andMr. McQuillan asked the Minister for Transport and Power whether it is his intention to take whatever powers are needed to intervene to settle disputes arising between management and workers in CIE.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - CIE Disputes.
20.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce has already announced that he will review the machinery for settling industrial disputes and in connection with that review the position of CIE and of the other State-sponsored bodies will be taken into account.
Could the Minister say whether he has at the moment any power to intervene in a situation such as that which arose last week?
In the case of some State companies, it is clearly indicated in the legislation that matters relating to wages and conditions would be dealt with by the managements and by the employees concerned. In the case of some other State companies, such as the Electricity Supply Board, arbitration tribunals have been appointed, but I would tell the Deputy that, in general, the tradition here has been in relation to State companies that questions of wages and conditions of employment should be settled between the employees concerned. I would add that that has been the wish of the trade unions, apart from the managements altogether. It is not considered desirable that there should be any change made in that position. The Minister for Industry and Commerce is concerned with the consideration of industrial relationships and with any points that might have to be taken into consideration to change the legislation governing State companies or private companies. It has not been considered desirable up to the present that the Minister, in his position as supervisor, should intervene in matters affecting wages and conditions of employment as between the companies concerned and the trade unions. It is a practice that would be undesirable.
First of all, would the Minister say if he has any powers? Can we take it that he has not the power to intervene in such a problem as arose last week and that he does not intend to take such power?
That is the case, but the Deputy must not misquote me in that. I can say, quite apart from the obligations of the Minister for Industry and Commerce in respect of industrial relations, that if the whole construction and formation of a company were in such a condition that this would become necessary, he would have to go to the Government and suggest a change in the management. If, among other things, industrial relations came into the picture, that would be a different situation. Such a situation has never arisen and I rely on the Minister for Industry and Commerce in a situation involving industrial relations.
Has the Minister not stated a very important point of principle in relation to the undesirability of the Minister responsible not intervening in a dispute concerning his Department? Surely this would be a very serious disability in the case of a Minister like the Minister for Industry and Commerce who would thereby not be permitted to intervene?
The Deputy is really trying to confuse the position and I do not propose to go any further into this matter, in view of the negotiations that are taking place and in view of the present position in regard to the recent dispute. I have given the Deputy a declaration of general principle and it would be most inadvisable of me to say anything further, as the Deputy knows very well.
Further arising out of the Minister's reply——
No. 21.
Why is it the Minister for Transport and Power, who is the person specifically delegated to deal with transport matters——
I have called No. 21.
Why was he not permitted to intervene?
The Deputy is trying to be helpful as usual.
He is trying to get the facts. Why did you suppress this man; why did you not let him run his Department?