Vol. 420 No. 7
1 Mrs. T. Ahearn asked the Minister for Labour if he will outline the number of days lost through strike action for the first five months of 1992, and for the same period in 1991 and 1990; and if, in view of the increased industrial unrest, he has satisfied himself that his Department has succeeded in solving such disputes in a reasonable time period.
4 Mr. T. O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Labour the way in which he proposes to improve the current industrial relations climate in the country, particularly in view of the recent figures which shows a substantial increase in days lost due to industrial disputes compared to last year.
14 Mr. Quinn asked the Minister for Labour if he will make a statement on recent suggestions that a blueprint exists to curb the influence of trade unions in Ireland.
37 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Labour if he will outline the total number of days lost through industrial disputes during the first four months of this year, and the way in which this compares with the previous year; if he will outline his views on the causes of the recent increases in such disputes; if he shares the views of some trade union leaders that the increase is attributable to a more aggressive approach to industrial relations by management in both the public and private sectors; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
46 Mr. T. O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Labour if he will make a statement on the number of man days lost due to strikes this year.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1, 4, 14, 37 and 46 together.
The most recent dispute statistics available are for the first four months of the year. The Department of Labour estimates for this period and the same period in 1990 and 1991 are as follows:
|
Period |
No. of Strikes |
Days Lost |
|
January-April 1992 |
22 |
188,322 |
|
January-April 1991 |
18 |
38,030 |
|
January-April 1990 |
25 |
69,698 |
The figures for this year are disappointing and a continuation of this trend would not be in the best interests of the country. However, I am confident that the underlying industrial relations climate is relatively good and the recent disputes should be seen as a temporary setback rather than an indication of any long term trend. I am hopeful that once the An Post dispute has been settled industrial relations can return to a more even and normal keel.
It is important that the consensus-based approach adopted under the Programme for National Recovery and the Programme for Economic and Social Progress should be maintained. That approach has formed the cornerstone of our economic and social policy since 1987 and it is vital for the well-being of our economy that this approach be continued and built upon. I am confident that both sides of industry recognise this and will continue to strive for industrial peace thus playing an essential part in the economic and social progress of our country.
Many of the disputes we have witnessed recently have centred on the need for major organisational and structural change in both the public and private sectors of the economy. This process of change is inevitable as we face the challenges of increasing competition in the European and global marketplace. While I appreciate fully that adaptation to change can be difficult and challenging for all concerned, there is, by and large, a willingness to negotiate and agree the necessary changes without resort to industrial action. In this context, I should point out that most disputes are resolved satisfactorily without disruption. Last year, for example, 85 per cent of the disputes referred to the Labour Relations Commission for conciliation were settled. Countless more disputes were resolved without reference to third parties. I would encourage parties to take on this responsibility by working out their differences through meaningful negotiations. Where this does not prove possible, the services of the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court are available to provide expert and professional assistance.
It must be recognised that our system of industrial relations is a voluntary one whereby it is generally a matter for the parties concerned to reach agreement on how a given dispute will be settled. The State facilities this process by providing the framework and machinery for the conduct of industrial relations and the resolution of disputes. As Minister for Labour, I am satisfied that the existing machinery is more than adequate to deal with disputes and this had been borne out by the role played by the Labour Court and Labour Relations Commission in the disputes in the associated banks, An Post and RTE.
I am not aware of the existence of any plan to curb the influence of trade unions in Ireland. As far as the Government are concerned, trade unions have played and continue to play an important role in the economic and social life of the country as is evidenced by their participation in the Programme for National Recovery and the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. The Government would wish to see a continuation of this partnership approach.
The statistics given by the Minister are the source of great concern and alarm, given that the number of days lost in the period January to April this year is five times greater than the figure for the corresponding period last year. Furthermore, in respect of the same period in 1990, although the number of strikes was greater the number of days lost amounted to only one third of the figure for the corresponding period this year. While the Minister may be satisfied that the existing machinery under the aegis of his Department is adequate to deal with strikes, I have to pose the question whether they are resolving them quickly enough. Given that a greater number of days have been lost, it is clear that it is taking longer and longer to settle disputes. Surely this matter should be investigated.
May I also ask the Minister if he would agree that the problem of casualisation of work underlies the strikes which have taken place this year? It is easy to provide casual labour at times of high unemployment. Does the Minister intend to carry out an investigation into this trend, because he would have to agree it has caused the strikes that are taking place at present?
As I said in my initial reply, it is important to put the matter in context in comparing the figures for the last few months with the figures for the corresponding period in previous years, in particular the past two years, the figures for which are the best on record. It should be borne in mind in relation to the period under review, January to April 1992, that the banks dispute accounted for 134,200 days lost or 71 per cent of the total while the strike in RTE accounted for 30,000 days lost or 16 per cent of the total. Taken together, they account for 87 per cent of the total number of days lost in the period under review. As I said in my initial reply, both disputes centred on the need for major organisational and structural changes which have to take place if operations are to meet the competitive challenges that have to be faced in areas of the private and public sectors where a semi-monopoly situation exists.
It is important that I should point out also that the partnership approach adopted under the Programme for National Recovery and the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, both of which were negotiated since our return to office in 1987, has formed the cornerstone in seeking stability in the area of industrial relations which is vital for the economy in terms of our ability to maintain existing jobs and to attract outside investment to provide more jobs in the economy. It is wrong to send out the signal that the figures should be viewed with alarm — the expression used by Deputy Ahearn. Rather we should regard them as certain exceptional cases which arose coincidentally and simultaneously but which, it must be borne in mind, were dealt with adequately, professionally, with great expertise and competence by the industrial relations machinery. Indeed, great credit is due to the Labour Relations Commission, who have just completed their first year of operations and are about to present me with an annual report showing the outstanding conciliation work they have done. In relation to the number of man days lost, that is dependent on the employments in dispute which, in turn, dictate the number of man days lost. Obviously, the numbers involved will constitute the multiplier effect in terms of calculating the man days lost in any given area.
In 1970 there were more than one million man days lost; in 1979 there were 1,465,000 man days lost whereas last year the figure was just 82,000. Therefore, the House will note an exceptional improvement related to the responsible approach adopted by the social partners, in particular the trade union movement, who must be given great credit for the manner in which they sought implementation of the programmes we had agreed. Second, it is a compliment also to expert management in many of these areas, where communication is adequate to ensure that we do not get into dispute circumstances. Finally, there was the outstanding work done by our industrial relations machinery on the part of both the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court who are the independent arbiters in these matters.
Following a period of comparative industrial peace, would the Minister agree that we have now reverted to the 1979-type figures and circumstances? Bearing in mind that there is a similarity between what happened in 1979 and what has happened this year to date — when once again there was a postal strike — and while the Programme for National Recovery and the Programme for Economic and Social Progress did afford workers some security in the past, there appears to be a lack of faith now in those agreements, inasmuch as there has been slippage from their provisions with an attendant increase in the number of man days lost. While not for a moment criticising the role played by the Labour Court and the Labour Relations Commission would the Minister agree that recourse to them seems to be regarded as a last resort? Could we not pre-empt many such disputes by using a little common sense? Would the Minister agree that it would appear now that everybody is back in their trenches which, in turn, means that in the past 12 months we have reverted to the position that obtained some ten years ago because of the hardening of attitudes on both sides, but particularly on the part of the Government? I respectfully suggest that the intervention of the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications in the postal strike on one side did not help in any way in resolving that dispute. Would the Minister agree that, whenever a dispute arises, it is absolutely essential that the Government remain at arms length, at least not take sides? If the relevant Minister must intervene, then he or she must be seen to be an independent arbiter rather than coming down in favour of one side.
I have to advise the House that the time for Priority Questions will finish at 3.45 p.m.
In an effort to respond to the many issues raised by Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan I should say that we have not gone back ten years in industrial relations. While that may be a sincerely held view, it is wrong to give that impression since neither statistical evidence nor reality on the ground so suggests. What has happened is that specific high profile disputes, such as those we experienced recently, were the reason we had these figures in the first quarter. The fact that 88 per cent of the total man days lost in the first quarter related to those two specific disputes demonstrates that in the overall broad range of industrial relations in all sectors of our economy we have an outstanding record which we must maintain.
With regard to the Department of Tourism, Transport and Communication's involvement in the An Post dispute, first, it was unfortunate that personalities became a factor. Indeed, in any dispute if there is involvement of particular personalities on the management or union side, it is not helpful and is a very poor principle on which to pursue any claim. It does not advance the issue one way or the other. In relation to the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications, I respectfully point out that she was simply intimating — I do not want to rake over old coals now that we are heading for a resolution of this dispute — on behalf of the Government, the reality of the position, agreed by her predecessor in September 1991 in correspondence in relation to the matter under dispute. Indeed, she was saying on behalf of the taxpayer, whom we represent, that it is necessary that these problems in An Post be resolved internally. I am glad that both sides, through the Labour Relations Commission, are now arranging for that to be done, and, hopefully, the dispute will finally be resolved. I do not see any point in raking over old coals at this stage.
May I ask a brief supplementary, please?
Sorry, Deputy O'Sullivan. Deputy Ahearn tabled four priority questions. Deputies were not brief in the 15 minutes just passed and the time has elapsed.
The same applies across the floor.
No, it does not.
The Minister recognises that most of the major disputes involve reorganisation of those industries. Would that suggest to him that there is a void not covered under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress to cope with that reorganisation programme within our major industries which will lead to further disputes unless corrective action is taken?
The industrial relations machinery is there to accommodate those specific issues however intractable or difficult they may be. We have already seen that that machinery works. That is the important point.
We must proceed to Question No. 6.
It must be a record in this House that, within the time allocated to priority questions, we have succeeded in dealing with one question only.
The Minister replied to four questions together.
Priority questions?
Two priority questions——
He replied to two priority questions out of five. The Minister was not helpful in dealing with priority questions. While appreciating the depth and extent of his replies he would be demonstrating a greater sense of co-operation in replying if he did not engage in what amounted to a Second Stage speech.
I will continue on that basis. If I am not confronted by so many loaded supplementary questions, I can answer them more quickly.
