asked the Minister for Labour if, in view of the hardship being inflicted on workers, pensioners, school children and others in the Dublin area as a result of the bus strike, he will state the action the Government propose to take to bring about a settlement of the dispute.
Private Notice Questions: - Dublin Bus Dispute.
andMoore asked the Minister for Labour if he will make a statement on the efforts he is making to mediate in the Dublin bus strike.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take these two questions together.
This is an inter-union dispute complicated by the fact that one of the organisations involved, the National Busmen's Union, is not affiliated to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. The machinery within the Irish Congress of Trade Unions which would normally be available in disputes of this kind cannot, therefore, operate in this case.
The Dáil will appreciate that these factors make it all the more difficult to resolve but to comprehend the situation fully it is necessary to be familiar with the background to the present developments.
Discussions on the possibility of introducing a five day week for Dublin busmen have been in progress since at least 1964. The present round of negotiations was initiated by a joint claim lodged on the 8th October, 1971, by the CIE (Road Passenger Section) Trade Union Group of the ICTU and the National Busmen's Union. The group is composed of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union, the National Association of Transport Employees and the Workers' Union of Ireland. The company responded to this claim in a letter of 1st December, 1971, but their proposals were rejected in a ballot of the members of the four unions which was held in January, 1972. Following further exchanges between the parties the matter was referred to the Labour Court who issued a recommendation on the 7th December, 1972.
In its recommendation the court concluded that Dublin busmen were entitled to a five-day 40 hour week and recommended that the parties should meet with a view to negotiating a mutually satisfactory way of applying it.
In the subsequent negotiations CIE put forward composite proposals for five-day working but again full agreement could not be reached. The Labour Court again considered the matter in October, 1973. The questions at issue at that time were:
(a) That there should be no reduction in the pay of any of the busmen as a result of the change over to a five-day week (This was especially important to busmen who normally worked frequently on Sundays).
(b) That in future the pay of all busmen should be brought up to the same level. The Labour Court (in Recommendation No. 3086) found in favour of the busmen's case and recommended that the company's proposals as amended by the recommendation should be put to a joint ballot vote of all union members concerned.
The revised proposals were duly put to ballot of all busmen in October/ November, 1973, and were accepted by a majority—in the order of 1,600 for and 1,000 against. About 600 busmen did not vote.
In a joint letter to the company of 12th November, 1973, the group and the NBU requested that "you will arrange for the implementation of the five-day week on the terms now agreed".
In a letter of 16th November, 1973, the company stated "arrangements are being made to prepare schedules on the basis of a five-day working week and the company have set Monday, 6th May, 1974, as the target date for the introduction of the five-day week in Dublin city services. This date is, of course, subject to agreement being reached in advance of that date on the schedules which will apply".
A joint committee of management and workers set about drawing up the detailed schedules.
These schedules which involved a lot of intricate calculations were progressively made available to the trade unions in the period March-April and showed to the busmen how the framework for a five-day 40-hour week, which they had accepted, worked out in practical terms. The WUI and ITGWU, following the adverse reaction of the meetings of their members, wrote to the company, and at a meeting of 2nd May requested the postponement of the introduction of the five-day week. The NBU, on the other hand, took the view that the matter had been resolved by the ballot of last year and that the decision should stand.
CIE management now found themselves in the dilemma that if the five-day week were introduced on 5th May there would likely be a refusal to work on the part of the workers covered by the group of unions, but if they deferred the five-day week then the NBU would strike. In the event, the company's decision was to commence a five-day week on 5th May since they believed that this most closely conformed with the result of the ballot of November.
The busmen covered by the Congress of unions then took strike action and placed pickets which the NBU members have in general refused to pass.
I should like to make it clear that from the outset of the dispute the conciliation service of the Labour Court has been in touch with the parties in the person of Mr. J. McCauley, a senior industrial relations officer long acquainted with industrial relations problems in the public transport sector. Following those contacts at conciliation level, on 8th May I asked the Labour Court some days after the start of the dispute, after the conciliation service had been in touch with the parties to investigate the dispute since they had previously been involved.
The court in its Recommendation No. 3272 recommended that "A joint ballot of all busmen should be held immediately to decide whether:
(a) the services should be resumed on the five-day week schedules which have already been drawn up, such schedules to be subject to examination and, where possible, improvement in the light of experience gained in operation, or
(b) that services should resume on the six-day working week which was in operation prior to the stoppage, further discussions then to take place for the purpose of agreeing schedules for the introduction of a five-day week at an agreed date.
The result of this ballot should be accepted by all".
This recommendation was accepted by the busmen covered by the group of unions but rejected by the NBU. Consequently no ballot could take place.
On 14th May the four unions met with the senior industrial relations officer of the Labour Court, Mr. McCauley, but no progress was made.
I have been concerned from the outset of this dispute to achieve two things:
(1) a settlement that will be just to those concerned immediately, namely, the busmen employed by CIE; and
(2) resumption of public transport as speedily as possible to enable thousands of members of the general public to get to their places of work.
It serves neither of these objectives to ignore the difficulties in the present situation.
An examination of the protracted negotiations up to now, which I have outlined, makes it clear that a five-day week was accepted in principle last November but the practical outcome of that decision in terms of schedules was unacceptable to many busmen. It should be possible, given a willingness, to isolate the agreement reached in principle on the introduction of a five-day week from the practical difficulties of operating schedules in the context of the five-day week. It is possible, I believe, to get a resumption of bus services by agreement on this method of reconciling differences.
Over the past 24 hours, I have met with all parties to the dispute to see whether a willingness to find a basis for settlement can be brought into being. It was the opinion of the Labour Court senior industrial relations officer who, as I mentioned met the unions on Tuesday of this week, that a willingness to negotiate on differences was absent at present. That opinion is shared by the chairman of the Labour Court in his letter in today's Irish Times in which he states: “In spite of the best efforts of the public agencies concerned with industrial relations, neither group of men is prepared to change its attitude.”
I will maintain contact with the parties in an effort to bring about this "change of heart" mentioned in the chairman's letter today to permit the agencies entrusted with industrial relations to resume the work which is naturally theirs.
I recognise the difficulties that are involved in an inter-union dispute. Nevertheless, there are thousands of workers and their families, thousands of school children and old age pensioners who are deprived of a transport service in the city. I would ask the Minister again to try to strive towards a just settlement, I would ask the unions to sink their differences on this occasion in the interests of the city and the public, and I would ask them to work out a just settlement between the people concerned.
It would appear from the chairman's letter which the Minister has quoted that this may be a long, drawn-out affair. The result would be that thousands of workers, their families and the public generally will suffer and there will be industrial disruption because of absenteeism. Will the Minister consider asking the unions on this occasion to sink their differences and draw up a just settlement that will be beneficial to themselves and the community?
I agree with the Deputy. The only worthwhile objective to pursue in the present dispute is the quest for reconciling differences. If it is possible to agree on the principle of the five-day week and separate that agreement from the working out of the schedules, it should be possible for all concerned to reach a just solution. A solution which all busmen can accept is the only way to return the buses to the streets of Dublin. As the Deputy has rightly pointed out, the absence of a public transport service is causing much hardship to many categories of workers and the general public.
When the Minister sat on these benches he had the ready solution for the prevention and cure of strikes. I am sure he realises now it is not as easy as he anticipated. Would he accept from me that what I regard as his premature intervention in involving himself with the Labour Court has led to an impasse which, unfortunately, appears may last for some time? Apart from what Deputy Dowling has said, would the Minister accept that this strike means the imprisonment of a large section of the citizens—elderly people, patients who should be moved to hospital, people who are incapacitated? This section, about whom we must be concerned on humanitarian grounds, have been imprisoned. Having regard to the fact that there is no note of optimism in the Minister's reply, is he examining the possibility of providing alternative transport facilities for the people whose hardship is of as much concern to the Minister as it is to me, and for whom we must do more than talk or give the history of how this took place?
I can assure the Deputy that there has been more than talk in this case. I do not know that it profits any of us here to start comparing the activities of past Administrations in this area with the activities of the present Administration. When I was on those benches I was critical of inactivity. There has been no inactivity in this case.
The Minister could solve all the problems when he was over here.
Order. If Deputies ask questions they ought to be good enough to listen to replies.
This kind of exchange does not profit any of us. We are all concerned with finding a solution to the present impasse. The way to reaching a solution is in reconciliation between the parties based on this kernel of agreement on the five-day week and separation from the schedules. That is the way out of this impasse.
Does the Minister agree that the prime consideration at the moment should be a resumption of work without any injury to the members of the various unions? I noticed in the papers last week a rather ironic touch in that the Department of Social Welfare were advertising free travel for recipients of benefits. Yet there were no travel facilities for anybody. I understand that the hospital services are also very much affected.
Has the Deputy a question?
Would the Minister try to convene a conference of people from his own Department, CIE and the trade unions, to get the men to return to work and, while retaining the principle of the five-day week, work out a more suitable roster so that they will have the benefit of the five-day week under proper conditions? The position is becoming very critical for the people in this city, not for the affluent sector, but for the poorer sector who cannot afford motor cars.
This is a very long supplementary question.
We must consider the person who cannot visit his wife or children in hospital, and the old man who cannot go to the health centre. These people should take precedence over any disagreement between the unions. I would appeal to the NBU to row in with the Congress unions, to agree to hold a joint ballot, and to go back to work.
Deputies are attempting to debate this matter instead of dealing with it in the manner appropriate to Question Time.
The Minister has tried in his way to end this problem. Deputy Dowling, Deputy Tunney and I would be prepared to stick our necks out and to act as mediators or negotiators if that would do any good. I am sure the Minister appreciates what is happening to the people in this city.
I must ask the Deputy to terminate his question.
(Dublin Central): I can appreciate the impasse which has been created but, since the hardship is continuing, would the Minister ask his colleague, the Minister for Defence, to make some provision about Army lorries as soon as possible. This is not the first occasion on which we have had this problem in Dublin. The working people in Dublin are entitled to consideration. I appreciate the Minister's position but I would like to have an indication from him that we will have some type of transport and I would suggest that it should start next Monday morning.
In a dispute of this kind involving hardship for so many, consideration would always continue to be given to such a service being provided. The Deputy is aware of the security problems in the Border area. This is a matter which should be directed to other Ministers.
Having regard to the circumstances now prevailing, would the Minister use his good offices with the Minister for Defence?
This Government will continue to discharge their responsibility by seeing how the parties can be brought to reconcile their differences. We are concerned about having the buses returned to the streets of Dublin. This is the only satisfactory service available to the people of Dublin. Nothing else would be a satisfactory substitute for that service. I can assure the Deputy that, in a dispute of this kind, the contingency he referred to is always under review. There are serious differences between the position in 1966 and the position now. As the Minister for Defence has told the House repeatedly, there is a different situation in the Border area.
The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday 21st May, 1974.