I have had Private Notice Questions in the names of a number of Deputies — Deputy Ruairí Quinn, Deputy George Birmingham and Deputy Richard Bruton and Deputy Pat O'Malley. We will take the questions in the order in which they were submitted to me.
Private Notice Questions. - ESB Dispute.
asked the Minister for Labour the efforts, if any, he has made to secure a settlement of the ESB dispute through the various industrial relations channels which are still available and which have not been used; if he will ensure that all industrial relations channels are used, including continuing direct negotiations to try to see whether any basis of settlement is possible; if he is prepared to involve himself in such negotiations if necessary; and if he will make a statement on the matter, in view of the potentially catastrophic effects of this dispute for economic recovery and for the whole community.
andMr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Labour the steps if any, he and his Minister are taking in response to the threatened industrial dispute within the ESB, as an interruption of supply would have catastrophic consequences for the consumer, for agriculture and for industry.
asked the Minister for Labour as no settlement has yet been agreed between the parties to the ESB dispute and in view of the statement by the Chief Executive, Mr. Moriarty, to the effect that if the strike goes ahead as scheduled at midnight on Monday next there will be a collapse of the electricity system perhaps as early as midday on Tuesday the plans, if any, the Government have to avert this strike which would obviously have very serious consequences for essential services, for agriculture and for industry generally.
The dispute results from the rejection of a recommendation on the 26th round made by the ESB's Joint Industrial Council. I would point out that the ESB are unique in that they have their own internal machinery for the resolution of disputes, that is, their own Joint Industrial Council which on this occasion is chaired by a former chairman of the Labour Court. I should like to emphasise that this internal machinery has been very successful in resolving disputes in the ESB and, as a consequence, there has been little need for any reference to outside industrial relations agencies.
The Joint Industrial Council's recommendation in respect of the 26th round was for a yearlong agreement comprising a three months pay pause with a tiered arrangement in respect of percentage increases in pay as follows: first, 4 per cent on the first £100 per week; second, 3 per cent on the next £200 per week and third, 2 per cent on amounts over that to be reviewed in September 1987. This recommendation was rejected by the union side. As a consequence, strike notice has been served to take effect early next week.
In view of the widespread disruption and the hardship which may arise, I would take this opportunity to appeal to all the staff unions concerned in the ESB to reconsider their position.
I am not attempting to negotiate or to intrude in these negotiations, but I ask the Minister to recognise that there are still available to him and to the Government industrial relations channels which so far have not been used. Will he tell the House if it is the Government's intention to ensure that all these channels will be exhausted before such a dispute enters into an active phase, or can we interpret the Government's decision not to get involved as one of being prepared to have some kind of confrontation with the public sector?
As a former Minister for Labour, the Deputy knows that we do not debate pending disputes, particularly major ones, in the House. It is a practice which has always been followed. In the ESB there is a very strong Joint Industrial Council which is used to settle disputes. It is chaired by a former chairman of the Labour Court and, as I said in my reply, it is a matter for the Joint Industrial Council to discuss a dispute in the ESB.
Does the Minister accept that the country is now facing a situation of unprecedented gravity? For the first time, the unions throughout the ESB have co-ordinated their position, which has very serious implications for the community. Does he agree that, in those circumstances, it is not reasonable that he and his colleagues in the Cabinet should stand aside? Does he see a role for himself by way of direct intervention, a role for the Labour Court, or for the entire Labour conference at this stage?
I agree that if a dispute of this nature takes place it would be extremely disruptive and could cause considerable hardship. For that reason, I take this opportunity to appeal to the staff unions concerned to reconsider their position. In relation to intervention, the Joint Industrial Council have considerable power and are unique in industrial relations. That body has sufficient power and strength to examine this dispute. The staff unions should reconsider their position as they have, within the company, the machinery necessary to resolve the dispute and I hope they will use it.
Any action which the Minister can take to resolve the dispute will, obviously, be very welcome. If his appeal to the unions is not taken up and if the position that pertains at present continues — the chief executive, Mr. Moriarty, said that there is no more money available to meet the pay claim — have the Government any contingency plans in the event of the dispute being unresolved through negotiations with the unions?
I have appealed to the Joint Industrial Council to resolve this dispute. I have also appealed to the staff unions to reconsider their position. The other matter to which the Deputy referred does not arise at this stage as I hope the Joint Industrial Council will resolve what is potentially a very serious dispute within the machinery available in the ESB.
Surely the Minister cannot suggest that the issue of emergency services from next Tuesday does not arise? What contingency plans has he to ensure that emergency services, such as hospitals, will be guaranteed?
Contingency plans are a matter for the ESB, not for the Minister for Labour.
While I appreciate the very important role which the Joint Industrial Council play in the ESB, it appears that their role has been played out. They have not been able to reach agreement and it does not look likely that they will. At what stage do the Minister and the Government feel they could intervene and take action, particularly in view of the fact that it is a monopolistic public utility affecting the whole country?
As I said, I do not wish to debate a pending ESB or any other dispute in the House. I kept in touch with all sides last week because, as Minister for Labour, it is my job to do so. It is a matter for the Joint Industrial Council and I do not wish to say any more.
We have had a series of questions. Deputy Quinn's question will be the final one.
Does the Minister accept that beyond the Joint Industrial Council, channels remain available to both sides to try to solve the dispute? Does he also accept that his refusal to ensure that that machinery is not available can only be construed by the public as meaning that the Government want to provoke some kind of confrontation between the Government and the public service unions?
Utter rubbish.
The Deputy cannot infer that from my remarks. I appeal to the ESB staff unions to reconsider their position. There is very strong machinery within the ESB for resolving disputes. It has been successful in the past and again I appeal to the staff unions to consider their position.