Vol. 373 No. 3
asked the Minister for Labour whether in the course of the discussions that are taking place with the social partners on the reform of industrial relations he will table for consideration whether different legislation and different industrial procedures should apply to semi-State companies engaged in the provision of essential services; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
22.
asked the Minister for Labour the steps, if any, he intends taking to review the trade dispute and industrial relations legislation to take account of disputes in State or private concerns which have a monopoly on essential services being provided to the public, such as the ESB; whether he considers it necessary to curtail in any way the rights of workers in these companies in such disputes; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 19 and 22 together.
It is my own view that arrangements of this nature appropriate to the individual enterprise should be negotiated between management and workers directly. As part of the settlement of the recent ESB dispute, for example, a provision was included for a cooling-off period.
Legislation requires very tight definitions and enforcement procedures. Action by Government agencies in this area might appropriately be by way of a code of practice which could be drawn up in consultation with both sides of industry. I would envisage a provision in any forthcoming amending legislation on industrial relations to cover this possibility. I might add that in so far as the industrial relations agencies of the State are concerned there can be no question raised as to their total availability if they can be of assistance.
The discussions with the social partners on the reform of industrial relations will cover all aspects of this complex subject, including the particular problems caused by disputes in areas which can be regarded as essential services.
It would be premature for me to comment at this stage on the possible proposals which might emerge from these discussions but Deputies will appreciate that there could be serious difficulties associated with attempting to apply particular arrangements to certain categories of workers, based on the area in which they are employed.
Will the Minister confirm that at present the law draws no distinction between the position of workers engaged in something like shoe repairs and those engaged in the provision of essential services and will he accept that it is not altogether clear that that should be the case? Many of us would see a certain logic in distinguishing between the legal framework to apply depending on the nature of the enterprise.
This has been under examination for quite a long time. As part of the talks with the social partners I intend to raise this issue again. From an examination of disputes in areas normally regarded as essential services, especially where a monopoly exists, there is cause for concern. During the sixties, the question of introducing special legislative provisions to deal with disputes in such areas was given much consideration. There are various options still to be looked at, including a compulsory cooling-off period, compulsory conciliation, compulsory mediation, compulsory ballots and/or compulsory periods of notice. No action was taken except for the ESB legislation which was the Electricity (Special Provisions) Act, 1966, which fixed rates of pay and conditions of employment of ESB workers and prohibited strikes and picketing by ESB workers. Infringement of this Act led to the imprisonment of workers and to a subsequent backdown by the Government. The Act was repealed in 1969. Experience over the last 25 years has highlighted the difficulties associated with the enforcement of selective measures.
I will now bring in Deputy Colley and I will come back to Deputy Birmingham.
While I appreciate what the Minister is saying about the difficulties associated with legislation for resolving trade union disputes, it would be fair to point out that the legislation introduced in the sixties was introduced in the middle of a dispute which was surely not the correct time to do so. Will the Minister not agree that we are now in a time after a dispute, where we have the benefit of hindsight, and that we should now investigate the possibilities associated with such legislation?
The best way forward is to examine, in consultation with the social partners, the proposals outlined in the trade disputes and industrial relations legislation published last year which refer specifically to the question of disputes in essential services and talk about building in codes of practice. Perhaps we could place a code of practice within a statutory framework that would not be backed by legal sanctions and we might have some grounds for progress. I think that is what the previous Minister for Labour was trying to do in his proposals and I see a lot of wisdom in that.
There are already some categories of workers from whom different regimes exist. For example, the gardaí have restrictions on their rights to form unions and to take strike action. That might encourage the Minister to consider whether there are other categories of workers whose services are just as important to the State and for whom certain arrangements might be made.
Rather than considering legislation — as it has been proved in this country that legislation in this area is not successful — the promotion of good industrial relations to resolve disputes is a far better way. We should attempt to strengthen management and trade unions so that they can work together and use the third party intervention mechanisms only when they have to be used to protect vital areas.
Is the Minister aware that in the US the cooling-off period required there for power workers is now known as a hotting-up period? Although 90 days has been prescribed as the cooling-off period, nobody takes advantage of that time to do anything and they are not required to do anything except to serve notice and wait for 90 days. That would be a recipe for disaster here. In the light of the resolution of the ESB dispute, which required a cooling-off period, will the Minister agree that we should in future look at prescribed mechanisms which should take place during that period?
Such as a code of practice? The Deputy is not ruling out a code of practice?
No.
I would not disagree with that but a code of practice agreed between the social partners for industrial disputes in areas of essential services is a far better way. To build it into legislation would not get us very far. If agreement can be reached between the social partners it would be better. On a positive note, unofficial industrial action has dropped fairly dramatically over the past number of years. The third party institutions are resolving far more disputes than ever. It is in that area, between a code of practice on one side and using the Labour Court conciliation procedures and the Rights Commissioner, we will probably have far more success. I take the Deputy's point which was raised following one very major strike which could have devastated the economy. It will be necessary to look at that problem in the ongoing talks with the social partners over the next month or two.
It is as a result of that dispute that I ask the Minister, as did Deputy Birmingham, to consider that in such essential services the final responsibility for their provision rests with the Government and that responsibility cannot be fulfilled without legislative control. In that sort of dispute it may be that they will not reach agreement without legislative control.
I want to bring this question to finality.
I take the Deputy's point that at the end of the day if one cannot make progress legislation may be necessary but I am less than convinced we are at that stage. There could be a code of practice that would not have legal status but might have some statutory role negotiated with the social partners. I see no success in this country for it if it is not a negotiated settlement. I might be at variance with some Members of the House in that. We have a history of emotion about industrial disputes. They are resolved and solved around the negotiating table and there is no experience whatsoever in this country that the heavy hand of law and legislation resolves disputes. In a number of major disputes over the years the Army have had to come in and take over, but the negotiating table building up the third party agencies who are there to resolve these things is a better way. What I would prefer in the light of experience is a code of practice.
