Vol. 464 No. 1
7 Mrs. O'Rourke asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment the current situation regarding the Packard Electric dispute; the recent contacts he has had with the international management, the local management and the unions at this company; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7631/96]
13 Miss Harney asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment the discussions, if any, he has had in relation to Packard Electric in Tallaght, Dublin 24; and if he will make a statement on the status of redundancy agreements reached in June 1995. [7657/96]
22 Mr. T. Kitt asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment the current position regarding the redundancy agreement at Packard Electric, Tallaght, Dublin 24. [7615/96]
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.
It is getting more confused by the day. The whole story of Packard Electric is a very tangled web.
In my question — to which I did not get an answer — I asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment the recent contacts he has had with the international management, the local management and the unions. The Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, said in reply that a group from the unions came to meet him last night. Was this the first contact of a union group with him? What formal contacts have been made with the international management and the local management of Packard Electric? Let us remember that we are not talking about Siberia or Indianapolis when we speak about local management, we are talking about a firm in the Minister of State's constituency. I accept the Minister of State's bona fides that he wishes to see the company retain as much employment as possible but surely the intervention with management to which he referred should have been undertaken on a weekly basis since the three agreements were made, the company agreement, the union agreement and the eventual signed agreement. What interventions were made with management since then because all of the signs seem to point towards a very difficult management situation?
I am not sure what the Deputy means by a confused and entangled web. There is only one agreement, that of last June between the unions and management. That agreement is crystal clear and I have put its relevant parts on the record today. If the Deputy had been listening, she would know that I did address her question. Both international and local management were met by the Minister for Enterprise and Employment and me.
Our meeting with the trade unions last night was not the first; there has been a number of them. In so far as one can intrude into the affairs of a private company, we have intervened almost without precedent at all times to facilitate a settlement. I remind the Deputy that there is a long tradition in this House, when a major industrial conflict occurs, that it is not exacerbated here in a manner that is likely to be to the detriment of the workers and their livelihoods. If the Deputy had asked Deputy Ahern before he left the House, he would bear that out. He would also have confirmed that when I was in Opposition, on several such occasions we had to demonstrate care in what we said. The practice has continued in this Dáil as recently as the Irish Steel affair. I am concerned that while we would be willing to put on the green jersey in various other difficult disputes that arise, for some reason an insinuation that is not justified by the facts seems to have been made across the floor in this case.
We have 12 minutes left to deal with the finalisation of this and four other priority questions. Perhaps brevity is called for all around.
Brevity all around is important. I will not take any lectures from the Minister about what I can or cannot raise in this House. I am fully entitled, as Opposition spokesperson on enterprise and employment, to raise what I like. I take my job seriously and work hard at it and I shall raise whatever issue I see fit. Many people from the Minister's constituency with connections to Packard Electric have been in touch with me, especially over the past week. We operate under a democracy and will continue to do so. The Minister's party was not a great believer in democracy not too long ago. I hope it has learned the new methods.
When did the meetings to which the Minister referred, apart from the initial ones with Packard Electric, take place? How many meetings or contacts did the Minister or the Minister for Enterprise and Employment have, following the June agreement, with international management, local management and the unions? While I accept the Government machinery already exists to assist at labour relations level, the June meeting primarily concerned productivity, new markets, helping the firm to increase its productivity and the retention of employment. What meetings have taken place with international and local management and unions since last June?
A number of meetings took place. Packard Electric is a private company. Notwithstanding that, we have met it on a number of occasions. The meeting I referred to on 14 March was attended by the heads of the European and Irish companies, the latter functioning from Coventry. A number of tangible matters arising from those meetings were agreed to, apart from making the Labour Relations Commission available to assist in any way possible. For example, the Exchequer brought in and paid for a team to advise on the engineering and productivity of the line staff. A committee, known colloquially as the "Three Wise Men" was set up; the IDA nominated a relevant consultant from the IPC, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions nominated a similar consultant, as did an independent person. They drew up a report on world-class manufacturing at the plant.
In so far as one could intervene into the affairs of a private company, we have done so many times. I am not questioning the right of Deputy O'Rourke to raise this matter in the House. I am merely talking about the manner in which she is doing it and the mischief making with which she has been concerned. The last thing this dispute needs is somebody with a ladle, dolloping out from a witches' brew of confusion, ill-considered advice, half-truths and misinformation and I hope it will stop.
Exactly.
The Minister is putting his own spin on this debate.
We only have eight minutes left and I must accommodate the first three questions.
There is only one way; we should be sitting over there.
