asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether he is aware that Córas Iompair Éireann gave notice on 20th August last, to the trade unions affected, of its proposed withdrawal from the machinery of negotiation, including sectional councils, negotiating committee, the Irish Railways Wages Board and the machinery for dealing with cases of discipline, as from 1st March, 1946; that the company has not made any proposal for the setting up of alternative machinery and has given no indication that it desires the existence of any form of conciliation machinery; whether, having regard the the fact that the machinery in question has operated sucessfully for more than 21 years, during which time it prevented any official stoppage of work on the part of the employees covered by it, i.e., the conciliation and salaried grades in the whole of the Irish railway service, he will say if it is the intention of the company to leave the workers concerned with only the strike weapon as an alternative to settlement of disputes by agreement, and if this attitude has secured his concurrence or, if not, whether it is his intention, in the event of alternative machinery being established, to ensure that it will be agreed beforehand with the unions and not imposed unilaterally by the company.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Córas Iompair Éireann and Trade Unions.
The Irish Railway Scheme for Establishing Machinery of Negotiation was initiated in 1923 and eight railway companies and three trade unions were parties thereto. I understand that the scheme provides that any party thereto is entitled to withdraw on giving six months' notice and that Córas Iompair Éireann notified its intention to withdraw in August last.
The legal obligation of the company is to regulate the rates of pay, hours of duty, and other conditions of service of its employees in accordance with agreements made between the trade unions representative of such employees on the one part and the company on the other. The withdrawal of the company from the Railway Scheme for Establishing Machinery of Negotiation does not affect its statutory obligation in this regard.
The method by which agreements between the company and the trade unions representative of its employees can best be negotiated is a matter for settlement between the company and such trade unions and if it is the opinion of the company's management that the existing railway scheme is no longer suitable for this purpose, it is not necessary for it to obtain my concurrence before withdrawing therefrom.
I assume that alternative machinery for the negotiation of agreements and the settlement of disputes will be arranged by discussion between the company and the trade unions concerned. Such alternative scheme could not be imposed unilaterally by the company. Provided, however, that the statutory obligations of the company are not affected, it is not my intention to intervene in the matter.
The Minister says he assumes that certain negotiations will be put on foot for the purpose of establishing some alternative machinery. Will the Minister say whether that statement is based upon any consultation with the company, and whether we may assume, therefore, that some alternative type of machinery will be establish for the purpose of doing the type of work which the previous conciliation machinery did with very considerable success for a period of 21 years?
That assumption is based upon the knowledge that the company desire an alternative arrangement for the negotiation of agreements, but I assume also that the railway unions concerned will be as interested as the company in initiating discussions on the matter.