I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for permitting me to raise this important matter and I apologise to him and Members of the House for having been unavoidably detained.
Although this matter involving the dispute at Ryanair and the numbers involved in it may be relatively small, the issues involved are, I believe, of enormous importance. If not resolved, they have the capacity to inflict significant damage on our industrial relations procedures and to undermine the entire system of social partnership on which so much of the country's recent economic success has been built. Indeed, the generation of such negative publicity in an otherwise stable industrial environment can only have adverse implications for the ongoing work of IDA Ireland.
It is shocking that, as we approach the end of the twentieth century, a very successful and profitable Irish company should be refusing to recognise the right of its employees to join, and be represented by, the trade union of their choice. Regrettably, Ryanair's attitude to industrial relations seems to be rooted in the Victorian era and contrary to all the best management practices. The latest development in this dispute — the refusal of Ryanair to accept an invitation to attend at the Labour Court — suggests the company is not only prepared to deny workers what most people would regard as a fundamental human right, but is also thumbing its nose at the institutions established by the State to try to resolve industrial relations problems. This is not a normal industrial relations dispute in which a Government would be expected to maintain a neutral position. What is involved here is an issue of principle — the right of workers to join, and be represented by, a trade union if that is their wish. It is a principle the Government should actively seek to uphold.
The right to join a trade union is enshrined in the Constitution but this right is rendered virtually meaningless if employers such as Ryanair are permitted to use their power to frustrate the exercise of that right. The Ryanair case is not directly comparable with international companies located here which generally pay their workers above the odds, in stark contrast to the Ryanair policy. The treatment of its workers in Ryanair also stands in stark contrast to its treatment of the company's directors who were paid £23.65 million between 1995 and flotation. Ryanair's chief executive, Mr. O'Leary, who is responsible for the macho stands towards SIPTU, made an immediate killing of £17 million on the flotation.
Much of this country's recent economic success has occurred as a result of social partnership and one of the positive spin-offs from this has been a significant decline in the number of industrial disputes. Social partnership will not continue unless it is translated to the workplace. It seems that a small number of employers, including Ryanair, and a number of multinationals are prepared to put the partnership approach at risk in their desire to see the industrial relations clock turned back.
When Ryanair was a young company struggling to get off the ground, direct intervention by the State with regard to access to routes contributed enormously to its survival and growth. The junior partner in this Government often point to Ryanair as the kind of company which emerged as a direct result of the deregulation policy it promoted in the late 1980s. Now that it is a very successful company making huge profits, it is not unreasonable that the Government should ask it to abide by the industrial relations norms of the State.
It is also regrettable that, despite its generally honourable role in social partnership, IBEC should be backing the stance of Ryanair. It is a short-sighted position because if this dispute is not resolved, it could well reap an industrial relations whirlwind which employers may come to regret. The position of SIPTU and the Ryanair workers has, on the other hand, been cautious and generally responsible. Industrial action was only resorted to after a long period when the union was unable to get the company to open negotiations of any kind about the wages and conditions of its members. When it was felt that industrial action was the only option, that action was of a limited nature. Plans to escalate action were deferred when the chairperson of the Labour Court, Evelyn Owens, extended an invitation to both parties to come before the court.
Against this background and the exceptional issues involved, a much more proactive position is required by the Government. It cannot stand aloof. Moral and practical pressure must be exerted on the company to come to the negotiating table. A very strong public Government statement of disapproval at the company's approach would be a start.
Airline customers should exercise the options open to them to show their disapproval of the company's position by refusing to travel on Ryanair flights while the dispute continues. Departments are also major users of air transport and they, too, should exercise a similar right of choice.
