Vol. 444 No. 6
5 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment whether he has satisfied himself that the procedure under section 38 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act, provides the flexibility needed to resolve problems such as those facing TEAM Aer Lingus; and the further steps, if any, that can now be taken to break the deadlock.
40 Mrs. Owen asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment if he has satisfied himself with the operation of section 38 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 and 40 together.
Section 38 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990, enables the Minister for Enterprise and Employment to request the Labour Relations Commission, the Labour Court or another person or body to inquire into a dispute of special importance and furnish him with a report. The enactment of section 38 (1) and 38 (2) was intended to put the practice of referral of disputes by the Minister to the dispute settling agencies on a clear legislative footing. Prior to the enactment of these provisions, section 24 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946, which was designed to enable the Minister to request a report from the Labour Court on the employment conditions of any class of workers, had been used when the Minister wished to refer a dispute to the court.
It is important that the Minister should have legislative power to refer disputes of special importance, or disputes which affect the public interest, to the commission or the court and, taken together, sections 38 (1) and 38 (2) provide considerable flexibility in this regard.
As was the intention at the time legislation was enacted, this section is rarely invoked and then only in exceptional circumstances. In fact, the first ever referral under this section was recently made by me in the case of the dispute at TEAM Aer Lingus, when I requested the Labour Relations Commission to conduct an inquiry into the dispute and furnish me with a report. The exceptional circumstances which necessitated the section 38 (2) referral in this case are well known and have been discussed already at length on a number of occasions in this House. While the Labour Relations Commission was unable to report that the dispute had been settled, as I had hoped at the time of the referral, a comprehensive report containing settlement proposals was furnished to me in accordance with the provisions of section 38 (2).
As section 38 (2) has been used on one occasion only since its enactment it is not possible to make any definitive judgment on its operation yet. However, the fact that there has been only one section 38 referral since the legislation was enacted in July, 1990, clearly shows that it is used only in exceptional circumstances, as intended. With regard to the section 38 (2) referral in the case of the dispute at TEAM Aer Lingus, I am satisfied that I took the correct course of action, having regard to the circumstances. I am also satisfied that the Labour Relations Commission carried out its functions correctly in accordance with section 38 (2) in furnishing a comprehensive report on the dispute, the circumstances in which it had arisen and also providing settlement proposals.
In so far as the TEAM Aer Lingus dispute is concerned, the industrial relations process has been fully utilised at this stage. Both parties have received the settlement terms drawn up by the commission; they have been accepted by the company and, in view of the serious situation facing the company and the need for urgent action to resolve the financial crisis, I would again urge the unions and the workforce to accept these settlement terms as the only means of overcoming the immediate problems which confront TEAM Aer Lingus at present.
Would the Minister agree that there is nothing in section 38 (2) to indicate that the report on the work of the Labour Relations Commission would become a "take it or leave it" final settlement with no further negotiation? Would he agree that the Government never indicated that it would treat a report in that fashion? Furthermore, would he agree that he has undermined the future use of this section and the faith people might have in it by so treating it on this occasion? In respect of the present crisis in TEAM Aer Lingus, would he agree to the Fine Gael motion to seek just three days to allow the huge level of misunderstanding out there to be dispelled and secure an agreement that can provide a future for TEAM Aer Lingus?
That motion is continuing in the House and will recommence at 7 o'clock this evening.
Perhaps the Minister will give the same answer he gave earlier at the parliamentary party meeting.
My reference to section 38 (2), following the sequence of events, was a correct usage of the section. The manner in which the Labour Relations Commission went about its business was correct. The settlement terms, or proposals — two different terms have been used — which they drew up in view of the failure of both sides to negotiate such a set of proposals themselves, constituted a constructive contribution. Indeed, as has been said here by the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Cowen, and others, it is for the unions to accept those terms. They can sit down on that basis. Within the framework of those terms there is a mechanism for elaboration and all the other matters to which Deputy Richard Bruton referred. As you have indicated, Sir, this matter will be the subject of a continuous debate later today.
