Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 30 Jan 1992

Vol. 131 No. 3

Adjournment Matter. - RTE Dispute.

Mr. O'Toole

This is an issue a number of people want to speak on and I wish to share my time with a number of people. I will take ten minutes, five minutes for Senator B. Ryan and the last five minutes between Senator Costello and Senator Cassidy who would like to contribute to this debate. I would appreciate it if I was given notice after nine minutes.

I would like to put on record that Senator Costello asked me for the time so that he can clarify the position as to how he appeared on television last night, which is a good point at which to start. I think the RTE management have behaved despicably in their coverage of the budget last night when Members of this House and the other House were tricked into giving interviews, not realising they were giving them to RTE and, on finding that out they contacted RTE, asked that the interviews not be broadcast, but nevertheless management went ahead and broadcast. I think that is a disgraceful breach of trust, but it is symptomatic of the way this dispute was dealt with from the beginning.

There is a plethora of news personnel at the front of this House, people with cameras, people from different organisations, news organisations, most of them foreign. This is a critical time in the democratic process in this country. I am not making any comments on the internal affairs of Fianna Fáil, but it is a matter of public debate now who the next Taoiseach will be, and there is no denying that fact. The Taoiseach has today given notice that he is resigning, and there will be a new Taoiseach. It is of absolute importance that people are fully informed on this matter and the public broadcasting service of RTE is now an essential ingredient to our democratic process.

It is extraordinary that we have to tune into Sky News, a European organisation, to get nationwide coverage of what is happening. I recognise the fantastic work being done by the independent stations, but this issue is not being covered by all the independents and, there are large pockets of the country not being fully informed at the moment. All possible steps must now be taken to restore a full service on the basis of an equitable and comprehensive agreement between unions and management.

Exploratory Labour Court talks are now in progress. I understand they began approximately an hour ago. This is a fine opportunity to resolve the difficulties in RTE. I call on management to show the same flexibility as the union side and to take a positive line on the crewing issue. I want to put on the record that there has been an attempt to paint the NUJ, in particular, in this instance as some sort of a Luddite organisation who are resisting change and development. All that has happened in RTE is that technology is moving at such a pace that it has, as in all aspects of life, led to redundancies and a reduction in the number of personnel.

The function of the union is to find the common line between protecting jobs and employment, ensuring the quality of the service and ensuring that the service in general benefits from the improved technology. In this situation the NUJ had indicated that they were prepared to accept the reduction in the crewing numbers required by RTE.

However, the station is making a huge saving and gaining productivity. This is a fact. If they lose one person from the camera crew, they are getting two persons doing three persons' work. That is a huge saving for the station. It is a gain in productivity. In any sphere of life, that is a bargaining position and you pay for that. The trick is to find the common line, the fair line, the centre line, and management have been extraordinarily irresponsible in attempting to find that. I believe the staff are entitled to seek compensation for the extra productivity which will be achieved on their backs.

The decision to demote and sack staff during the early part of this dispute to my mind bore all the hallmarks of a planned catalyst for the exacerbation of an already difficult situation, and I cannot see it in any other way. Attempts by management to have programme editors exempted from NUJ directives is really a very thinly disguised attempt to break the power and influence of the NUJ. The world knows that they can continue providing a service by claiming that the editors of programmes are management and that therefore they should continue to provide the service. That is simply an attempt to undermine the operation of the union. It seems to me — and I dislike saying this — that there are personnel in RTE at the moment who seem to be working hard to present a macho line, to see who is going to be the most hardline in this situation, in some kind of an attempt to impress people. I find it most unimpressive and it shows a very poor understanding of what good industrial relations are all about and the importance for people to recognise the needs on both sides of the table and to try to find a consensus. I do not see that happening at the moment. In effect what management seem to be trying to do in RTE is to break the power of the union. They are attempting to neutralise the union, and what they are doing cannot be acceptable.

Management have to take responsibility for the escalation of the dispute. They keep deferring the talks, they refused to sit down and talk. A position obtained since before Christmas and suddenly, out of the blue, they chose to escalate it in an attempt to bring the matter to a head without talks. That is not an acceptable industrial relations process.

I believe that the democratic process is being poorly served by the lack of comprehensive coverage and reportage. The coverage we are getting at the moment is erratic, unprofessional, makeshift, and unacceptable. The democratic process requires reportage. At present, as I see it, the RTE Authority are in breach of their legislative mandate to inform and educate, among other things. The nation is not being informed by RTE at the moment. The authority have a responsibility in this area. The chairperson of the Authority should be making the necessary moves to conciliate and to ensure an early resolution of the difficulties there. The Minister should ensure that all possible steps were taken by the Authority to have management resolve this dispute, which is harmful to democracy and damaging to a major semi-State industry.

It is no longer acceptable for people to take this sort of hard line, hammer the workers, which seems to be coming from RTE at the moment. I am not saying all the right is on one side or the other. I freely concede that in any dispute there are two sides. Having recognised that fact, people then decide how they move towards each other, listen to each other's point of view, listen to the validity of the cases being made, and then try to find a resolution. I cannot help thinking — and I speak as a trade union official — that there is another agenda in RTE at the moment, and the agenda goes beyond the resolution of this particular dispute, that it is part of a long term attempt by senior management to undermine and usurp the authority of the National Union of Journalists in particular.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator has one minute left.

Mr. O'Toole

I want to reiterate what I said at the beginning. The public interest is being poorly served. At a critically and crucially important time in the political development of this country, with major changes about to take place, with major moves taking place, with candidates putting themselves forward to lead this country, we demand that the public be informed and hear about it. We demand that there be full, fair, accurate and comprehensive reportage and in order to achieve that, I am asking the Minister to intervene.

Mr. B. Ryan

It is a matter of great regret, and it is no disrespect to the Minister of State, that neither the Minister for Labour nor the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications could be here to deal with the matter.

This is a serious problem and it is a pity, to say the least, to see primitive standards of industrial relations being practised by people in RTE who apparently believe they have to flex their macho muscles to make a good impression, presumably on their political masters, to prove that RTE are as tough as anybody else. Remember that, much as it is maligned by many people, RTE's capacity to produce programmes at low cost is better than virtually every other broadcasting station in Europe. It produces television programmes per hour at prices that are inconceivable anywhere else. Those who talk with their magnificently free flowing phrases about RTE being overmanned would want to look at the facts.

However there are more serious and more sinister things. Last night's television news, for instance, carried a long list of comments on the budget from people one knows would not be sympathetic to a strike. With the exception of a couple of people who were apparently ambushed under very dubious circumstances, not surprisingly there was no comment from a large section of Irish society — from the trade union movement and from the large number of bodies that speak on behalf of the poor. Obviously, they were not there because they choose not to be there.

Now it is a news story in itself that a huge section of Irish society declined to participate in RTE's strike breaking exercise. It should have been part of their news programme. To leave it out was a deliberate manipulation of the national news service by RTE in the interest of RTE management's handling of this dispute, and that is a fundamental breach of their national duty. They have an obligation to be impartial about their own problems. They cannot use the national air waves as a propaganda weapon in their own attempt to break the power of two trade unions. That is very serious and very wrong.

The Government, the Minister for Labour and the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications have a particularly serious duty to ensure that RTE do not continue to use their own broadcasting service, our broadcasting service, because that service does not belong to RTE management, it belongs to us, and we are entitled to the truth about RTE as we are entitled to the truth about anything else.

The second point is the extraordinary precedent that is being established by RTE, where people who carry out the instructions of their trade unions according to the well established practices are being demoted by senior management in RTE — not because they broke any rules but because they carried out the ordinary rules of a trade unionist, which is that you do not do other people's work when they are on strike or when they are locked out. That is well established and no half responsible employer under any circumstances would expect people to do otherwise. RTE have attempted or purported to demote two people because they refused to carry out instructions to break the strike. Members of a union who are on strike were instructed to break that strike, they refused, quite properly, and RTE purported to destroy them.

I wonder does anybody in the Government or anybody in RTE management realise what damage they are doing? How long will it take to heal the wounds? Ultimately, they will have to persuade people to work, because the only way you can get good people to work well is by persuasion. You cannot coerce them; you cannot force them. You can make them do a limited amount, but if you want to get the maximum creativity, imagination and productivity out of people, you do it by persuasion. Given the bitterness that will now exist, even the resentment that will exist, a whole layer of management in RTE will have to spend the next year or two simply winning back the goodwill they have so irresponsibly sacrificed in creating what is effectively a lock-out. They apparently wanted a row. They have got their row and the ultimate, final, consequences of it will be a disastrous deterioration in the spirit, the atmosphere and working relationships between people in RTE. They and the Government which allowed this strike to continue should be ashamed of themselves.

Mr. Costello

I thank Senator O'Toole for allowing me four minutes. I have been very concerned about this dispute in RTE and particularly about the manner in which industrial relations have been conducted. It is not proper industrial relations to sack or demote people because they refuse to break a strike. Particularly in RTE, which should be an example of good communications, we would have expected that there would have been good industrial relations and that they would be giving us an example of how to conduct those relations.

Even worse, I must refer to my own experience last night as a Senator leaving Leinster House after the budget. I came out with a couple of guests and met the only team on the premises at the time. It was a three person team, not a two person team, so I did not expect it to be an RTE camera team. The person who came over to me spoke with an English accent and asked me if I would do an interview — I pesumed straight away that it was Sky News who had interviewed me this time last week when the House was sitting. I did an interview on the budget. As I was going out the gate it occurred to me to check. I came back and asked the team where they were from and they informed me that they were from "Today Tonight". At that I said, "There is an industrial dispute on and I cannot allow the interview to be used". They agreed that it would not be used but subsequently I heard it had been used on "Today Tonight" against my expressed wish and against an agreement we had entered into. I wrote to the Director General this morning and I would like to put that letter on the record.

Dear Sir,

I wish to protest in the strongest possible terms at the editorial decision to transmit an interview with me on the Budget on the "Today Tonight" programme on Wednesday, 29 January. When I discovered that the three man camera team was from RTE I asked that the interview not be transmitted. They informed me that they would not use the material and I thanked them. Later that night I was informed that the material had been used. As Labour Party Senator and Trade Unionist I am appalled at your breach of trust. I hereby request an explanation and an apology.

I consider that behaviour was immoral, a nasty form of activity from a public service station. I believe that management deliberately provided a team, one that masqueraded as a different team from what it really was, and that in itself was a deliberate attempt to induce Members of this House and the other House to break a strike under false pretences. That is the most despicable behaviour I have seen in a long time and it is not something I would have expected from a public service medium, a communications medium, that we in this House have been defending over the years. We can all remember the long and heated debates we had there. Yet management treat Members of the Oireachtas in this fashion. I think it must go out in the strongest words that we protest against it.

Having said that, I think there is an onus on management, on the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications and on the Government to see that we do not have this Thatcherite behaviour from RTE, whose operations are funded from public money. That is what is causing this dispute to continue for such a length of time. They should urgently resolve this dispute.

Mr. Cassidy

I wish to thank Senator O'Toole for giving me time to speak on this matter. First, I want to congratulate your good self, a Chathaoirligh, on being elected to the Chair and look forward to working with you over the coming years.

As spokesperson for the Government, I welcome the talks taking place now in the Labour Court in relation to this dispute. I hope that the programmes will be back on the air within a couple of days. Any strike is an unfortunate occurence in any industry and, very often there are no winners. On the occasion, as previous speakers said, it is an opportunity lost of capturing an historic occasion which is taking place here at the present time. In the public interest I congratulate the local radio stations who over the past week rose to the occasion of informing the public by extending their news bulletins and increasing their staff to cover the various events, such as the budget and now the retirement of our Taoiseach and the forthcoming appointment of our new Taoiseach. These are matters of great public interest. They positively concern the Government party, the largest political party in the country, over the last number of years. Naturally enough, they are extremely important from a media point of view. I do not want to go into the pros and cons of the strike, but that they are back in the Labour Court and talking is indeed progress. I look forward to a resumption of work in the very immediate future.

Minister of State at the Department of the Gaeltacht (Mr. Gallagher)

Ba mhaith liom leithscéal an Aire Saothair an Teachta O'Kennedy, a ghabháil os rud é nach bhfuil sé ar a chumas bheidh i láthair um thráthnóna mar go bhfuil sé san Dáil.

This dispute concerns operational practices and manning levels of camera crews who are members of SIPTU. The NUJ became involved when two of its members were suspended for refusing to co-operate with the new arrangements. The problem which gave rise to the dispute was the compensation to be paid to those affected by the introduction of the new system. In a recommendation in November the Labour Court recommended that the parties enter discussions on this item and, in the absence of agreement being reached, the court said it would be prepared to have a further hearing of that specific point. The Labour Court has invited the parties to discussions and they are in progress as I speak. The Minister for Labour has already welcomed the discussions. Again, on his behalf, I ask both sides to approach the talks in a spirit of co-operation and goodwill so that a solution can be found which will lead to a speedy resumption of services.

Senators will appreciate that with these talks under way it would not be appropriate to make any further comment at this time. I can assure the Senators that I will immediately convey to the Minister for Labour the views expressed by the Senators who took part in the debate.

The Seanad adjourned at 4.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 5 February 1992.