Senator Howlin. The Senator has 12 minutes left.
Teachers' Conciliation and Arbitration: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Senator Mullooly on Wednesday, 11 December 1985:
That Seanad Éireann calls on the Government (a) to re-assert their commitment to the agreed procedures of Conciliation and Arbitration for teachers and (b) to enter into immediate discussions with the three teacher unions.
Debate resumed on Amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:
"notes that in keeping with the Government's adherence to the agreed provisions of the Scheme of Conciliation and Arbitration for teachers, steps are being taken to convene a meeting of the Teacher's Conciliation Council to discuss the 25th round of pay increases and other pay-related matters."
—(Senator Dooge.)
When we adjourned this motion on the 18 December last, I was in the process of outlining the view of the Labour Party to the then ongoing situation regarding the teachers' arbitration award. It is fair to say that much has happened since then. I will take the opportunity now of updating the record of this House on the Labour Party's role to date.
I had indicated to the House that an initial meeting took place between representatives of the Parliamentary Labour Party and the teacher's union last November. That meeting was most productive and informative for both parties concerned. We certainly learned with great interest the detailed position of the teacher unions. I felt that we imparted to them the historic stand of the Labour Party on this issue, and issues like the one that we now face. Those of us who were on the delegation reported back to the full Parliamentary Labour Party subsequently and sought the assistance of the parliamentary party and the four Labour Ministers in Cabinet to have the Government position moved on. We remind ourselves that the Government position at that time was a nothing on offer position. The situation was that the Government felt that it was impossible to pay the 10 per cent award simply because the State coffers could not afford it. It is fair to say that that position has altered dramatically. Clearly, the Government have moved significantly from that initial hardline stand. After an exhaustive reappraisal, the Minister for Education, the Minister for the Public Service and the Cabinet collectively offered to phase-in the 10 per cent award over a period of time.
The Parliamentary Labour Party again met the teacher unions on Thursday, 30 January. We had a long and detailed discussion that lasted most of a morning. It was our earnest wish to bridge the gap that still existed at that stage between Government and teachers and to arrive at a situation whereby there would be no disruption of our education system, of our classrooms, of our exams and everything that seemed to be looming up on the horizon at that stage. Twice during that morning meeting the teachers' side requested an adjournment so that they could discuss among themselves their position, think about the information we placed before them and come back to us. Twice the Labour Party delegation withdrew and returned after some time. It was the wish of the Labour Party that these negotiations would result in some middle ground position being arrived at whereby negotiations, between the teachers' union and the Department, then broken off, would be unconditionally reconvened.
Unfortunately, the teachers could not see their way to embarking on further discussions unless the old issue of retrospection was conceded in advance. We tried various packages to see if a neutral position could be arrived at which would encompass the principal wishes of the teachers and address the real financial situation of the country. At the end of that meeting we had reached the crux of the present issue, the teachers genuinely believing that the total amount awarded by the arbitrator must be paid, though in fairness the payment dates were negotiable. The final Government position was, having searched with positive goodwill for an equitable settlement, that there was an offer on the table at that stage which was the absolute limit which the country's finances could endure. This impasse, therefore, led eventually to last week's vote in the other House and, may I say, to the total frustration of the Labour Party, caught between two conflicting and valid positions. The vote of the Dáil is a matter of public record. I wish, however, to state that exhaustive efforts were made by my party prior to that vote to work out a position which would accommodate the principal demands of the teachers within the financial realities faced by the Government. We must all now look to what can be done from here on. Feelings are running high. Many unfortunate things have been said and written with communications flying left and right between Members of these Houses, between the Government, and in the media.
In the end this dispute will be solved by discussions, whether they take place next week, next year or whenever. The situation is more difficult now that Dáil Éireann has taken a view. I would earnestly have wished that an agreement, acceptable to both sides, had been arrived at in advance of last week's deadline. That, alas, was not to be. I hope that we will not now be faced with the chaos that seems to be looming, disruption of classes, disruption of examinations, the mere thought of which has caused great anxiety among the pupils and most specially among those young people facing this years intermediate certificate, group certificate and leaving certificate examinations on which their futures depend. It is poor comfort to those students to state that the Minister for Education is to blame, or that the Minister for the Public Service is to blame, or the Government collectively are to blame, or that Fine Gael or the Labour Party are to blame. The students want their chances. They have a right to expect that their chances will be afforded to them.
In that context I fully accept the motion before the House. It is not too late for discussions to take place. I renew my call for both the teachers' unions and the Minister to try again, to abandon any absolutist positions, to seek common ground and to reopen talks without preconditions. Let us not erect barriers before we get to the table. Let us begin again in the interest of everybody to solve this dispute. In the end this dispute will be resolved. Nobody in this House or the other House would wish it to be prolonged. I hope discussions will begin in the immediate future which will create some sort of common ground.
When I met the teacher negotiators two weeks ago I believed that there was goodwill on both sides. I believe that that goodwill still exists. I believed two weeks ago both sides were not far apart and, despite all that has been said, that the two positions are not fundamentally far apart and can be accommodated. I still believe that. The reality is that as the dispute escalates and involves more and more teachers, more and more parents and more and more pupils, so too will the bitterness escalate. We have missed the first opportunity but it is still not too late. No serious disruptions have taken place. The position taken up by both sides, while firm, is not concreted in. There is still a possibility. Please try again.
Acting Chairman
The Senator has one minute left.
In moving this motion Senator Mullooly quoted extensively from Labour Party policy documents on my party's support for free collective bargaining and free negotiating. Yes, that is my party's policy. We have in government, through the years, been responsible for enacting most of the legislation which today protects workers' rights and conditions. I say that with pride and with conviction. The record is there for anybody to check. This dispute, therefore, is particularly difficult for my party. That difficulty no doubt gives comfort and succour to those who are unencumbered by such things as firm historic policies or principles. Our role in this dispute has been an honourable one. Our discussion last week was a heart-breakingly difficult one, whether that is accepted by all here or not. Our motivation has been, and is, the national interest, the national good. Our numerical strength in these Houses may be explained by the fact that this has always been our bottom line. For good or ill, popular or not, we made a collective decision on the basis of all the facts before us. Our actions, may or may not endear us to the voters, but they are made with a clear conscience and with a clear view of where we, as a party, stand. I support the motion.
Acting Chairman
Senator Fitzsimons has three minutes, as I must call on Senator Mullooly to conclude the debate for the final 15 minutes.
It is difficult to know what to say in three minutes. I would like to pay tribute to the 40,000 teachers who are working with one million of our young citizens, forming their minds, moulding their characters, preparing them to take their place in Irish society. We do not give teachers enough credit for the work they do in large classrooms with meagre resources. Money alone cannot buy the dedication, patience and energy needed for this work.
As a parent with five school-going children, I am very concerned about the strikes which will inevitably take place. We owe a great debt of gratitude to the teachers for the work they have done. Much of that work was unpaid. This relationship now will be destroyed by these forthcoming strikes. This is a tragedy. The children will be frustrated, particularly pupils facing examinations this year.
I understand that the Minister said that she wanted her proposals to be put before the teachers' union members, rather than the proposal for strike action. I would not accept that the teachers are not intelligent enough to know what they are voting on. They are really voting on this question of salary. When I was engaged in the Office of Public Works on a number of occasions when we had conciliation with regard to pay claims we had arbitration as well. I never knew of a situation where the Government reneged on their commitments in this area or where the grounds were shifted afterwards. It is very unfortunate. No matter what way the present proposals by the Minister are presented, it simply means that the arbitration award is not being honoured. What is the use of promises of pay increases in the future to the people who are coming out of college? As the previous speaker said, the problem will be resolved but many people genuinely fear that relationships between the teachers and the community will be broken. This community owes almost everything to the teachers. Society is really built on the work that the teachers have done.
Acting Chairman
Senator, your three minutes are up. Senator Mullooly to conclude.
In deference to the wishes of the Leader of the House, Senator Dooge, and in deference to the wishes of the Minister for Education, we on this side of the House agreed to the suggestion that only one hour of the one-and-a-half hours remaining on this motion would be taken on 18 December. In her contribution to the debate on that day, the Minister for Education stated at column 1043, Volume 110, of the Official Report of Seanad Éireann, 18 December 1985:
I would urge on all concerned that the most important requirement at this point in time is that everything possible should be done to facilitate a resolution of the current dispute with the teachers' unions. This applies to the Government and to myself as Minister for Education. It applies also to this assembly and I believe that the views I have expressed accord with the feeling on both sides of the House. It applies to the teachers unions and to the teachers. It applies to everyone with the interest of education at heart. I, and the Government, are firmly dedicated to the resolution of the dispute. I am satisfied, therefore, that the least said about the situation at this time the better.
We acceded to the wishes of the Minister in the hope and in the belief that she would enter into meaningful talks with the teachers' unions and that a settlement of the dispute would be achieved. If that had happened, this motion would no longer have been relevant but that did not happen. The sad fact of the matter is that the Minister did not make any real effort to reach a settlement with the teachers. Last week when we asked that this motion be taken we were met with all kinds of fabricated excuses. The real reason, of course, was that the Acting Leader of the House did not order this motion because he did not want it to be seen that the Labour Party had not the courage to defy the Fine Gael Whip and that they had earlier that day taken a decision to renege on their oft stated commitment to the principle of free collective bargaining.
You did not want it yourself.
On the Order of Business today, we on this side of the House were prepared to waive our right to the time remaining for discussion on this motion, provided that the Government side were agreeable to allow a one and a half hour debate on the closure of St. Patrick's Hospital, Castlerea, and St. Dympna's Hospital, Carlow. We took this decision because of the fact that the Government's position in relation to the scheme of conciliation and arbitration for teachers is now very clear after last week's vote in the other House. The Government, by their actions last week, showed their contempt for teachers and for the teachers' conciliation and arbitration machinery.
You reneged on the teachers of Ireland today.
The Government have also shown that they are not interested in entering into meaningful discussions with the teachers' unions at this time. During the debate on the Order of Business this morning, there were several references to hypocrisy. I hope during the course of my reply to this debate on this motion to refer to some of the real hypocrisy which manifested itself during the course of this debate.
More than two months have elapsed since the debate on this motion began. I would like to remind Members of the terms of the motion, which reads:
"That Seanad Éireann calls on the Government (a) to re-assert their commitment to the agreed procedures of Conciliation and Arbitration for teachers and (b) to enter into immediate discussions with the three teacher unions."
The motion was submitted at a time when the dispute had already begun to escalate. What it sought was straightforward, clear and precise. It did not seek to tie the Minister's hands. It did not lay down any pre-conditions in relation to the talks or the discussions which it called for. It was worded in such a way that all Members of this House would have no difficulty in supporting it.
In proposing the motion I outlined the reasons for the series of one-day strikes which had closed down schools throughout the country during the months of October and November. I gave a resume of how well the system of conciliation and arbitration had worked since its inauguration 35 years ago in February 1951. I stated that I believed that the reason it had worked so well was that for all those 35 years the arbitrators' findings had been regarded as binding on all sides. I appealed to the Minister and to the Government not to undermine procedures which had been so carefully built up over the years and which had withstood the test of time.
I reminded the Government of their obligations to pupils, parents and teachers, and particularly of their obligation to bring about a restoration of peace and normality in our schools. I pointed out that if the Government had any interest in avoiding industrial strife in the months and years ahead they should not lightly cast aside the conciliation and arbitration system which had contributed so much to good industrial relations over such a long period. I appealed to the Minister and to the Government to consider both the likely short term and the likely long term consequences of a decision not to honour the arbitrator's award. I was supported by a number of other speakers.
At this stage I would like to thank all the Senators who contributed. It is very interesting, in the light of last week's events, to look back at some of the contributions which were made during the course of the debate. Senator Ferris in his contribution at column 853, Volume 110, of the Official Report of Seanad Éireann for 11 December 1985 stated:
It is imperative that everybody should know where the Labour Party stand in this particular issue. We will fight for the principles of conciliation and arbitration. We will also fight for the principle that the findings are final and should be accepted by both sides.
Senator Howlin in his contribution at column 1057 of the Official Report of Seanad Éireann for 18 December 1985 stated:
The use of conciliation and arbitration machinery for the processing of claims has always been supported by my party. The present claim has gone through those established machineries. Therefore, as I have stated in public statements previously, the integrity of the arbitrator's award must be accepted by us. To do anything else would be to devalue and, indeed, seriously damage the mechanism that was so carefully built up over the years and that has been in this case rigidly adhered to.
I, too, would have a heavy heart if, like Senator Ferris and Senator Howlin, I, having put such statements on the record of this House, had subsequently to bow to a Fine Gael Party decision which repudiated them completely. I cannot understand the Labour Party.
The arbitration machinery had been adhered to.
I cannot understand the Labour Party because everything that the Labour Party ever stood for was at stake last week. The eyes of the whole trade union movement were on the Labour Party last week. The eyes of 40,000 teachers or 40,000 trade union members and their 40,000 colleagues in the trade union movement were on the Labour Party. I could not help thinking last week of a most illustrious former leader of the Labour Party, the late Dr. T.J. O'Connell. He was general secretary of the INTO from 1916 to 1948. He represented the Labour Party in both Houses of the Oireachtas.
An exception to the rule.
In 1927 when he was a Member of the other House, he was elected Leader of the Labour Party in succession to the late Tom Johnston. Dr. T.J. O'Connell would turn in his grave if he thought that Labour Members of this House or the other House would support a motion setting side an arbitration award.
One does not set aside an arbitration award.
It was with the help of the Labour Party that the Government motion was carried in the other House last Thursday. I believe that time will prove that Government victory to be a Pyrrhic victory. I believe that history will show that victory to be the victory on which this Government and Labour Party will have perished. As a result of last week's Dáil vote, and knowing the mood of the teachers, I believe that this country is heading for a long and bitter dispute. The longer it drags on the more difficult it will be to resolve and the deeper will be the legacy of bitterness which the dispute will leave in its wake.
At their special conference at the weekend the three teachers' unions gave an overwhelming mandate to their executive to put preparations in train for a campaign of industrial action. Over the next two weeks strike ballots will be held throughout the country and I have no doubt in my mind as to what the result of those ballots will be. I have never known teachers to be as angry as they are at present because they see themselves having been forced into a position by the Government where they have no option other than to take strike action
As far as the teachers are concerned, there are two simple, straightforward issues involved in this dispute. I went into considerable detail in relation to both issues when I was proposing this motion and I do not intend to do so again today. The facts are simply as follows. The teachers' unions lodged a claim for a salary increase in 1982. This claim was processed through conciliation and arbitration over a period of three years. At the end of the day the arbitrator recommended a 10 per cent increase in two phases — 5 per cent from the 1 September 1985 and the remaining 5 per cent from the 1 March 1986. The teachers' first demand is that the arbitrator's award be implemented in full. This the Government are so far not prepared to do.
The second issue concerns the system of conciliation and arbitration. The teachers have had this system for the past 35 years. It has worked well. But it can only work if, first of all, there is a chairman of the arbitration board and, secondly, if his recommendations are considered to be binding on all parties. As matters stand at the moment there is no chairman of the arbitration board because of the Government's refusal to reappoint the public service arbitrator and, secondly, confidence in the system has been totally undermined by the Government's decision not to honour the teachers' arbitration award. The teachers' second demand is for the preservation of their conciliation and arbitration machinery.
I would like to refer to two of the more serious misrepresentations in relation to this dispute which have surfaced in recent days. There have been references in the media and elsewhere to the Government's decision to phase in the teachers' arbitration award over three years. This is a blatant misrepresentation of the true situation. The facts are that the Government have rejected the teachers' arbitration award and, instead of the award recommended by the arbitrator, the Government proposed to grant an increase to teachers of 3? per cent in December, 1986 and a further 3? per cent in December 1987 and a further 3? per cent 1988. If there was a proposal by the Government to phase in the arbitration award over three years, I am sure that such a proposal would find favour with a great many teachers and would certainly be a proposal which the teachers' unions would wish to discuss with the Government. At this stage there is no such proposals. What the Government are proposing is something very different indeed, to the phasing in of the arbitration award.
This evening the Members of this House must take a decision on whether to support or oppose this motion, because I would submit that the amendment tabled by the Government side is no longer relevant. To vote for the amendment would be vote for a nonsense. This House can by supporting this motion indicate to the Government that even at this stage the threatened strikes can be averted. The Government may not listen to our call but the Members of this House by supporting this motion will have discharged or will have attempted to discharge their responsibility to the pupils, the parents and the teachers. To oppose this motion is to vote for chaos in our education system and to vote for industrial chaos in the years ahead. I would urge all Senators to support the motion.
Just to put the record straight on behalf of the Government side of the House, I am asking the permission of the House to withdraw the amendment. As has been said, it is now irrelevant. As far as we are concerned, we would welcome a situation where the teachers and their representatives would have discussions with the Minister and I think that is the spirit of the motion that has been put now. I have no problem with it and I recommend the support of the House for it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion agreed to.