I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 13 and 22 together.
As I informed the House on 14 March last, the Minister Deputy Bruton and I had a meeting on that date with Packard management. At the meeting, the latter indicated that, as business prospects for 1996 remained poor, a redundancy programme would have to be implemented and that, in accordance with the June 1995 agreement between the company and the unions, details of the programme, including its impact on the workers laid off, would be communicated to the employees by 15 April 1996. No further details of the likely programme were available at that stage. The company reiterated its commitment to increasing the competitive position of the Tallaght plant with a view to winning new business.
However, the company subsequently advised us on 4 April that, due to difficulties in obtaining final details of its future business, it would not be in a position to inform the workforce of the proposed redundancy programme by 15 April 1996. For the information of Deputies, the company's agreement with the unions, covering the situation that arose last year when, on 23 June 1995, 400 employees were laid off, provided that:
the company will advise the unions by 15 March 1996:
(a) of business prospects for 1996. If prospects are such that a majority of those laid off will be reengaged over the first half of 1996, no redundancies will take effect until June 1, in accordance with previous practice.
(b) If business prospects at 15 March indicate that a majority will continue on lay-off over the first half of 1996, then a phased redundancy programme, again in accordance with previous practice, will be on offer from 15 April for those on lay-off for whom a return to work date has not been determined.
(c) In the case of either (a) or (b) above, the period of lay-off will be included in reckonable service for redundancy calculation and minimum notice calculation purposes.
Having regard to the position outlined by the company at the meeting with us on 14 March last, the Minister for Enterprise and Employment Deputy Richard Bruton and I were extremely concerned at the failure of the company to honour its commitment on this issue. This unwelcome development created an additional layer of uncertainty about the future of the plant and compounded an already difficult situation for the workers involved, including those on lay-off.
Accordingly, apart from voicing serious disquiet at these developments, we requested Packard management to meet the union representatives immediately to ensure that there is no further breakdown in communication. It was again impressed on the company that information and consultation are cornerstones of our industrial relations system and that the Labour Relations Commission is available to assist in promoting change to enhance productivity and performance in the Tallaght plant. I understand the meeting we requested the company to convene with the unions took place on 12 April and that the company now expects to be in a position by end May 1996 to make an announcement about the future of the workers laid off.
Trade unions' representatives at Packard Electric came to see me last evening to tell of their grave concerns and uncertainty as a result of that meeting with the company last week and to ask for intervention by us to clarify the proximate and longer term intentions of the company for the Tallaght plant. My colleague Deputy Richard Bruton had already written to the company in this connection to ask for an early meeting to ascertain its plans for the Tallaght plant. We will seek such information in an effort to see how we can help this company to turn this plant around. Deputies should be aware that the advisory service of the Labour Relations Commission has assisted several firms to overcome similar problems and to increase their productivity.
It is essential that trust between management, unions and the workforce is restored without further delay and the problems confronting the company, which have been well documented, are tackled vigorously to put the plant on a competitive cost structure and secure its future. If this is not done soon, one must be pessimistic for the future. The State has done everything possible to assist the company but in the final analysis the necessary action to tackle the existing serious problems rests with the company.
I cannot over-emphasise the importance the Government attaches to securing the future of the Packard Electric plant at Tallaght and to the future plans of General Motor in Ireland.