asked the Minister for Labour if, in view of the decision of trade unions representing printers and journalists in the Irish Press Group to reject Labour Court recommendations, and the stated intention of the management to close the three papers later this month unless the recommendations were accepted, he intends to respond to requests from the unions to intervene; if he intends to take any other steps to try to find a solution to the dispute and prevent the closure of the papers; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Private Notice Questions. - Threatened Closure of Irish Press Group.
I apologise for the Minister for Labour who was away on official business when the question was submitted. I am glad to be here to answer on the Minister's behalf.
The Irish Press Group of Newspapers employs over 700 people and is losing £1.75 million in the current year. In an effort to turn around this loss-making situation management undertook a major rationalisation programme to ensure the group's future viability. A major injection of funds was made earlier this year by Ingersoll Publications Limited.
Proposals for over 200 redundancies among other requirements were put to the unions involved in April. Negotiations continued without agreement and the company then set a deadline of eight weeks in which a package would be finalised or the company would close. That deadline runs out on 23 July, that is in just over a week's time.
The Labour Court have made every effort to find a settlement and on 27 June issued a detailed 17-page recommendation concerning redundancy, fiveshift working, loss of earnings, annual leave and other claims. The recommendation was voted on and rejected by the unions involved, with the exception of SIPTU whose workers accepted the recommendation subject to certain conditions.
Management have set a deadline for closure in just over a week's time. The Minister invited representatives of management to meet him today to discuss the present position. It is clear that the situation is extremely serious. Indeed, arrangements for the winding down of the company are already in train. The management have informed the Minister that they would like to continue in the business of producing the three titles involved but they cannot see how this can be done with such large losses without major restructuring.
The situation as of now is that the group are now winding down. Only days remain to reconsider the position. The Minister appeals to the parties to get together for a last effort to save the three newspapers and the hundreds of jobs involved. The Labour Court and its services remain available to the parties should they wish to avail of them.
I do not mean any disrespect to the Minister for Education when I say that I regret that the Minister for Labour cannot be present to deal with this critical question. Rather than reciting his statement on behalf of management adding to the damage already done by the one-sided Labour court recommendation, the Minister for Labour might have been able to respond to my suggestions. Does the Minister accept that the time has come in this critical dispute for the intervention of the Minister for Labour. Will the Minister agree to avail of this opportunity to clarify some of the distortions that surround this dispute, like the fact that this is an asset rich company whose property is rapidly appreciating and that the company have a substantial income from their Reuter's shares? Will the Minister accept that the drastic programme of redundancies agreed with the trade unions offers the company the prospect of an early return to profitability? Will the Minister agree that this is part of a game plan by the new owners to break the unions in the company? Will the Minister agree to communicate to the public that the distortion about five-shift-working will mean that employees will be working seven nights in a row followed by two nights off during which they will be on call? Will the Minister accept that in 1990 they are effectively sweat shop conditions and that there is an obligation on the Minister for Labour, in order to protect the 500 jobs after redundancies and the three reputable newspapers, to make a clear statement apportioning blame where it should rest in this dispute?
I have listened with interest to the Deputy's assertions. At the outset I made it clear why the Minister for Labour was unable to be present. I told the Deputy that he had already gone on official business when the question was tabled. The Deputy in pointing the finger at me was trying to denigrate me when I am doing what any other Minister would do when asked to stand in for a colleague, which is to deal with the issue as competently as possible. The Deputy made assertions about asset piling and so on and I am not competent to respond to them. I do not think any person would seek to answer those assertions in this forum. The Deputy referred to game plans and distortions, words which I submit are dangerous to use in such a dispute; they do not do the case any good. The Minister, Members, the public and the workers involved are very concerned at the perilous stage the dispute has reached. The Minister is concerned that the existing structures should be utilised to bring about further dialogue.
I should like to preface my remarks by saying that I did not mean any disrespect to the Minister for Education and if I have penetrated her Colgate ring of confidence I am unusual in the House. My remarks relate to the gravity of the dispute and for that reason I regret the Minister for Labour is absent. Will the Minister agree that the time has come for the intervention of the Minister for Labour? The Labour Court have failed to resolve this dispute and I should like to ask the Minister if she will agree that the intervention by the Minister for Labour ought not to be made on the basis of his chances of succeeding or not? This dispute concerns the future of three newspapers and I would have though that the Minister, like us all, would have been anxious to ensure that they continue to publish. It also concerns more than 500 jobs and only the personal intervention of the Minister at this stage, against the hard-nosed management who have taken over Irish Press Limited, is likely to guarantee the jobs and the future of the newspapers.
I do not accept that the Minister for Labour is noted for fearing the outcome of negotiations. He takes his duty very seriously. He is concerned about this dispute but, as I pointed out, the structures exist for dealing with it. I will convey the Deputy's representations to the Minister for Labour.
I regret that we are moving into a debate on this issue but I have taken a speechless message from Deputies Mitchell, Nealon and O'Sullivan that they wish to put a question to the Minister.
I should like to join with the Minister in saying that I do not think anything said here should inflame the dispute any further. In that respect I regret the tone of Deputy Rabbitte's supplementary question. It was reported on the "News at One" that the Minister had intervened and I should like to ask the Minister to confirm that or indicate if it is the intention of the Minister for Labour to intervene. He should do so as a matter of urgency to try to save the valuable jobs involved.
In the course of my reply I indicated that the Minister had met with representatives of management to discuss the position. The serious nature of the dispute was explained in my reply and I believe that was the basis for the report on radio.
I have asked for permission to intervene in this as a former journalist with the Irish Press Group and because of the gravity of the dispute. In view of the seriousness of this dispute for the country with the loss of three national newspapers and of the danger of the loss of 700 jobs, will the Minister accept that the Taoiseach should intervene?
That is a different matter. The House is united in its concern for the jobs of the workers and the viability of the newspapers, an important enterprise. The debate on the question will be reported to the Minister who is receiving an hourly report on the dispute.
The House has been discussing for a number of months the Industrial Relations Bill and I should like to ask the Minister if it is her view that at a time when we are endeavouring to update industrial relations legislation it is unfortunate that we have the type of information emanating from management indicating that the nub of the dispute is whether there should be a five day or a four day week, which is not correct? Will the Minister accept that what is being offered to the workers puts back the hands of the clock many years, particularly when one takes into consideration that if the proposals of management are accepted it is likely that members of the staff will be asked to work 11 weekends without a break? That is not acceptable in this day and age. Will the Minister agree that the employees of the company have a just case and that there is a need for intervention by the Minister for Labour?
The Labour Court made every effort to find a settlement and on 22 June issued a number of recommendations, stretching to 17 pages, concerning the matters in dispute. Those recommendations were put to the unions involved and SIPTU accepted but the other unions did not. When the Labour Court issued that document it was put to the unions.
May I ask a brief supplementary?
We have given a quarter of an hour to this question. That is rather unique. Some new short question, Deputy.
Would the Minister relay to her colleague that it is my considered opinion that if he continues to approach this dispute in this way, relaying a statement which I presume was drafted with management before lunch today, there is very little prospect of success — this is too serious a matter for that — and that he should take this on board when approaching the issue.
The efforts of the Minister will not be helped if the House, which has expressed its concern, adopts a confrontational and adversarial approach which is what the Deputy seeks to do in this question.