May I ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he is in a position now to answer the question I put to him at question time regarding the Dublin gas dispute?
DÁIL IN COMMITTEE. - DUBLIN GAS DISPUTE.
Briefly, the history of the dispute is as follows:—A member of the Transport Union was promoted by the Gas Company to a post which involved, according to the Company, his resignation from the Union. He was unwilling to resign from the Union, and the Company then intimated that he must revert to his previous position in their employment.
The question was taken up by the Transport Union as a matter of principle, and the Union claimed that the employee in question should retain his promotion and also his membership of the Union. Conferences on the matter failed to arrive at a settlement and a week's notice was given by the Union of a stoppage of work for Tuesday night.
In these circumstances I met representatives of both parties on Monday last, when it appeared that the situation was complicated by other alleged grievances on the part of the Union. I suggested that the stoppage of work, of which notice had been given, should be deferred until an independent person had been given an opportunity to inquire into all the grievances alleged to exist. This suggestion was accepted by the Company, and the representatives of the Union agreed to put it before the men.
Next morning I was informed that the men had by a majority rejected the proposal. I then decided, as I stated in the House on Tuesday, to appoint a formal Court of Inquiry.
Mr. Allan, who was appointed for the purpose, invited the Union and the Gas Company to meet him at 11 o'clock this morning. Shortly before 11 the following letter was received from the General President of the Union in reply to the invitation to attend the Court:—
"To Mr. J. Connell,
Secretary, Court of Inquiry,
24 Kildare Street.
16th May, 1924.
A Chara,
We are in receipt of your letter of the 15th inst. inviting this Union to be represented at the Court of Inquiry to be held to-day at 11 a.m. at 24 Kildare Street, and we regret that this Union is unable to be represented.
The men concerned in this dispute have declined to accept our advice to continue working pending the decision of the Court of Inquiry, and after the stoppage had taken place, they declined to take a ballot vote on the same issue. In addition, the men have appointed as spokesman a person who is not an official or a member of this Union, and under these circumstances, this Union is unable to attend the Inquiry.
Yours faithfully,
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION.
Per,
(Signed) THOMAS FORAN,
General President.
Shortly after 11 o'clock, representatives of the men and of the company attended at Mr. Allan's offices. Mr. Allan read the letter which I have quoted, and explained that in view of the terms of the letter he could not proceed with the inquiry until he had referred to me for instructions, as his terms of reference related to a dispute between the Transport Union and the Company, whereas the letter I have read intimated that the Union would not be associated with the inquiry. The representatives of the men informed Mr. Allan that they were prepared to proceed, but desired to appoint their own spokesman. Mr. Allan then referred the matter to me.
I have considered the position very carefully. As I see it, the men have repudiated the officials of their Union and are now engaged in a strike which is not official nor authorised by the Union. I understand that the Union will not pay strike pay. The first issue before the Court of Inquiry is an issue involving a principle of trades unionism, namely, whether a certain post in the employment of the Gas Company should be held by a member of a Union. It appears to me embarrassing, if not ridiculous, for the Court of Inquiry to be asked to consider such an issue at the instance of members of the Union who have repudiated the officials of the Union. Any recommendations for a settlement made by the Court could not be made the basis of an agreement between the Union and the Company, since the Union is not a party to the proceedings.
I have, therefore, informed Mr. Allan that I do not see my way to amend the terms of reference so as to exclude the Union. If workers who belong to a trade union and become parties to a dispute, particularly a dispute involving a question of trades unionism, repudiate their officials, a Government Department cannot in formal proceedings appear to endorse that repudiation. It is not a question of persons or of principles, it is simply a question of the orderly conduct of business. Chaos would result if in dealing with industrial difficulties neither the Government, the public, nor employers knew with whom agreements were to be negotiated, nor who had authority to make a binding arrangement.
I regret that matters of this kind should have intervened to delay a speedy settlement. I understand that even if work were resumed at once the gas supply could not be restored for a week or more. This makes it all the more urgent in the public interest that an early settlement should be sought through the regular and recognised channels of negotiation, and judging by the letter I have read from the Union officials, this should not be difficult of accomplishment if they take proper part in the proceedings.
Before passing from that I think it necessary to draw attention apart from the subsequent development——
I do not know that we can have anything except a question to the Minister at this Stage. The question was not answered at question time, and I would be prepared to adopt now the same procedure as at question time, but so as not to shut out Deputy Sears.
Then I will put it in the form of a question: whether the Minister did, before this matter came to the point of a dispute or stoppage of work, draw the attention of the Gas Company to the fact that the Constitution of Saorstát Eireann guarantees the citizens the right to form associations or unions, and that any attempt on the part of the Gas Company to interfere with that right was, in fact a breach of the spirit and purpose of the Constitution of the Free State?
I did not so advise the Gas Company. It is the duty of the employers in the Gas Company to be aware of the conditions under which they live under our Constitution, but I am not aware, and I cannot accept the implication, that the employers were seeking to deprive the workers of any rights which they may have under the Constitution.