asked the Minister for Labour what action he proposes to take as a matter of urgency, to resolve the serious situation arising from the decision of the Irish Bank Officials' Association not to handle sterling, if he will seek an immediate meeting with the association and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Private Notice Question. - Banks Dispute.
asked the Minister for Labour in view of the widespread dislocation of industry and business, and the general inconvenience and hardship caused to the public arising from the IBOA's refusal to handle sterling transactions, the actions he intends taking as a matter of urgency to alleviate the situation.
With the permission of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle I propose to take both questions together.
Discussions following the rejection of the assessor's findings in this case commenced today between the Banks Staff Relations Committee and representatives of the Irish Bank Officials' Association within the framework of the Banks Joint Industrial Council. In view of this development, the question of intervention by me does not arise at this stage.
Will the Minister tell the House if the Irish Bank Officials' Association have indicated their willingness to postpone their decision pending the outcome of the present talks?
I am not aware of any such indication on their behalf.
It appears that little progress is occurring at the meeting to which the Minister has referred. Will he state if any consideration is being given at government level to a direct meeting with the parties? Has there been any communication to this effect? Has there been any contact with the parties in the context of the very serious situation now developing, with the possibility of an imminent closedown of the entire banking structure?
The position is that the meeting to which I have referred commenced today. The position of the Government is that they were in touch with the situation and with the parties. Intervention by the Government at this stage, as I have indicated, would not be appropriate. However, I should like to say that I regard this matter as one of great seriousness. I would point out that the assessor's report on this found that a general increase of the salary scales for bank officials was not warranted but that additional work had been imposed which, while its impact was transient, nevertheless entailed the payment of compensation. The Government consider that the action taken by the IBOA is inconsistent with the obligations assumed by trade unions under the current national understanding on pay policy. The Government support fully the bank management in seeking a solution of the dispute by an arrangement other than that of a permanent and continuing increase in pay, such an increase having been rejected by an independent assessor.
Does not the Minister agree that what he has said indicates a tragic parallel with the outset of the post office strike where the Government took the stance they are taking now, where they are taking sides with management, where they refuse to talk with the workers——
The Deputy is now making a statement. He may put only a brief question.
Does not the Minister agree that the parallel indicated by what he has said is tragic and shows very gloomy portents for the future?
I am not quite sure what the Deputy has in mind, and perhaps he would like to clarify his question. Is he advocating that the Government should say the IBOA are right and give in, or is he saying that he thinks that to pursue this matter within the normal framework of negotiation between the parties on the basis of the findings of an independent assessor is the correct course?
I am asking the Minister——
Deputy Mitchell has had three supplementary questions. I am calling Deputy O'Leary to ask a final question on the matter.
Would not the Minister agree that it is very late to talk about normal processes taking their usual course because the action of one of the parties in this dispute is taking effect already? Does the Minister agree that a closedown of our banking system in the context of our membership of the EMS, with the likelihood that traders will not utilise sterling as a means of exchange, will be even more serious? A bank closedown is serious in any context but it is even more serious in the context of EMS membership. Does not the Minister agree that the Government cannot stand aside from the effects of such a dispute? Will he assure the House that in the unfortunately all too likely event of today's talks producing no satisfactory result at the very least there will be a meeting with the parties to see if the worst effects of the dispute can be averted?
I have said already that I regard the situation as extremely serious. Equally, I regard any attempt to undermine the position accepted by trade unions generally as being extremely serious. I can assure the House that this matter is being very closely monitored by the Government. If action by the Government would appear to be indicated as something that would bring an end to the situation that we are threatened with, the House may be assured that such action will be taken by the Government.
These questions were put down to the Minister for Labour and I should be obliged if the Minister for Finance would do the House the courtesy of indicating the reason for the Minister's absence? I have no doubt that his absence is legitimate but we should know why he is not here to answer such questions.
The Minister is presiding at a meeting of Social Affairs Ministers of the EEC at present.