Mary O'Rourke
Ceist:110 Mrs. O'Rourke asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment the reason he has not followed up the report of the Technical Advisory Group on Packard. [9156/95]
Written Answers. - Packard Electric Plant.
Follow-up action on the report of the technical advisory group is a matter primarily for Packard. I understand that the IDA has worked closely with the company management and unions on this matter.
Mary O'Rourke
Ceist:111 Mrs. O'Rourke asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment the reason he stated on 18 January that the layoffs at Packard could be kept to a minimum; and the reason disparity exists between that statement and the situation that now exists where 400 people have been told they will be laid off. [9157/95]
Mary O'Rourke
Ceist:112 Mrs. O'Rourke asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment the terms of the agreement worked out between himself, Minister of State Deputy Rabbitte and Packard which allowed the firm in question to recommence work. [9158/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 111 and 112 together. At the time of the acceptance by the workforce in January last of the cost reduction measures, the company indicated that lay-offs later in the year would be unavoidable because of the loss of a major contract. No guarantee in relation to future employment levels was given by the company. What was given, and repeated within the past two weeks, was an assurance from the parent company that it has a commitment to the long term future of the Tallaght plant.
In January last, when a settlement was agreed which provided for lay-offs, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, Minister of State with responsibility for commerce, science and technology, and I agreed with the company that it would do everything possible to minimise the extent of any lay-offs. When settlement was reached the company agreed to maximise its efforts to win back some part of the J2900 contract and to seek new business. A lay-off was inevitable but success in these efforts and success tackling the competitiveness problems in the plant could have minimised the extent and the duration of the lay-offs. It is to be regretted that it was not possible to win back or replace business that had been lost last December.
In private companies like this, lay-offs tend to occur when they are unable to win sufficient business for the full workforce but retain a hope of doing so. The critical issue for winning business in competitiveness, and in this instance, particularly cost competitiveness and productivity. Nonetheless I still believe the plant at Tallaght could have a successful future — but only if all parties work together in a spirit of mutual trust and co-operation to address the competitiveness issues. If this cannot be done then the outlook is very bleak, as everyone involved is very fully aware.
The discussions which I and the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, had with the parent company in January last were designed to avert a threat to the plant at that time, to obtain a further opportunity for the workforce to consider and decide on their response to management's proposals for achieving progress, and to create a climate for the favourable resolution of the company's difficulties. This continues to be my priority and I sincerely hope that even at this very late stage a way forward can be found towards a resolution of the current impasse. My announcement of 18 January is as relevant now as then: it is vital for both sides to establish trust and co-operation if there is to be any prospect of a solution.