Report on Ranks (Ireland) Ltd. Dispute: Statements

Minister for Labour (Mr. Kavanagh)

I have received the report prepared by Mr. Ercus Stewart, Senior Counsel, on the facts which led to the dispute in Ranks (Ireland) Limited and the imprisonment of 14 former employees for contempt of court. Copies of that report are available in the Library of the House for inspection by Members. I appointed Mr. Stewart to independently ascertain and clarify the facts surrounding this dispute. The report which he has prepared sets out those facts in a clear and impartial manner. Basically, what is at issue between the company, the union — the ITGWU which represented the workers employed in the Ranks Limerick and Dublin Flour Mills — and the 26 former employees who took unofficial industrial action against the company is the level of redundancy payments which should be made and whether these payments should correspond to redundancy settlements previously made by the company in 1978 and 1979. The payments in question had been set down in an agreement with the company, known as the 1978-79 Company Redundancy Scheme. The details of that agreement had been arrived at over a period of years since 1974 through negotiations with various companies and broadly referred to "the going rate" in the milling industry which provided for compensation of five-and-a-half to six-and-a-half weeks of pay per year of service.

An addendum to this agreement was subsequently obtained by the No. 12 Branch of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union. The addendum provided that "the company, in the event of redundancy following future plant investment or organisation and alteration causing job reductions, would not discontinue the 1978-1979 company redundancy scheme unless it could be shown to the mutual satisfaction of the parties that such payments were financially unsustainable".

Mr. Stewart points out in his report that the 26 men involved in the unofficial action rely very seriously on the addendum provided by the company to the Dublin No. 12 Branch of the ITGWU.

In October 1982 the company announced a rationalisation plan for the Limerick and Dublin Mills. The company had been experiencing considerable financial difficulties and was losing £7,000 per day. The company claimed that the dramatic increase in flour imports in 1982 resulted in the industry being unable to implement an increase of £16 per ton in July and having to reduce the price by £8 per ton in August. The rationalisation programme saw up to 200 job losses in the Limerick and Dublin areas. The company sought implementation of the plan from 1 December 1982 and indicated its inability to pay redundancy compensation.

On 25 November 1982, at a meeting between the union and the company's chief executive, the company sought agreement by 7 December on rationalisation, agreed to extend the implementation date to 31 December and offered to pay over to the workers the rebate from the redundancy fund which the company would be entitled to receive. The union pressed for the 1978-79 redundancy terms.

On 17 December the company issued redundancy notices to expire on 31 December to the employees concerned. The company stated that if this was not acceptable it would issue redundancy notice to all employees. The case was investigated by the Labour Court on the 4 January 1983. The company had earlier agreed to defer the redundancy notices and issued them on that date to expire at the end of January. Strike notice was served. On 10 January the court recommended a phased payment in line with existing precedents. On 25 January the company announced closure of the mills offering the statutory redundancy terms plus 60 per cent rebate in the event of an orderly closure. The company offered to continue to fund company pensions at a stated cost of £250,000 per annum.

The matter was referred back to the Labour Court on 24 January and the company believed that it there convinced the union of its inability to meet the original recommendation terms, although the union denied this. A ballot of union members on 27 January accepted these terms. Forty-three of the Dublin workers had refused to participate in the ballot. A separate ballot of the Dublin workers on 29 January rejected the company's terms. Some of the Dublin workers decided to accept the company's terms. The remaining 26 commenced unofficial industrial action and engaged in a sit-in on the day the mills closed on 4 February.

When access to the silo could not be gained the company sought and secured an injunction against those in occupation of the mills. The High Court order was not obeyed and ultimately resulted in the imprisonment for contempt of court of 14 of the men involved.

Following my appointment of Mr. Ercus Stewart, Senior Counsel, to prepare a report for me on this dispute he arranged to meet three representatives of each of the parties involved in the following order: the company, the union and the unofficial strikers who claimed to represent 26 or 28 former workers of Ranks, including the 14 committed to prison for contempt of court. Mr. Stewart, in his report, has reached a number of conclusions. I shall now quote the main ones as follows:

There appears to be at present a stalemate between the company and the group of 26, particularly the group of 14 in prison. It appears that only the 14 men can obtain their release from prison by applying to the court, giving an undertaking not to break the High Court order and so purging their contempt. I think the matter is solely in their hands and it does not appear that any outside party, including the Minister for Labour or the Department of Labour, or their union, could obtain their release from prison, as they are there on the order of the High Court Judge purely by reason of a breach of an order of a High Court Judge and a refusal to obey orders of the High Court prohibiting them from occupying or trespassing on the company's premises. I should state that there have been a number of references by a number of different people to the Prohibition of Forcible Entry and Occupation Act, 1971, but I must record that that Act had nothing whatsoever to do with the present dispute or problem and it was not used by any of the parties, or by the Garda Síochána, in this case.

Therefore the use of the Prohibition of Forcible Entry Act in trade disputes does not arise in this case.

Some of the parties to this dispute have genuine views on the use and on the value of injunctions in trade disputes and the use of the courts in trade disputes. This is obviously a matter which the Minister for Labour may be looking at in the future. But I do not see its relevance in the present dispute. The injunctions obtained by the company were not injunctions against picketing, whether that picketing was official or unofficial. All of the parties involved, the company, the union and the unofficial group, agree that if the workers had picketed, either officially or unofficially, that no injunction would have been applied for or would have been granted by the High Court. It is only because the workers occupied the premises of the company, as the company state because they "trespassed" on the company's property, that the company sought an injunction, and the company state they only applied for an injunction when there was a risk to the perishable goods inside the silos after the workers barred their entry on Monday, 7 February. The workers had been in occupation since Friday but the company did not apply to the High Court until Monday.

All of the parties agree that the workers were aware that an injunction would be applied for and were given the opportunity to leave before the injunction was applied for. All of the parties agree that the workers were given the opportunity on a number of occasions in the High Court, by the High Court Judge, to agree to abide by the orders in the future (notwithstanding their past refusal) but they refused, on a number of occasions, to give an undertaking to comply in the future. All are agreed that it was pointed out to them the consequences of this and that they were aware that they would be committed to prison if they did not give the undertakings to purge their contempt. The workers say that they chose not to do so because there was no other way to compel the company to comply with the redundancy settlement terms as in the 1978-79 precedents.

The workers, having gone this far, are not prepared to compromise or to negotiate, but will only accept what their original demands were. The company, too, is not prepared to negotiate or to compromise. This would be giving way to blackmail and to condoning the occupation of the premises where the majority of workers have, albeit reluctantly, accepted much more modest proposals.

The union is, at the present, in a position where its hands are tied, although when I put this to the union they mentioned that they were still actively working on behalf of all of their members to achieve better settlement terms and were also working on behalf of all other members of the union in the milling industry in Ireland, through pressure on the Government, various Ministers and Departments, the Irish Flour Milling Union, the ICTU and other bodies.

One of the most important points is that a number of the workers, in Limerick and Dublin, who have accepted, reluctantly, the company's offer and some of the group of 26, could have accepted the large redundancy payment in 1978 or 1979 but instead chose to work, but were of the belief that in any future redundancy they would be offered the same terms. This is probably the main reason why a minority has chosen to occupy the premises as being, as they see it, the only way to put pressure on the company.

I should like to end my remarks on the dispute in Ranks by stating that I feel it is regrettable that the attitude of the parties to this dispute has led to workers being jailed. I believe the events in Ranks and in other recent disputes have led to a grave worsening in the industrial relations climate in this country which is not in the long-term interest of either employers or workers and which could be extremely detrimental to the future of the whole economy at a time when we are facing the worst recession in modern times.

I should like to avail of this opportunity to appeal to employers and workers on a national basis not to take precipitate action which can have the gravest consequences for economic and employment prospects. I would ask the parties to examine the report. I feel they should re-think their position before taking any further action. I should especially like to take this opportunity to ask those who are not directly involved in this dispute not to exacerbate the situation further through industrial or other action.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

I am glad at last that this serious problem has been raised in this House in the normal, reasonable way, by Government time having been allowed for it. It is significant that it was our efforts on this side of the House this morning, the request from our Chief Whip, Deputy B. Ahern, a representative of the North side of Dublin, which has a particular interest in this problem, that was responsible for having that time made available. It is important to record that because of our request on two successive days serious and urgent matters have been brought into this House, a lot of public controversy and confusion having taken place. Had this been done sooner it might have afforded us all an opportunity of making very sensible and responsible contributions in the impasse that has been reached.

Having said how beneficial and useful it is that we have a discussion here, I must say I am amazed at the strategy adopted by the Minister who, in my opinion, has written a new chapter in Irish industrial relations history by commissioning a report which even on the eminent lawyer's own admission is an investigatory rather than a recommendatory one. I suspect that the Minister and his officials or some agency connected with the Department could have carried out an examination in this instance in the same way. However, the Minister may avail of the opportunity presented by his replying to this debate to tell us why he considered it necessary to seek the services of a lawyer. I appreciate that the person concerned is an eminent man in his own right but he is without practical experience in the very delicate field of trade union negotiations though very good in the area of labour law.

I have a good deal of sympathy with the Minister in respect of this difficult situation. I have had experience of dealing with the company concerned in the past, though more in the bakery situation than in regard to flour milling. I found it difficult in some instances to negotiate with the firm. In one case the negotiations were extremely successful and I pride myself on having made a substantial contribution in that instance, that was, the maintaining of the Kilcock bakery but in the case of O'Rourkes I found the situation impossible. An earlier intervention might have saved some of the jobs in that case but one can never be sure that that would have been the result.

In the case of Cork I confess to having had a very nasty meeting with management and that meeting was certainly early enough to talk in terms of efforts at reopening. The reason I am mentioning these various cases is to indicate how I can share some of the concern of the workers and also their suspicions in dealing with a company who have acted in a rather tough way. The results of their efforts have not been great. One might ask whether the company reinvested or modernised early enough. One can understand to some extent the resentment on the part of the workers at the way in which the situation has developed.

It is important that we have orderly discussion here on such an important issue but I am surprised at the attitude of the Labour Party. The two people on the Labour benches at the moment are very good trade union officials but if I were on the Government benches at a time when Irish workers had been in prison for almost three weeks, there would be a revolution here. No doubt, I would be asked to resign, as I so often was by people in Fine Gael in respect of situations that were far less serious than the one under discussion. A week ago I reminded the Taoiseach that he was sitting on a potential time bomb. I support the appeal of the Minister but he knows that a highly emotional situation arises in cases like this. So far as my research goes, there has never before been imprisonment of the duration of the present case in respect of any dispute associated with industrial relations. Consequently, I am very concerned.

I thank the Minister for having made the report available. I appreciate that it was not possible to let us have a copy earlier but because of receiving it just before the debate began, I have only been able to glance through it. However, we must ask where we go from here. The report does nothing for us. It will not result in having the imprisoned workers released from jail and it does not defuse the potentially dangerous situation that exists. What is obvious from the report is that in recent times there has been a growing tendency to use the court system and to use the weapons of injunctions and imprisonment. In a case in which I intervened personally last year, the result was satisfactory. On this occasion, I am asking the Minister to intervene personally and immediately in the current dispute. In saying that I am not disagreeing with the Minister's policy which is against intervening but in this situation he has little alternative but to intervene personally.

The Minister is well respected on all sides. He has the potential, the character and the personality to approach the situation in a thorough and workman-like way but he must make the move this evening. A solution must be found. The report tells us that we have reached stalemate and all of us know how easy it is to reach that stage and how difficult it is to get out of such an impasse. We know that the court systems and the prison systems result in the building of barriers and of resentment in the area of industrial relations which so often are about human relations, but unfortunately the legal system is far removed from human relations in dealing with matters of this kind. It considers different issues.

I have complimented our Chief Whip on being the person responsible for having this issue raised here. Mr. Stewart says in the report that all parties were satisfied that had pickets been put on, the injunction would not have been granted and imprisonment would not have been the outcome. How can we be sure of that? It is easy to say it now. I am amazed to hear that all other parties are satisfied and that the situation is the result of occupation. Despite some controversial publicity I am glad that the Forcible Entry Act was not used. Once imprisonment takes place, what may or may not be used is merely a technical point so far as industrial disputes are concerned.

There have been threats of widespread action as a result of the imprisonment and while I share the Minister's appeal to the workers not to respond to the calls that have been made in that regard, human nature being what it is, the risk is too great to take. That is why the Minister must intervene now. Each hour's delay is increasing the risk. The report gives no advice as to what we should do today, tomorrow or next week. It tells us that there are 14 people in prison and how they got there. It tells us, too, that the company are intransigent although they are part of a multinational group. Its assets in this city, in my city and in Deputy Prendergast's city must be fairly substantial. I have every sympathy for the Minister, as I will always have sympathy for any Minister for Labour in an Irish Government, but I tell the Minister it will take personal intervention from him to resolve the present unhappy situation. He has the capacity and the goodwill and I urge him to do everything in his power to solve this problem. Steps should have been taken two weeks ago. That is the only criticism I make. The Minister's statement, while it is factual, really serves no purpose. He admits that. He is not one whit nearer to releasing these 14 men. Intervention by him is the only solution that I can see.

I question the suggestion that no injunction would have been granted had it been a picket rather than an occupation. Last year I had to intervene personally — the date is in the Department — in a situation on a building site in North Dublin where a picket was placed and an injunction granted which resulted in imprisonment. How then can anyone suggest there would not have been an injunction had it been a picket?

In my contribution to the budget debate I said our Government had not prevented imports. I now promise Deputy Hegarty he will have our full support in any steps taken to curb flour imports. The existing situation legalises flour imports and I question whether what is being milled here at the moment will continue to be milled or be replaced by imports. I appeal to the Minister to move, and move quickly, to defuse the situation. It is a serious setback for industrial relations. It is not of his making, but the problem is there. The strike is unofficial. I am aware of that. The majority voted to accept the offer. I am aware of that. What we want now is a solution, and a solution fast. The Minister knows full well that in the 14 people in Mountjoy there are constituents of Deputy Ahern, Deputy Tunney and other Deputies. Putting them in prison only inflames the situation. It worsens the situation. The Minister has the report. I shall not criticise it. It merely reiterated the facts. It may have cleared up some doubts. Perhaps the Minister has already taken some steps and will inform us of those steps when he comes to reply.

I shudder to think what kind of reception I would get were I on those benches now and the Labour Party were sitting on this side of the House. There is an obligation on the Labour Party to ensure that industrial relations are maintained. What the Minister has told the House does not advance the situation one iota. Perhaps in his reply he will tell us what moves he is making. The facts are established. What is required now is a meeting quickly of all those involved to ensure a solution is found.

Mr. Prendergast

May I ask a question?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy, the order has been made: 15 minutes for the Minister, 15 minutes for Deputy Gene Fitzgerald and 15 minutes for Deputy De Rossa.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

I have no objection.

Mr. Prendergast

May I have five minutes then?

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

And may I have five minutes for our Chief Whip?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is starting something now. According to the order of the House — as an ex-Minister the Deputy must appreciate the order has been made — it is 15 minutes for the Minister, 15 minutes for the Deputy and 15 minutes for Deputy De Rossa. The Minister will be called on to reply not later than 4.50 p.m.

Mr. De Rossa

If it is in order I am quite prepared to give part of my 15 minutes. It is important that the issue should be debated as widely as possible and that as many Deputies as possible should be allowed to speak on it. We have here an unprecedented situation in which there are 14 members of the ITGWU in prison for almost two weeks. This is an unheard of situation. Even Fianna Fáil never went that far. I ask the Minister to tell us now what steps he proposes to take to defuse the situation. He did not give us any indication in his opening statement. Neither did he offer any hope. Perhaps he sees no hope in the situation. However, it came across very clearly from what he said that the company are the prime element responsible for the situation. Irrespective of the manner in which the court acted, irrespective of the procedures which resulted in men being put in prison, the company cannot shirk their responsibilities. The men cannot get out of prison until they purge their contempt. The situation has arisen because of a cold, calculated decision by the company to take action in the full knowledge that this would be the net result. As a Workers' Party representative it is quite unacceptable to me that any company, small or large, should have the right to act in that way and get away with it.

I tried to become involved in an effort to find some way out of this dilemma. I approached the company. My sympathies are with the workers and not with the company and I must say here that I found the company quite uncompromising. No attempt whatsoever was made to offer any option to the men. At that time there were four in prison. I made the point on the Adjournment Debate the other night that this company is part of a multinational consortium. The company is worth thousands of millions of pounds — not just millions of pounds — and it is utter nonsense for them to claim they cannot abide by an agreement they made quite freely in 1978-79. I am quite convinced that one of the main reasons they are adopting this position is because they have other redundancies in the pipeline and they are using this position to get themselves off the hook. Their intention is to cut down their operations completely and supply imports from Britain. The only way in which this impasse can be resolved is by putting pressure on the company to abide by their agreement. We have now a company in Ballyfermot also attempting to use this device: "Accept our terms or we shut down". I am very pleased that negotiations have recommenced and I do not intend to pursue that line but if Ranks get away with what they are doing they are setting a headline for companies who consider they have the strength to outdo the workers. This House must not allow companies, whether they are native or foreign, to get away with that. We should tell such companies that this House will legislate to ensure that agreements entered into freely by the workers and by the company are not welched on by the company when it suits them.

The Minister said he was anxious that others not directly involved in the dispute should not get involved in it. I cannot accept that position. Every worker in this country is directly involved in this dispute. If these workers continue to languish in jail or even if in a month's time or in two or six months' time these men, through weariness, come out of prison having failed to force the company to take action, workers in general cannot feel secure in any agreements they make with any company. I welcome the solidarity that has been shown by the trade unions. The president of the largest trade union in the State, Mr. John Carroll, has said quite clearly that he supports the stand of the workers. They are supported by the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union, The Dublin Council of Trade Unions, the workers in Rowntrees, the workers in the flour milling industry, the National Land League, even RGDATA.

It is not simply a question of 14 workers on their own trying to thumb their noses at Ranks. It is the working class of this State who are showing that they will not be dictated to in any situation where, for their own reasons, a company feels that the interests of their shareholders are far more important than the interests of workers who have given, in some instances, their whole lives to a company and can then be thrown on the scrap heap and told: "Sorry lads, that is it. We have not got any money to pay you. We must sell our assets in order to satisfy the demands of our shareholders." That is not something to which The Workers' Party could be a party and I would hope the Labour Party would not be a party to it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has two minutes.

Mr. De Rossa

Taking the statement the Minister has made and the summary he has given of the report, it is clear that if industrial relations are to be kept on an even keel in this State there is no way out of this dilemma unless the Government insist on the company meeting their agreements with the workers and the recommendations made by the Labour Court.

Mr. Gregory-Independent

On Wednesday of last week the Minister made his announcement that he intended to follow the strategy of appointing Mr. Stewart to investigate this dispute. I regretted at the time that that announcement was made by the Minister outside the House to the media at a time when Deputies inside the House, including myself, were asking the Ceann Comhairle and asking the Government to make a statement here. That was a very regrettable precedent and I reiterate the statement of Deputy Fitzgerald in welcoming now, at long last, the bringing of this dispute to where it rightly belongs, the floor of this House. I am glad it is being dealth with in the normal time of the House and not being consigned to adjournment debates or any other mechanisms being used to consign it to the background of the business of the House. It is an extremely important situation and it should be debated here. That is reflected in the fact that we have the extraordinary situation now where Deputies want to contribute and because of the constrictions of time cannot do so or can only do so on the basis of other Deputies allowing them some of their time, when we have on other days debates going on throughout the day and the Whips of the various Parties running around trying to find people and get them to contribute. It is important that we take every opportunity to make this House more relevant, and certainly preventing a dispute of this type from being debated here would make it more irrelevant than it had ever been in the past. I welcome the fact that we have at last brought this dispute before the House.

Listening to the Minister I was surprised to hear that it had taken a week by a specially commissioned individual to produce what seems to be a relatively short report which does not appear to me — I have not so far been given a copy of the report — to provide any solutions or indeed any pointers as to the direction of whatever steps the Minister proposes to follow up his own strategy. I do not know whether he simply accepts that there is stalemate there, that it is a very difficult situation and there is nothing he can do. It is certainly his responsibility and I hope he will act very quickly now that he has the report.

The dispute itself has been outlined. My stand is in absolute support of the workers and of the line of action these workers have taken. I visited some of the workers in jail and they are absolutely certain that they are justified in their action and they do not intend to purge their contempt to enable them to be released. They feel they are justified, I certainly feel they are justified and I, like Deputy De Rossa, feel that if pressure is to be put on it should be put on the company by the Minister and by the Government.

The primary aspect of this dispute is that there are 14 workers imprisoned and although the report states that the Minister cannot intervene in this aspect of it I am not at all satisfied that the Government cannot act in this regard. It is my belief that the Government can order the release of these men or of anybody in prison. I hope this issue will not be evaded by the Minister in his reply. It may not be his specific responsibility but he has been attending Government meetings over the last two weeks and I am sure all Deputies and workers throughout the country would like the Minister to let us know if the Government have given consideration to the release of these men. No mediation can take place, or be successful, when one side in the dispute is locked in a prison cell. In such a threatening and intimidating situation how can such a dispute be resolved? It is simply not on. These men have to be released and it is the responsibility of the Government to order their release. I ask the Minister to tell us if consideration of any kind has been given by the Government in that regard.

Mr. Prendergast

I am glad to have this opportunity to make a contribution to this debate. I have been involved in some of the negotiations which led to the present impasse, and the continuing behind the scene activities to see if some satisfactory solution can be found to the present problem. I do not want to say too much in public about that aspect.

I find myself in the invidious position where, because of the obligation on us to recognise the constraints of law and procedure, we might appear to be prisoners of a situation while all our sympathies are with the morality of the claims of those people who are in prison. There is a grave obligation on everyone concerned — I am talking about the company — to take account of that. The Labour Court endorsed the claim which was based on a commitment given by the company in previous negotiations that the claim would be honoured. The judge who made the commital order conveyed his sympathy to the workers but said that he, too, was more or less a prisoner of the law as it stands.

This situation brings to the forefront the question of the use of injunctions as a means of settling industrial relations disputes. The workers will not tolerate that for any length of time. We are dealing with an increasingly sophisticated workforce who are aware and educated to the machinations of the multinational companies. Many of the families in my constituency have been associated with Ranks for generations and their names are synonymous with that company. Many of these people could have got very lucrative settlements from the company had they availed of earlier opportunities to pull out and did not do so.

Because we used the law to resolve this situation, there are 14 workers in jail, admittedly because of an official action, and the majority of their colleagues decided to abide by the majority decision taken at the outcome of the negotiations. Everybody sympathises with the morality of the claims of the people concerned.

It is very easy to stand up in this House or elsewhere and profess to be sincere in an attempt to find a solution to this problem while at the same time making political capital out of it. I have not heard yet from previous speakers any positive suggestions that might be used in this case. I want the Minister to tell me if it is possible for the Government to intervene and have these people released. If it is, I and my colleague support him but if it is not, it should be clearly spelled out so as not to exacerbate further very high emotions on this issue.

Because of the extent of their capital assets here, the company should be approached because their assets are no longer of any value to them as a flour producing concern. Also they should be asked to honour their commitments. We have reached an impasse. The workers are saying they will not leave jail until they get the money promised. I asked the company what kind of money could be made available by the Government and they said it was useless spending money on a loss-making operation. The company might be approached by the Government again to see if they could come up with a solution that the money could be found by the realisation of their assets. The resources of the national Employer Labour Conference might be called on to come up with a solution to this very pressing problem, because this affects everyone involved in the legitimate industrial relations scene.

Minister for Labour (Mr. Kavanagh)

I thank Deputies for their contributions. It has been said that this debate was pressed on the Government. For the second time in two days the Government have given time from their business to allow a debate on this very important and urgent topic brought forward by the Opposition. Credit should be given to any Government who adopt this attitude. In the past, such a move was not usual, although I recall occasions when debates were allowed at short notice.

I want to thank Mr. Ercus Stewart S.C. for agreeing to take on this task of assessor. He is one of the best qualified legal experts on industrial relations procedure in this country and all parties to this dispute co-operated fully with him and gave their views when requested.

What I needed at this time was a completely independent legal investigation carried out by somebody not involved in this matter and who could not be regarded as biased in any way. Mr. Stewart, in agreeing to carry out this task, did his job impartially and fully and produced a very complete report, the purpose of which was to set out all the problems and ramifications involved, because 14 men felt they should spend time in jail for a principal they hold dear, and with which many Deputies agree.

I hope the report is read by everyone who has an interest in this matter. Then they will have the full facts and they will be able to draw their own conclusions. From that point alone it was important that this exercise be carried out. It has been suggested that this was a wasted exercise but it is not if it has brought out the full facts for the people who worked in Limerick and Dublin, those on pension and the many involved whose positions would not have changed if this dispute had not taken place, but because the dispute took a different turn, their livelihood could be greatly affected. For that reason I am happy that this exercise has taken place and that the facts are there for all to read. In answer to a question from one of the Deputies, I cannot say that the Semperit situation has any parallel with this case. It does not relate at all to the terms of redundancy which the workers are receiving in Semperit, so we should not draw that matter into this dispute. We have already discussed the Semperit issue briefly on a Private Notice Question.

The matter of the curbing of imports of flour was raised. This has been taken up by the Government with the EEC. My colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, has already had discussions on the matter and it is receiving further attention. The point made by Deputy Fitzgerald is being pursued actively.

As regards the statement by Deputy Gregory-Independent — a point also made by other Deputies — that the Government should order the release of these men, that they could meet in Cabinet and simply make an order for the release of the workers, or that the Minister for Justice could make an order for their release, I must emphasise that the assessor's report makes clear that the Government cannot arrange this. The release of the men can be secured only by an order in the High Court. The men were in contempt and in that situation the only way their release can be secured is by purging that contempt in the High Court. The Government, by any decision or action, cannot change that. That will have to be done at some stage and I hope that very soon the opportunity will present itself to allow the men to purge their contempt.

Deputy Fitzgerald said that when he was on these benches members of the Labour Party would have hounded him on a situation like this. He mentioned that when I was Opposition spokesman for Labour I certainly accepted, as he has accepted on my behalf, the difficult task facing any Minister for Labour in disputes such as this. I can assure him that the Labour Party Members are as anxious as he and have been with me in my office discussing this dispute. Both sides can be assured that my Department will co-operate in every way possible to achieve the release of these men by talking with any of those involved or meeting them as soon as I leave this Chamber. My Department is, and has been, available. The actions I have taken up to now, would, I would have thought, have assured the Members of the House and the public in general that we are deeply concerned about what has happened in this dispute.

It was for that very reason that I thought that the facts should be thoroughly investigated, as anyone who reads the assessor's report would agree. Anyone making comments about the dispute, or drawing conclusions will find the full facts, the full history, the full ramifications of all actions taken in this dispute, or which will be taken from now on. Following the publication of this report I hope that the parties to the dispute will re-examine their positions so that further action may be taken to resolve the issue. As I said, my Department and its agencies will be available to take whatever actions are appropriate to bring about a speedy solution to this dispute.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

Where do we go from here? We have made no progress.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Griffin)

Deputy Conaghan was given permission to raise an issue on the Adjournment.

Mr. G. Birmingham

On a point of order, because the debate has finished slightly earlier than anticipated, the Minister is not in the House and perhaps the Deputy could wait just a moment?

Mr. B. Ahern

I was a little late and the Minister had concluded speaking for the first time and we were allowed only one speaker. On behalf of Fianna Fáil, I thank the Minister for allowing time for the debate. We felt it was an urgent matter. We appreciate that this is the second time this week that we have obtained permission for a special debate. It proves to everybody in this House that with a special debate planned to finish at 5 o'clock, it was important that I should speak. Under the present Standing Orders of this House I could not and neither could the Labour Party Members, had not Deputy De Rossa kindly given some of his time. This shows that the sooner the archaic Standing Orders are changed to allow this the better, even when we are willing to give time, in the interest of orderly debate.

Mr. Kavanagh

We usually expect debates on a Private Notice Question to last a little longer. In order that the full time would be allocated to this debate, because of the gravity of the situation it was decided that the debate would start at 4 o'clock. That is why it started a little earlier. I am sorry that the Opposition Party Whip was not allowed to make a contribution.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 24 Feb 1983