andMr. Coughlan asked the Minister for Labour whether it is his intention to continue providing the facilities of the national training board to a factory (name supplied) having regard to the fact that no recognition is offered by that firm to employee participation in a trade union.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Membership of Trade Unions.
64.
I am informed by An Chomhairle Oiliúna that the company in question has not requested, or been provided with, any training or other facilities by An Chomhairle.
65.
andMr. Coughlan asked the Minister for Labour if he will list the Conventions ratified by this country which uphold the right of freedom of association by organisations representing employees.
Ireland has ratified three International Labour Organisation Conventions—Nos. 11 of 1921, 87 of 1948 and 98 of 1949 and also the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950, and Articles 5 and 6 of the European Social Charter, 1961, which deal with freedom of association and the right to organise.
Is the Minister aware that ECI Shannon, have not given their employees the right of becoming members of the ITGWU and that the State itself has some responsibility in connection with this firm in the sense that cash grants have been made to it?
The question relates to Conventions.
In the course of questions, I shall deal with this.
66.
andMr. Coughlan asked the Minister for Labour whether his Department inform companies from abroad of the practices prevailing in industrial relations in this country; and whether his Department have any notification of the labour relations background of such companies.
The Industrial Development Authority, which deals in the first instance with industrialists promoting new industries, informs them about wage rates, conditions of employment and trade union organisation. It is impressed on the promoters that they should make themselves fully aware of the local position in these respects and they are advised of the advantages of co-operating with trade unions.
This information was given by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, in reply to a question from Deputy Corish, on 12th December, 1967.
Would the Minister say if, when El got this information from the IDA, they made any comment with regard to membership of trade unions by their employees?
That seems a separate question.
I would not know what comments anyone would make on such matters. In fact, I do not know whether the Deputy would think the State is called upon to act as an organiser for trade unions.
The Minister need not be so smart. We are looking for information and for a solution. What I asked was whether or not El made any comment on the advice and the information that was given by the IDA as to trade union membership by employees.
I told the Deputy I did not know if they made any comment.
If the Minister had left it at that, it might not have been too bad.
Is the Minister aware that the parent firm of El in America has a very bad anti-union record and that the AFNCIO which in America corresponds to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, have remarked that they have always been anti-union in their attitude? Is he further aware that a world-wide conference was called and was attended by Australia, Canada, USA, Germany, Italy, Japan, Turkey, Columbia, Uruguay, Venezuela and Mexico to discuss the anti-union activities of this international company, GE? In all these circumstances, how does it happen the IDA allows such a company into this country with such a bad international anti-union record, and subsidises them as well?
The Deputy will agree that the unions would resent any attempt on my part to run their business for them. The law and the Constitution in this country gives the liberty to both sides in industry to solve their problems. As the Deputy is aware, I asked the union to hold off their strike action for two days so that the Labour Court could come in and help, and I was refused. I have been asked since by members of the Labour Party why do I not do this and why I do not do that. I still think the unions would resent any attempt on my part to run their business.
Is the Minister aware that the union in question have deferred action for a very long time?
The House will appreciate that I met both sides on this, and as regards trade union recognition, I made it clear to the firm that there could be no question of pressure being brought to bear on them. I think the House would agree that there should not be pressure brought in the context of our position where we allow freedom to industry and to workers to negotiate and to settle their affairs between them. I did tell them that there would be no pressure on them to recognise a union, but that my experience in this country tended to show that the best interests of a company would be served by having a union, and also other things about discouraging a multiplicity of unions in a firm. However, I do not think the House would want me to exert pressure on either side.
Having regard to the point the Minister made about requesting the union to defer action, is the Minister not aware that this company, El, misled the union with regard to negotiations for two years, and surely he would also agree that his request was made on the very eve of the expiration of the strike notice? Furthermore, in view of the fact that people are concerned about infusing money into undertakings of this kind who discourage trade unionism, would the Minister not agree this calls for action from him to ensure that this does not continue.
The Deputy may not make a speech.
I am anxious to enlighten the Minister who does not seem to be aware that this company has acted in such a fashion for two years and has ignored the Labour Court since.
I think the Deputy is aware of the steps I have taken up to now to try to have this matter resolved. I do not think there is anything to be gained by my appearing to get involved in a dispute on one side or the other. I have made clear what my advice was to the firm, and I am also clear that when I as Minister for Labour asked for a postponement of strike action so that the Labour Court could attempt to resolve this dispute, I was refused. The reason I say that is that Deputies of the Labour Party are trying to pull me into the situation, and asking me what I am doing about it. If anything can be done to resolve this case without damage to principle or without damage to the country, it will be done in a——
I am not asking the Minister for Labour to do anything outside his terms of reference. We appreciate he cannot force either side to do anything, but, in fairness, I think the Dáil and the country should know the situation. Did the Minister say—I probably did not hear him—that he indicated to this company that it would be in their best interests to allow trade union organisation where a body of the workers required or requested it.
I made it quite clear that my experience was that it would be to their advantage to do so, but I am very clear in my own mind that I do not think this House wants me to force any firm to make its workers become trade unionists. The right of free association rests with the individual citizen and not with the management. I do not think the Constitution would permit anybody to force workers into a union. There are two sides to it.
This is not forcing.
Is the Minister aware that as soon as this incident started, at least two other firms have not alone taken the same line but have dismissed their employees because they became members of a trade union? Does he believe that is the way the country should be run by these foreigners who come in here and fill their pockets with the taxpayers' money.
We can do a lot of damage to no avail by saying things like that.
The damage has been done.
The worker should not be punished for exercising his rights.
He has the right to stay out if he wants to.
Every worker should exercise his rights and not be put in gaol if he does.
And not be coerced into making contributions——
(Interruptions.)
I am not living on the workers.
You have been living on the workers all your life.
It would be tragic for the future of this country if foreign investment were discouraged from coming into this country as a result of the action of this one firm.
The Deputy may not make a speech.
With all due respect, Sir, we have had many irrelevant interjections here, and if I may make one last relevant contribution, it would be tragic if this company's activities were to damage US-Irish relations. It is extremely important that proper investigation be made of the union attitude of companies coming in here. The background of this company was not a good one.
The Deputy may only ask a question.
They should be told that there are certain Conventions on industrial relations that must be accepted in this country.
I think the Deputy would agree that from the figures published by the Congress of Trade Unions in this State we have the highest percentage of organised workers——
We want to keep it that way.
Every country has unorganised workers. As I say, we have a freedom here in which unions and management work and we try to maintain that as long as the public is served. I do not think I am called upon to force any management to take any action but I have advised them, as I said before——
Surely the Minister should not allow a grant to be given to people who dismiss workers because they are members of a union?
This is something I am investigating.
The fellow who would have been able to give the answer was allowed to leave the country.
We have the right of free movement in this country.
The free movement he should get is to keep him outside.
Did the Minister state that when considering the allocation of grants to companies the Government would now take cognisance of a company's policy with regard to trade unionism before they qualified?
You could not have recruitment as a qualifying condition for a grant. The Deputy can rest assured that prospective promoters of industry are advised what is in their best interests when coming into the country.
Let them be told the facts.
67.
asked the Minister for Labour if he will make a statement in regard to the present dispute between a company (name supplied) and the ITGWU; and whether any steps have been taken or will be taken to resolve this dispute.
This dispute was investigated by the Labour Court on 21st March and the Court's recommendation is awaited.
The dispute had previously been the subject of meetings between the Court and the two parties. As a result of these meetings, there were discussions between the parties with which an officer of the Conciliation Service kept in touch. On 15th March, I made a personal appeal to have the strike deferred pending the Labour Court hearing which had been fixed for a date two days after the date of expiry of the strike notice. As was announced on 16th March, this request was turned down.
Is it a fact that this company ignored the Labour Court in the past and has given every indication that it will not recognise the Labour Court for the pending session?
I think that the Labour Court did hold a hearing.
The company did not attend the hearing.
Is it not a fact that the company did not attend the hearing?
The Deputy knows what I know, that they thought the matter to be considered was sub judice in the courts.
Surely the Minister is aware that the Labour Court did hear this case but the employers' side refused to make a submission? Is he further aware that this company have repeatedly refused to recognise the Court and found ways and means of avoiding appearing before it? The 21st March was the last occasion on which they did this. Is the Minister not further aware that the Chairman of the Labour Court acknowledged that there was a trade dispute in existence, on 21st March last?
I might suggest again that a trial of strength is taking place and I do not think this is the way to solve it. My motive in asking people to wait, and there was a request to both sides to wait, with their different types of activity, was to stop this trial of strength again.
There is a trial of strength.
If it has to be pursued in this fashion, it will have to be solved by strength.
In the meantime, will the Minister see that the brain-washing which is taking place every day through the issuing of a paper called "Head-liner" will cease?
(Interruptions.)
The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.