asked the Minister for Labour if his attention has been drawn to the difficulties now being experienced by the worker directors elected by the employees of NET; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
16.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - NET Worker Director.
13.
asked the Minister for Labour if his attention has been drawn to the difficulties which have arisen in the operation of the worker director machinery in NET recently; and if he has taken any initiative with either side to try and resolve the issues involved; his views on whether these difficulties have a bearing on the recently published Worker Participation Bill, 1988.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 13 and 16 together.
The question of the facilities to be afforded to worker directors on a day to day basis in pursuing issues related to board membership is and must remain a matter for the employer concerned.
I met with the Worker Director Group in December last to discuss a range of topics of interest to them. At that meeting a number of points were raised relating to changes which had been made in the facilities which the worker directors of NET had enjoyed while employees of that body. Since the establishment of Irish Fertiliser Industries, the worker directors have now become employees of this body and the facilities accorded to them as employees of NET have been reviewed and curtailed.
Will the Minister confirm that the facilities which those directors enjoyed since the passing of the worker participation legislation are withdrawn, that they no longer have access to secretarial and telephone facilities and that they are now expected to take time from annual leave in order to pursue their responsibility as worker directors? Will the Minister accept that movement in that direction is scarcely compatible with bringing in legislation to increase the number of bodies which will have worker directors on them?
I agreed with that view in my reply. Worker directors on the board of NET are employees of IFI which is a private joint venture company between ICI and NET. I do not have the power nor do my colleagues to get involved in the day to day running of the company. In the agreement it was agreed that the worker directors would have time to attend board meetings. What is regrettable is that all of these facilities which they had under NET, which were adequate, were actually withdrawn without any consultation.
Would the Minister accept that in the run up to the merger into IFI, categorical assurances were given to the workers that there would be no changes in their conditions and that their conditions involved access to effectively operating worker directors with an elaborate system of consultation? Would the Minister accept that this question of the role of worker directors was raised at length by my party colleague Deputy John Bruton during the course of the debate in this House, and that he received a categorical assurance that industrial democracy would continue to be a feature of the new IFI?
As regards to what extent there was not agreement, my understanding is that there was a categorical agreement that they would be allowed to attend board meetings and that the other privileges they had had would not be written into the agreement. These were subsequently withdrawn without consultation. That is the regrettable matter but, as I said, it is a private joint venture company. I have taken up the matter but am not too sure——
But the State is still the major shareholder in the company.
Are there any implications of this type of problem arising in a worker-director situation for the new worker participation Bill? Does the Minister think that there should be machinery involved in such a Bill where he finds that a company has worker directors in name but, in fact, does not have them?
I am concerned about what has happened. Under the 1977 Act the company have probably broken no rule. They have still allowed the workers to attend board meetings.
It is not only the attendance at board meetings.
The position in NET previous to this was that the worker directors, quite frankly, had very good arrangements with the former board of that company and that that position has now changed.
But the implications for the Bill?
The time has now come to deal with priority questions.
Unless it was to extend to affecting the whole workings with regard to worker directors in a broader sense, I am not too sure. I met the individuals concerned and did not think they were going to fight that far. It was the fact that this happened without consultation that counted. The fact that all other privileges were gone was upsetting them more.
There is no point in having a Bill if it cannot be worked effectively.
I am sorry, Deputy, I have already indicated that the time has arrived to deal with priority questions. I call Question No. 28.
Did the Minister have a discussion with the Minister for Industry and Commerce in this regard?