Deputy De Rossa has been given permission to raise on the Adjournment the continuing dispute at Ranks and the steps the Minister for Labour proposes to take in the matter. The Deputy has been disallowed part of his request concerning the imprisoned worker as the Minister has no responsibility in that matter. It is a matter entirely for the court and the Deputy has been so advised.
Adjournment Debate. - Ranks (Dublin) Dispute.
I thank the Chair for the opportunity to raise this matter with the Minister for Labour. This dispute has been in progress for some 18 months. As the Chair has indicated, a man is in prison arising from the dispute. I realise the Minister has no responsibility in that regard but I think resolution of the dispute could lead to the man's release.
The Dáil debated this topic early last year. The then Minister for Labour received a report on the dispute in February 1983 which went into considerable detail about the various elements. At that time, the demand of the workers in dispute was that the redundancy payments being offered were far below the figures recommended by the Labour Court but Ranks were pleading inability to pay. I commented then that it seemed extraordinary that a subsidiary of a huge multinational company, Ranks, Hovis and McDougall, in Britain, were pleading inability to pay adequate redundancy to men and women who had given long years of service to the firm and who had amassed great profits for that company.
The dispute has moved on some distance since then. In the intervening period the men involved have become far more interested in having jobs rather than in getting redundancy. They have indicated to me that they are aware of at least three parties who are interested in the mill and in maintaining it as a going concern. However, Ranks and the liquidator operating for the company are more interested in doing away with the milling section and in establishing the Phibsboro' facility as a distribution depot.
In considering that aspect of the problem, it is worth referring to a circular letter received from the Irish Flour Millers Association dated 25 May 1984. I am sure all Deputies, including the Minister, have received a copy of that letter. It is signed by the chairman of the Irish Flour Millers Association and in the course of the letter he indicated that the Irish flour milling industry is under threat because of what he claims to be dumped imported flour from the United Kingdom. In his letter he stated:
Following the closure of the Ranks mill, a decision appears to have been taken by major milling concerns in Britain that they would seek to capture the total Irish flour market. They have set about doing so by selling flour in Ireland at prices below those obtaining in the UK and this does not take account of the cost of transportation. The consequence to date is that 20 per cent of the domestic market has been lost to these mills, the larger of which exceeds in size the total industry here combined.
The letter mentions a 20 per cent penetration by British flour millers in our domestic market. At the beginning of last year in reply to a question, the then Minister for Trade, Commerce and Tourism indicated that imports of flour were in the region of 15 per cent. There appears to have been a substantial increase in the amount of imports as a result of the closure of Ranks.
I am convinced that the closure of the mill is not unconnected with the fact that flour imports are rising fairly rapidly and there appears to be a concerted attempt to supply the Irish market with imported flour. I have been told that in at least one instance baked bread is being imported daily which seems extraordinary given that we have a number of men who have demonstrated their capacity and willingness to work in that area.
The whole question is tied in with the food processing industry in Ireland but I do not propose to go into that matter in detail tonight. While mills are closing down in this country, approximately 80 per cent of the wheat used in Irish flour milling is imported. It seems extraordinary that we do not appear to be able to grow sufficient wheat to mill flour for the Irish market, never mind trying to export it.
For more than 18 months the men involved in this dispute have demonstrated their determination to work and to maintain their jobs. They demand that a viable flour milling industry be retained. Today we dealt with a Bill dealing with the hours of work. In that connection the Minister of State indicated it was the intention of the Bill to improve job opportunities. Yet we have a situation where a number of men have been sitting in in a mill simply demanding work. We are told frequently that the work ethic does not exist in this country anymore but here people have demonstrated quite clearly that they are responsible and have what is called the work ethic, although I am not at all sure I would define the work ethic in the same way as those who talk about it in other respects. These men have demonstrated their sense of responsibility because during the occupation they have ensured that the wheat in the mill has been maintained in good condition, that it has been turned over and sprayed for pest control and so on. In fact, they have done a job of work for the liquidator and for Ranks in ensuring that the main asset in the mill has been maintained in good condition. That is something that should be kept in mind when discussing this dispute.
As the Ceann Comhairle indicated, one man is in jail as a result of this dispute. I ask the Minister to refer to the fact and to state what he thinks can be done to achieve that man's release. There are a number of questions which have to be asked in relation to this dispute. What effect has the embargo which was announced by the government by way of press statements some time ago had, that the IDA would not involve themselves with companies where sit-ins were in progress? Would the Minister indicate if that instruction has affected the dispute in Ranks? What negotiations, if any, are taking place to ensure that the milling facility is retained at Phibsborough? Have the IDA made approaches to the three parties to which the Rank workers referred to see if there is a viable opportunity to ensure that jobs are maintained at the site? Has the Minister tried to secure Harry Fleming's release? There are a number of other points which do not relate to the Minister's area of responsibility. The dumping of flour on the Irish market needs to be examined and has a bearing on the dispute at Ranks.
I appeal to the Minister, if he has not already done so, to intervene directly in this dispute to ensure that jobs are maintained on the site, that the milling industry will not be taken over and destroyed by flour imports and to ensure that the men who have been struggling for so long to maintain their right to work and insisted on the right to do so will be given first opportunity on any jobs which may be created.
I should like to remind the House that this dispute began as long ago as January 1983, as Deputy De Rossa indicated. Following a dispute over redundancy the company decided to close in early February 1983, offering statutory redundancy payments plus 60 per cent for an orderly closure. The company also offered to fund company pensions at a stated cost of £250,000 per annum. At that time Ranks employed about 300 workers, 70 in Dublin and the remainder in Limerick. In a joint ballot of union members in Dublin and Limerick the majority agreed to accept the terms offered. About 40 workers in Dublin refused to participate in the ballot.
A separate ballot of the Dublin workers on 29 January 1983 rejected the company's terms. Some of the Dublin workers decided to accept the company's terms. The remaining 26 or so commenced unofficial industrial action and engaged in a sit-in on the day the mills closed on 4 February 1983. Subsequently, the company sought and secured an injunction against those occupying the mills. As a result of an order of the High Court not being obeyed 14 workers were imprisoned for contempt of court.
A report on the dispute was prepared at the request of the then Minister, Deputy Kavanagh, by Mr. Ercus Stewart, Senior Counsel, and, following further discussions at the Employer Labour Conference, a formula was agreed on which ended in the workers concerned being released. On 2 May 1983 the Minister for Labour, Deputy Kavanagh, appointed a mediator in the dispute, Mr. John Horgan, Deputy Chairman of the Labour Court. Following a ballot Mr. Horgan secured the agreement of the workers in Limerick to a further set of proposals which were an improvement on the earlier ones. Again, the workers in occupation of the mill in Dublin would not take part in the ballot.
The new proposals, which were accepted, provided for a substantial improvement in redundancy payments as well as a lodgment of £¼ million in a new bank account to meet the cost of these payments. The agreement provided for a review of further payments every year up to 1988 and the mediator, in consultation with an independent chartered accountant, was to make a recommendation on the level of any further payments in the light of the trading position of the company and all relevant factors. The final review in 1988 was not to exclude the mediator from making a recommendation for a final fixed settlement over future years. The company undertook to continue the payment of unfunded ex gratia pensions and to make good any deficit of the non-contributory fund. The situation is, therefore, that a settlement was arrived at in Limerick but, the sit-in in Dublin continued. In relation to the settlement in Limerick, which a minority of workers opposed, a statement was issued by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions asking affiliated unions not to support the sit-in which was in progress. Congress stated that through the failure of workers not to abide by a majority decision former employees could suffer serious financial loss. The statement continued that it would be intolerable if the democratic decision of the majority was to be set aside and thwarted by the actions of a small number of people. If such actions were to succeed the result would be the negation of democracy in trade union affairs. Unions must defend the basic trade union principle that was involved in this matter.
A similar statement was issued by the main union involved, the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union, who deplored the refusal to uphold the fundamental principles of trade union democracy. The national executive sought the full support of the Limerick Council of Trade Unions in expressing their abhorrence at what it described as "the unwarranted intimidation and interferrence in the affairs of the local flour mill section". I am putting these statements by the ICTU and the ITGWU on the record of the House as I do not agree with the tactics used by the former employees who have occupied the mill in Phibsborough for the past 15 months. As Deputies will have gathered from my account of the course of this dispute, no effort has been spared in seeking a solution. The matter has been to the Counciliation Service of the Labour Court. There has been a full hearing of the Labour Court itself and a subsequent meeting with the relevant division of the court. A special report was commissioned by the Minister for Labour conducted by Mr. Ercus Stewart, Senior Counsel, and the Employer Labour Conference met late into the night where an agreed formula to release the imprisoned workers was arrived at. Since last May a mediator appointed by the Minister has worked effectively and exhaustively to find a compromise acceptable to all.
Ranks (Ireland) Limited are now in official liquidation. The liquidator is acting under the supervision of the High Court and, as Minister for Labour, I have no authority to interfere in any way with the statutory obligations of the liquidator. I cannot interfere with the liquidator or direct him to sell the assets to any particular individual. If the mill is reopened as a going concern I hope that priority would be given to the employment of as many of the former employees as possible. I am referring to the 70 employees who previously worked in the Dublin mills. I have been in touch with the mediator as recently as today following the request from Deputy De Rossa to have this matter raised on the Adjournment. As the House will be aware, the mediator was appointed last May by Deputy Liam Kavanagh, Minister for Labour at that time. The mediator has informed me that he is receiving a report on the situation in Ranks from a firm of chartered accountants this week, following which he is to have further talks with the main union involved, the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union on the entire matter. The mediator has informed me that he is at all times willing to talk to any of the people involved in the dispute including those sitting in at the mill at Phibsborough. Therefore I would ask the workers involved to pursue their claims through the normal trade union and industrial relations channels so that a final settlement to this very difficult dispute can be arrived at as soon as possible.
As Minister for Labour, and on behalf of the families involved, it is a matter of deep regret that one of the workers has been imprisoned. The Stewart Report in relation to the imprisonment of 14 workers last year stated:
.... it appears that only the 14 men themselves can obtain their release from prison by applying to Court, giving an undertaking not to break the High Court Orders 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 a 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.
There have been a number of references in the press to the use of the Prohibition of Forcible Entry and Occupation Act, 1971. Quite frankly that has not been the case. That Act has had nothing whatever to do with the way in which the present situation has been dealt with. It has not been used by any of the parties or by the Garda Síochána in this case. Therefore, the use of the Prohibition of Forcible Entry and Occupation Act in trade union disputes does not arise in this situation. The situation described by Mr. Stewart is equally relevant, regrettably, in respect of Mr. Harry Fleming today. While you have indicated, a Cheann Comhairle, that I have no function in the matter, in response to the matter raised by Deputy De Rossa, I would say simply that the Ercus Stewart judgment, to which I referred earlier regarding the 14 men who were previously imprisoned, stands in relation to Mr. Fleming today. As a consequence I would ask him to reconsider his position and to realise that more can be achieved at the negotiating table than in prison.
In relation to the vast number of other issues Deputy De Rossa raised — and on which I have many opinions, a lot of which would be shared by him — I have no official or legal responsibility in this regard and so I have confined my remarks exclusively to the issues at hand which relate to the labour relations aspect of the affair.
I am a member of a party that is affiliated to the trade union movement, that has had a long and close association with the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union who indeed celebrate their seventy-fifth anniversary this very week at their annual conference. That union, to my knowledge — perhaps Deputy De Rossa not being in the position I am in is not aware of it — has exhausted every possible avenue and will continue to use every possible avenue to find a democratic resolution to this problem. Although he did not say so, I know that Deputy De Rossa would be the first, on behalf of his party, to deplore the suggestions of non-democratic action that have been hinted at or connived at by some of the people who would have liked to support the workers in their legitimate struggle to secure their employment and the best possible deal for themselves. As a trade unionist, and as a member of the Labour Party, with close links with the trade unions affiliated to my party, I regret very much that the procedures of the union—procedures that have in all cases been worked at by competent officials and have been negotiated by competent officials — have not been fully or properly observed by the majority. There is a fundamental principle in trade union affairs; that it be non-violent, non-militaristic, in its traditions, background or current practices, that at all times it recognised that the strength of the individual is found in the majority opinion democratically arrived at. In this instance the best interests of the majority of workers and of their families are to be found in the majority decisions freely arrived at without intimidation or recourse to extraneous influences of one kind or another.
I share very much the view of the House that as much as possible of Irish manufacturing capacity be utilised within the home market so as to ensure that we achieve the maximum degree of import substitution open to us. Without necessarily referring to the various points Deputy De Rossa raised regarding the role of the IDA or indeed the role of the prospective three buyers, all I can say is that the mediator appointed by the former Minister for Labour is an extremely competent person in the area of industrial relations. If there is a possibility of a purchaser, then those purchasers should make themselves known to the mediator, who would be more than anxious to meet them. I think Deputy De Rossa is perhaps misinformed when he says that the Government gave a direction to the IDA not to attempt to find prospective purchasers for plants or factories which had gone or attempted to go into liquidation and were currently being occupied. The Government gave no such direction. The IDA indicated to us, by way of information, that it would be impossible for them to attempt to find prospective purchasers for such companies when those companies were occupied by workers, for whatever reason. They simply informed us that that was their professional view as people who have a reasonably good record in this area.
I have nothing further to add to the matters raised by the Deputy except to say that I deeply regret the minute any worker is imprisoned in this country. Personally I would like to be in the position in which I could ensure that no worker would find himself or herself in that position. There is no labour law on the Statute Book that has any worker in jail today. The legislation that has Mr. Fleming in prison today is the same legislation that had the 14 workers in prison before, that is their conscious contempt of court and of an order of the court. They have the instruments of their release in their own hands and Mr. Fleming has the instrument of his release in his own hands, that is the purging of his own contempt. For our part we will do everything possible to ensure a democratic and peaceful resolution of this sad affair, hopefully with the prospect of retaining a viable economically and efficiently run flourmilling industry.
The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. Wednesday, 30 May 1984.