asked the Minister for Labour if he will make a statement regarding the ongoing strike at a company (details supplied) in Dublin 12; and the steps he is taking to secure mediation and resolution of this prolonged dispute.
Written Answers. - Dublin Company Industrial Dispute.
85.
This dispute commenced on 21 March 1988 over the dismissal of an employee. Manufacturing, Science and Finance, the union involved, unilaterally referred the matter to the Labour Court under section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Labour Court recommendation which issued on 3 May 1988 recommended that the company agree to discuss the dismissal of the employee with the union and if necessary to have the issue referred to a Rights Commissioner or other third party as the parties may agree. The court also recommended that the company agree to recognise the union as the negotiating and representative body on behalf of those employees who are members of the union and that the parties should negotiate a procedural agreement to govern their relationship for the future with a view to avoiding any recurrence of the difficulties which had arisen between the parties.
The company rejected the terms of the recommendation and the dispute continues. Labour Court recommendations issued under section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, are not binding on the company and I do not have any power under the Industrial Relations Acts to have Labour Court recommendations enforced.
The present position is that many of the workers are not members of the union and wish to continue working despite the presence of official pickets. Due to a fire at the premises on 22 September 1988, I understand that the employees have been put on a three-day week.