. Equally, I do not agree that because of this situation you must make the workers suffer. You are seeking compulsory arbitration; they cannot take strike action and they must work. I am saying that this is a ridiculous situation. It is a step backward in regard to industrial trade union negotiations here in this country; it will not serve any useful purpose. What we want now is leadership, a word of encouragement and an appeal to these people to try to settle their differences, together with taking the Minister for Transport and Power off the employers' back. Let them go ahead and reach a settlement without the man in the background over in Kildare Street keeping his finger on them and preventing them reaching a reasonable settlement of this problem.
It is unfortunate, of course, that we have the wrong Minister here tonight. I know he is a very reasonable, nice gentleman and the man who is really behind this whole mess is not here at all. I would much prefer to be able to say these things to the Minister responsible but he is not here. However, I have to say them in relation to this measure because, as I said, we had the same problem previously and we had the Taoiseach here in this House dealing with it. Then certain action was taken and the Minister responsible has done nothing at all about it. I know he is making many speeches around the country; I do not think that has helped at all. It seems to annoy everybody when that Minister makes a speech. He is unfortunate in that respect; that cannot be helped. What can be helped is that the Government maintain a Minister in that position, who has twice brought this country to the verge of disaster and has done nothing at all about it. What did he do about the pickets? He phoned the President of Congress to ask him to do something about it. Was that when he came back from America? I am saying we have a ridiculous situation here. This sort of measure will not solve the difficulties of the ESB. What we want is to get rid of the Minister for Transport and Power, allow the Board of the ESB to negotiate properly with these people to see that they get justice and remove this grievance where you have a skilled craftsman being paid about £16 and a supervisor over him £34.
There are other important features of this Bill. I promise to be brief as I am sure many of my colleagues will wish to speak as well. They will not have much time. I am afraid that by the time Fine Gael get in on their futile amendment we will not have much time after that. I want to suggest that what is being done is in contravention of the ILO Convention; it is also in contravention of the ILO Convention regarding forced labour. I want to suggest that it is a ridiculous situation that this Government, after abiding by those Conventions, should put through this measure and, perhaps, find this brought before the Bar, the ILO or whatever is the appropriate way of doing these things in regard to the situation where people can be forced to work. I know the Minister will say: "Well look, we will not bring in this measure unless it is necessary" but we know, of course, that he is rushing this through in a situation where a strike is already in operation and where negotiations are continuing. I do not think that a hasty measure like this, ill-conceived and which will give rise to great difficulties in many respects, will help these negotiations or will result in immediate settlement.
As I said before, we are all Irishmen. Why should we hold the gun up to these people and say:—"You will be fined and imprisoned". What would help far more is if the Government were to say:—"Look, hold back on this, get ahead with your negotiations"—pulling the Minister for Transport and Power off the back of the Board of the ESB. I hope that they would, in those circumstances, settle this matter within the next few days.