I asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce a question on private notice this morning relative to the grave dispute that has arisen on the Great Southern Railways. I raise the matter because it is important and urgent and in order to give the Minister for Industry and Commerce an opportunity of making any further statement he may consider it advisable to make. I understand that he has seen a deputation representative of the Unions concerned since I asked the question this morning. I think the House should know that there is a serious dislocation of the railway service threatened, and is most likely to occur, I understand, if the Railway Company persists in the attitude which they appear to have taken up with regard to the matter in dispute. I understand that the men in the railway shops at the Broadstone and Inchicore since 1922 have been working under certain terms which were arrived at by way of conference at which the Unions concerned and the Railway Companies were represented, under the chairmanship of a gentleman appointed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
Question on the Adjournment. - Threatened Railway Dispute.
Does the Deputy intend to go into the details and the merits of the dispute? Does he expect me to reply, or is he simply going to state one side of the case? If so, that is not going to give any help towards a solution of the trouble.
Mr. O'Connell
I do not want to go into the merits of the case. I only want to say what I consider to be the position and what I want the Minister to do.
That is stating the merits of the case.
Mr. O'Connell
Not the merits of the case. Terms were arrived at by agreement. I am suggesting that if new terms are to be made, naturally the only thing to do is to have a similar conference to that which fixed the previous terms. The principle of negotiation under which the terms were arrived at by the conference is, I think, one that should commend itself to all parties. I am only pointing out the position as I understand it. That is what the railway company have refused to do. They have posted up a notice fixing certain terms without conference or negotiation, and have in fact said to the men: "Go in on Monday morning and work on these terms and if not you need not go to work." That, to my mind, is equivalent to a lock out. I am only asking the Minister if he would use the good services of his Department to arrange for a conference similar to that which in 1922 fixed the terms which were agreed to and have been operative since. I do not want to discuss the merits of the actual dispute.
I only want to suggest to the Minister that the proper way, it seems to me, of preventing the dispute would be to have a conference similar to the one which fixed the agreement in 1922, and that the Minister should use his good offices to bring about such a conference, and should be present at the conference or be represented at it. No party in the country wants the trouble which would be likely to arise if the matter is not settled amicably. I am only suggesting that no effort should be spared to see that an amicable settlement of whatever matters are in dispute should be arrived at. I do not profess to know the merits of the matter in dispute, but I am urging that steps should be taken to see that there should be negotiation in the proper form in regard to the matter, and that any such notices as have been posted up should be withdrawn or suspended until such conference will have the opportunity of coming to an arrangement.
I beg to join with Deputy O'Connell in urging on the Minister the desirability of bringing about negotiations between the company and the shopmen concerned in this dispute. He is already familiar with the details, so there is no necessity to go into them. There is a crisis threatened on Monday morning if the men do not accept terms which, I believe, are most unreasonable. The non-acceptance of these terms means a lock-out, and no one knows to what extent that may develop. I impress on the Minister the desirability of interesting himself with a view to bringing about negotiations.
I join in appealing for the immediate intervention of the Minister in regard to the pending crisis. The existing conditions of service, so far as they apply to the shop men, were brought about, as Deputy O'Connell has stated, as a result of negotiations between representatives of the men and the directors and management of the railway company, and by a subsequent arbitration by Mr. James MacNeill, the present Governor-General. I suggest that any alteration or amendment of the existing conditions of service should be brought about in the same way, that is, by proper negotiation and, if necessary, under a neutral chairman. If there is any future for the railways of this country it is by having a good co-operative spirit existing between the workmen and the management and directors. In my opinion, the action of the Board in posting up notices without previous consultation with the Union representing the men is rather provocative. I do not wish in any way to enter into the merits of the dispute or the action of the directors in taking steps to effect certain reductions or alterations in the present conditions of service, but I am of opinion that the immediate intervention of the Department of Industry and Commerce is called for. I hope the Minister will take the necessary steps to bring the parties together under a neutral chairman, or a representative of his own Department.
In view of the serious situation that has arisen at the Broadstone and Inchicore, and which will affect approximately 2,600 men, I think it is the bounden duty of the Department of Industry and Commerce to intervene. In 1922, when a dispute was settled, the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, Mr. Joe McGrath, set up a tribunal which was composed of a representative of the Company and a representative of the men, with Mr. MacNeill as chairman. It was decided that if no decision could be reached so far as the three were concerned the chairman would make an award. The chairman, Mr. MacNeill, made the award and the employees have abided by the terms of that award. Very often we hear from the Government and Independent Benches how prone men are to take strike action. I would point out, so far as this dispute is concerned, that if any serious situation arises by the Company persisting in their attitude that will be the fault of the Company by locking out the men and not allowing them to continue work under the arrangement in operation. What the railway company propose amounts to a reduction of from twelve to eighteen shillings per week in the wages of the men. In view of that, and seeing that the MacNeill award was made as a result of a tribunal set up by the Minister's Department, I think it is the bounden duty of the Minister to convene a conference at which a representative of his Department would be present, as well as a representative of the men and a representative of the company. During the time these negotiations are taking place, I also hold it is the duty of the Minister to see that the notices are either withdrawn or suspended to let the negotiations take place in an amicable way.
I wish to protest against the action of the Great Southern Railways Co.
That is what they are all doing.
Mr. Bourke
For some years the shopmen have been on half-time, working only four days a week, and they have suffered sufficiently without inflicting further suffering on them. The Minister ought at least to arrange for a conference to end the dispute.
I am glad to find so many Deputies approve of the action I have already taken. I have invited the representatives of the railway company to meet representatives of the unions under the presidency of a representative of my own Department. That is all I can say.
Is the Minister prepared during the negotiations to ask the railway company to suspend or withdraw the notices?
No.
Does the Minister consider that when a conference is convened it tends to bring about an amicable settlement if the notices are not withdrawn or suspended?
I have done what the unions asked me to do, and I am not doing anything more.
Is the Minister prepared to ask them to withdraw or suspend the notices?
I am not prepared to do anything more than I was asked to do—to summon a conference.
The Dáil adjourned at 1.53 p.m.