asked the Minister for Labour, if, in view of the hardship caused to the people of Dublin by the seriously deteriorating level of bus services in the city and the likelihood that this will increase due to the decision of CIE management to increase the number of drivers being suspended, he will use the power available to him under sections 18 and 24 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946, to request the Labour Court to intervene and to report to him on the issues involved.
Private Notice Question. - CIE Bus Dispute.
As the House will be aware, the issue of the introduction of one-person-operated (OPO) double decker and large capacity single decker buses is a long standing one in CIE. The company's first proposal on the issue dates back to 1967.
As recently as August this year the Labour Court issued a comprehensive recommendation covering the issue in contention. I would like to outline the many points which have been agreed. These are:
(a) that there will be no involuntary redundancy for any driver or conductor in Dublin city services;
(b) that OPO will be introduced on a voluntary basis; this means that any driver or conductor who does not wish to participate in one-person-operation may continue on two-person-operations;
(c) that the company guarantee jobs in their own grades in their own garages and on their own routes for marked in drivers and marked in conductors not engaged in one-person-operations;
(d) that employees who, as a result of the introduction of OPO, suffer a loss of earnings will be paid lump sum compensation already agreed;
(e) that temporary drivers and conductors will continue to be appointed in the normal way;
(f) that the training of conductors as drivers on two-person-operated routes will be stepped up to ensure, as far as possible, that vacancies for drivers which in the normal way would be filled by recruitment, will be filled from the conducting grade;
(g) that the company will provide adequate facilities for the training of all drivers — and conductors trained as drivers — in the techniques of one-person-operation; drivers — and conductors trained as drivers — selected for such training may opt on the basis of personal application;
(h) that overtime, rest day working, etc. will be allocated on a proportionate basis between OPO and two-person-operation (TPO); all private hire and non-stage carriage services will be OPO;
(i) that the procedure for implementation will be that:
As a preliminary, each driver and conductor will be invited to express their options with a view to determining if they wish to be considered for one-person-operation, two-person-operation and/or conversion payment or voluntary severance. These options will be without commitment by the individual or CIE.
When a route is planned for conversion to OPO the following procedure will apply:
Drivers on the route will be given the option of becoming one-person-operators on the route or taking a conversion payment and moving off the route. Conductors will be given a conversion payment for moving off the route.
When a busworker accepts a conversion payment he/she will revert to the spare category and may apply in the ordinary way for vacancies on TPO routes.
(j) that on the implementation of one-person double deck operation employees may be offered voluntary severance terms;
(k) that there will be no dual purpose routes, i.e. one-person-operation and two-person-operation buses on the same route;
(l) that a conductor converting to driving will have his/her conducting duty held during his/her probationary period as heretofore; the conductor may decide to opt off the route to enable it to be converted to one-person-operation;
(m) the amendment of the rule book will be put in hands.
The Labour Court has pointed out that there are also a number of unresolved issues, the main one being safety, the risk of assault to drivers particularly if they are carrying large amounts of cash at night. In this regard the Labour Court has recommended that a safe should be installed on each bus. The second item is the collection of fares. At present the driver or conductor is responsible for the collection of fares. On this point the Labour Court has recommended that passengers should be legally responsible for paying their fares.
With regard to reduction in working hours, the unions are looking for a five day, 37 hour week for bus workers. Having regard to the direct and other cost implications, the Labour Court has not recommended any reduction in working hours. However, it has recommended the introduction of a five day working week within two years. With regard to the DART feeder buses, the Labour Court has recommended that feeder buses should come into operation.
As regards other key issues, the Labour Court has made the following recommendations: first, the bonus for one-person-operation should be increased to 33 per cent; second, those personnel who agree to transfer from two-person-operation to one-person-operation will receive conversion payments of £300 for the first ten years of service and £30 for each year of service over ten years. In other words, a driver with 30 years service who agrees to convert from a two-person-operation to a one-person-operation will receive a sum of £900; third, a tribunal should be set up to deal with disputes arising from the introduction of one-person-operation.
The Labour Court pointed out in the August recommendation that whatever the overall benefits of one-person-operation to the company and the community, it should be clear that there are tangible benefits to bus workers who choose to avail of it. The proposals are entirely voluntary for each individual. They contain no threat to job or security of any existing bus worker.
The Labour Court recommendation was rejected by the unions. In a further effort to achieve agreement on the outstanding issues the Labour Court met the parties as recently as last Monday. Talks in the court covered a ten hour period but unfortunately they did not bridge the gap between the two parties.
It is obvious from what I said earlier that there exists a large measure of agreement on many of the issues involved and I would ask the parties to make further strenuous efforts to come together to try to resolve the outstanding issues. It is my understanding that the Labour Court is willing to give further assistance to the parties if they require it.
My question specifically asked if the Minister would request the Labour Court to report to him on the outstanding issues and I ask him to respond to that point. Is he not aware that at this time management have locked out 30 bus workers and put 400 on protective notice and that the question of the one-person-operated system being entirely voluntary is no longer the case in view of the fact that management are insisting that staff take up training for this purpose or be suspended? Would he not accept that the question of safety, both of the driver and passengers, is of legitimate concern to the bus workers and the mere fact that a substantial monetary reward is available, and which has not been accepted by the bus workers, indicates the seriousness with which they regard the extended working hours which they are at present obliged to work, and the safety aspect to themselves and the money for which the company insist that they be responsible?
As regards my direct responsibility and that of the Labour Court, I repeat that the Labour Court has made a very detailed recommendation and I read it into the record so that all sides would see to what extent the Labour Court has already intervened on a proposal which has been under discussion since 1967, without agreement having been reached. CIE have accepted the Labour Court recommendation. There is very little gap——
What about safety and security aspects?
My understanding is that CIE have accepted the Labour Court recommendation. Having regard to the length of time they have been negotiating this issue there is very little difference between them. I was asked if I would avail of section 24 or see if section 18 could be used to make the Labour Court services available to resolve this dispute. It is clear from my reply that the Labour Court has been substantially involved in this dispute and are prepared to make themselves available again but it depends on the response from both sides in the dispute.
First, may I thank the Chair for allowing us to debate this extremely delicate matter.
It is good to hear something nice for a change.
I went to the trouble today to speak to the Minister for Communications and the leaders of the unions concerned. As I said, the safety regulations and the hours of work are the only two issues of concern to the workers. CIE say they are concerned with funding and the possibility of keeping within their estimate. While this argument of principle has been going on for 18 years the Government, the workers and management of CIE, the traders and their families——
The Deputy must ask a question. This is not an Adjournment debate.
It appears that by Monday all the bus crews will not be working, the workers' position is getting more entrenched and CIE are on their high horse. I cannot say at this stage who is right and who is wrong, and neither could the Labour Court. Each side say they do not wish to put the people of Dublin at risk, but would the Minister consider formally calling both sides to the Labour Court tomorrow morning, under the chairmanship of John Horgan, so that we can try to resolve this problem? It is incredible and unreasonable that the present situation should exist. The city has almost come to a standstill at what should be the busiest time of the year. The traders and their families——
I have given the Deputy a good deal of latitude.
Would the Minister issue a direct invitation to both parties to see what progress can be made? I am not sure if this would be successful but it certainly would be helpful.
The Deputy and the House can take it that the Government share the concern that has been expressed here today. This is a complicated dispute which has been going on for a long time.
As Minister for Labour it is my responsibility to ensure that the machinery designed to facilitate the resolution of industrial relations problems works. If Deputy Ahern is asking me to make sure that that machinery is made available to help resolve this dispute, then the answer is yes, I give an undertaking to consider in what way the machinery for industrial relations at my disposal can be put to the most effective use to find a solution to this problem.
I thank the Chair for the opportunity to discuss this very important matter once again. In his original reply the Minister said a great deal had been achieved and that at this stage there is a relatively small number of matters outstanding. While the Minister has indicated that the Labour Court facilities are available, can we be assured that some initiative will come from his Department? The current stand-off position must end eventually and the parties will have to sit down, we hope sooner rather than later, and resolve the remaining difficulties. Will the Minister make every effort to bridge the gap between both parties?
I said in my reply I would ask the parties to make further strenuous efforts to come together to try to resolve the outstanding issues. I am asking them to do this in public and that request will be communicated to both sides. As I said in my reply, I confirm that the Labour Court is available to both sides. The House will realise that in a dispute of this kind it is unwise for any of us to go further than to say that public representatives in this House are articulating the concern of everyone in the city.
I cannot accept the benign approach taken by Deputy Ahern in relation to who is to blame and who is not to blame in this matter. I do not believe that one-person operated buses is any longer at issue. In view of the fact that this is a State company, I ask the Minister to request the management of CIE to end the action at this time of suspending drivers. If it were the unions who were involved in strike action I am sure they would be asked to end their action. Will the Minister at this stage publicly or privately — I am not concerned which way he chooses — ask the management of CIE to end the confrontational stance they have taken coming up to the Christmas shopping period so that outstanding problems can be discussed calmly and without the threat of loss of jobs hanging over the bus workers?
Again, I repeat my call that a strenuous effort should be made by both sides to come together. As far as I am concerned that would ensure that the path would be open for negotiations between both sides. Quite clearly, negotiations cannot start if the parties are not prepared to talk to each other. As a result of this Private Notice Question, the House may take it that both sides will be fully aware of the views articulated here.
The Minister has stated that the machinery at his disposal will be made available to both sides if they want to use it. Seeing that that machinery, namely, the Labour Court, has already been involved and as there is definitely a machismo element both on the management side and on the union side, will the Minister also note that this House subsidises very heavily two large industrial relations departments in Trinity College, Dublin, and in University College, Dublin. If the Labour Court is not acceptable, will he call on the heads of those departments to try to settle this dispute in order to remove hardship from the citizens of Dublin before Christmas?
Should that be necessary — I am not ruling it out — I would certainly be prepared to consider doing what the Deputy has suggested.
I should like to seek an explanation from the Chair why he rejected my Private Notice Question in relation to the proposed increase in the television licence fee. This has been proposed by RTE and has been submitted to the Government. At this stage when An Post are unable or unwilling to collect television fees from spongers——
The Deputy has asked me for an explanation. I do not wish to be short with him but I am not in the business of giving explanations in the House and the Deputy should know that. I am not giving an explanation. I have already sent an explanation to him through my private secretary in accordance with a standing practice that has prevailed here for about 40 years.
I hope the Chair will consider this matter in the forthcoming week.