Jim Mitchell
Ceist:10 Mr. J. Mitchell asked the Minister for Labour if he will outline the action he has taken to resolve the industrial dispute at Waterford Glass; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Waterford Glass Industrial Dispute.
Austin Deasy
Ceist:17 Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Labour the up-to-date situation in the industrial dispute in Waterford Crystal.
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:24 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Labour the progress which has been made towards finding a solution to the dispute at Waterford Glass at his meeting with employers and trade unions on 16 May 1990; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10, 17 and 24 together.
This dispute began on 5 April and is now in its seventh week. The company employ 2,300 people. The company are one of the best known in the country and enjoy a good reputation both nationally and internationally. I have no need to emphasise that any threat to this employment could have disastrous consequences in the Waterford area. It is important to remember that it is not just the jobs in Waterford Glass that could be lost as a result of closure. I am aware of the great importance of seeking a resolution to this dispute in Waterford Glass both from a local and national point of view. It was for these reasons that I invited the parties for discussions on Wednesday last in separate meetings. Each meeting lasted several hours. In these discussions with the parties and in further contacts over the past few days I came face to face with the strong and resolute views of both sides. I listened carefully to the views of both sides and what I have heard is a classic situation of industrial relations conflict where both sides believe equally strongly that they are right.
From the management point of view the company is bleeding to death. Over the last three years the crystal division lost over £60 million — in 1989 the crystal division lost over £21 million. These losses are continuing into 1990. In a company where labour costs constitute 70 per cent of overall costs these facts prompted certain action from the company which they felt had to be taken to ensure their survival. In particular, the so-called bonanza payments were removed. From the workers' point of view it is alleged that the removal of the bonanza payments amounted to the breaking of an agreement and, apart from that, the company have presented the union side with a large agenda which envisages further labour savings in respect of labour costs.
Having met both sides, I presented them last week with a formula which would allow for the commencement of negotiations. The formula which I put to both sides recognised the respective positions of the parties. In my view they achieved a balance and I pleaded with both sides to accept my proposals in a gesture of co-operation and conciliation. I wish to emphasise that my proposals are only a means to get the parties to the negotiation table and are not final settlement terms. They amount to a formula which allows the parties to meet and draw up settlement terms. I would also emphasise that all items of concern to the parties are on the negotiation table for discussion, including the issue of bonanza payments.
I think it is important to emphasise that it will take several weeks at least after negotiations begin before there can be a return to work in this dispute. In view of this I believe it is essential that the parties get down to negotiation immediately. As I have said publicly in recent days I am available to offer any assistance to the parties should they consider that such assistance would be worth while. Apart from that of course the industrial relations institutions of the State are available to help the parties at all times.
I recognise that the formula which I put to the parties has been rejected. I feel however that it is only on the basis of proposals like this that it will be possible to start negotiations and break the impasse, and I would ask both sides to give consideration to that fact.
Finally, I think all sides should be clear on the realities of the current dispute. There is a real possibility that the company will cease to operate as presently structured and that other drastic options will have to be considered. I have refused from both a national and local point of view to highlight that possibility but I feel I would be shirking my responsibilities if I did not do so now.
Would the Minister accept that what he has read out to the House is nothing less than a litany of lunacy and that the dispute at Waterford is the most serious one in the country since the Ferenka disaster in Limerick over ten years ago? Would the Minister accept also that talks, when they get started, will take some time to conclude and that what we should be aiming at is that these talks would commence within hours rather than days? Is he prepared to amend or expand his proposals to meet the points of both sides to facilitate the beginning of talks and would he seek a response to such amendments or expansion today?
I agree with the first part of what Deputy Mitchell has said, that this is a most serious dispute. I have had the opportunity to talking with management every day for the last five days and talking to union representatives at various levels. I agree with the Deputy that the response which I asked for on Sunday night, through the media, should be given today by both sides. In reply directly to the Deputy's question, in the last few days I have declined to say that but in view of what was said earlier in the House by Deputy Bruton, perhaps it is in this House that we should say things. I note that there is a number of Waterford Deputies here. They have been very helpful in the discussions we have had in the past three or four weeks. I appeal to both sides in this dispute. A board meeting of the international company will take place in the morning. I urge that the bonanza payment, which the company agreed last week could only be paid at the end of the dispute, be paid to some third party before negotiations commence. It could be paid into a trust of the Labour Court or some other independent trust. I also think the management could give some assurance — they may be willing to do this — to the lower paid workers in Waterford Glass that they would not be overly affected in whatever may emerge because the negotiations will have a cost factor. In addition, I think it would be helpful if the management could accept the withdrawing of my clause No. 4 which dealt with the servicing and maintenance of machinery during the negotiations. It should be emphasised that it will probably take, if my information is correct, anything from four to six weeks from the ending of negotiations to get the plant operating. Therefore, if we still have Waterford Glass, very little work will be done there this side of late July or August. For those reasons I agree with what Deputy Mitchell has said and I ask both sides to please respond today. Neither side has responded so far to the appeal I made to them on Sunday night.
Perhaps we could have a final question from Deputy Mitchell.
Other Deputies also have questions down but are not permitted by the rules of order to ask supplementary questions today. Can the Minister quantify the number of jobs at stake? We know there are about 2,300 employed directly by Waterford Glass but is there an equal number of indirect jobs as is normal in such cases? Therefore, apart from the calamity that closure of the plant would involve for Waterford, there would be a very serious development for the country as a whole as a result of the loss of such a high number of jobs.
Briefly, the number employed at Waterford is 2,300. There are about 450 employees involved in the United States. They would also lose their jobs as would the several hundred in the UK plant. My advisers in the redundancy section of the Department say that if 2,300 jobs are lost you would multiply by three to get the real figure as for every job lost directly, two are lost indirectly.
The time available for Priority Questions is long since exhausted.
May I join the Minister in urging a response today to getting talks started? The Minister can be assured of the full support of this side of the House in his endeavours to bring about talks and then to bring about a settlement to this threatening and serious dispute.
I had a question on the subject also, Question No. 24.
I appreciate that, Deputy Rabbitte, but so also had Deputy Deasy. I am sorry I cannot facilitate the Deputies. Supplementary questions, as you know, are confined to the Deputies who tabled the Priority Questions.
I merely want to join with Deputy Deasy in saying that it is the wish of all sides of this House that the parties commence negotiations without preconditions.
I must proceed to Question No. 12. I do not wish to cause a precedent in this matter.
On a point of order, I do not wish to challenge your position in any way but we left Priority Question time five minutes ago. Question No. 24 is not a priority question. I feel the Deputy is not entitled to ask a supplementary question on Question No. 24.
The Chair cannot win in a matter of this kind. Deputy De Rossa is now faulting the Chair for being somewhat generous. Question No. 12 please.
I appreciate the extra time you gave and I also appreciate the views expressed by Deputy Mitchell and Deputy Rabbitte and all Members in the House, particularly the Waterford Deputies, who have been very helpful. I would ask that both sides respond today.
We could be disorderly as well but we were not.
I accept that fully Deputy Deasy.