Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 2 Feb 1999

Vol. 499 No. 3

Adjournment Debate. - Forfás-Enterprise Ireland Industrial Dispute.

Mrs. Owen:

It gives me no pleasure to say that this industrial action need not have taken place if warnings and indications had been taken on board when Enterprise Ireland was being set up. I know that discussions were ongoing in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment long before Enterprise Ireland was established by legislation in this House. It is a great pity that the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Harney, did not heed the warnings when she rushed helter skelter to set up Enterprise Ireland. She appointed a chairman of a committee, Mr. Molloy, and followed that up almost instantly by appointing a chief executive. Within less than three months she rushed the legislation through the House in June and July 1998 in order to allow the new chief executive to take up duty.

In the course of the debate on setting up Enterprise Ireland the Minister informed us there had been extensive consultations between her Department and the staff of the agencies and their trade union representatives. She said meetings were taking place on average every three weeks. She said there had been a full sharing of information and experience between all those involved in the process.

If the talks were so positive and everything was going as the Minister expected, why is it that now, eight or nine months later, SIPTU and 750 staff have been obliged to take action. In a statement SIPTU said the persistent refusal to deal with pay differences of up to 40 per cent between staff doing the same work following the amalgamation of two former State agencies, Eolas and the IDA, and the subsequent creation of new bodies For fás, IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland, triggered a ballot which has now resulted in a decision to take industrial action.

If this matter had been handled carefully and given time by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and her staff, we would not now have 750 staff not answering their telephones. By Friday there will be an escalation and e-mail and computers will not be used either. We are talking about agencies that are responsible for inward and outward investment and assistance to client companies. Before all the agencies were amalgamated, even if there was industrial action in one agency, we might have had the advantage of one of the other stand alone agencies being able to do some of the necessary work.

I am concerned by this industrial action and the fact that the Department has failed to tackle the issues that were outstanding when the legislation was going through the Dáil. We will not see the result of this action for some time to come. How do we know whether staff involved in this industrial action, but working abroad on behalf of Ireland Incorporated, will lose the opportunity to have an important meeting with somebody who is interested in investing in Ireland? If that meeting is not held the investment will not have a chance of coming to Ireland with a subsequent loss of jobs and economic progress in this country.

The Minister of State may say that this action is having no immediate effect, but he cannot say that with any certainty concerning the future. I am angry that the warnings that I and others gave in the Dáil at the time the legislation to establish Enterprise Ireland was going through have now come to pass because of a lack of effort by the Department to deal with staff issues.

We have a ludicrous situation where three people can work side by side with as much as a 40 per cent difference in their salaries. An IDA staff person at HEO level can earn a maximum of £28,000; the next area of promotion is to APO with a maximum of £39,000. On the scientific side of this new agency the maximum salary is £42,000. People earning different salaries can be working side by side doing the same work for their clients, with a different orientation.

We warned that this would happen. I said at the time that I was concerned that in the first six months or even one year the main emphasis will be on sorting out staff positions, new names and grading. I also said that in six months' time Opposition spokespersons will probably inquire into what is happening in Enterprise Ireland because the trade unions and staff associations will have come to a standstill in their discussions with the Department.

I call on the Minister of State to involve the Labour Court in this dispute and to ensure that the concerns of the Exporters' Association are put to rest and that work will continue. The Department should take full responsibility for having led staff into a situation where they have had to take industrial action.

Mr. T. Kitt:

This dispute arises from some grading anomalies, as the Deputy pointed out, which have their origins in the establishment of Forbairt in 1994 when former Eolas staff were merged with the indigenous industry directorate of the former IDA. The issue was further complicated by the establishment in July 1998 of Enterprise Ireland, following enactment by the Oireachtas of the Industrial Development (Enterprise Ireland) Act, 1998.

The new agency structure, which included the merger of Forbairt and An Bord Trachtála, brought together three different grading structures which now sit side by side in Forfás, IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland. SIPTU is seeking upward harmonisation of pay levels for its members.

These issues were addressed in the first half of last year in the context of the proposed establishment of Enterprise Ireland. Following discussions between SIPTU and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment the matter was referred for direct consideration between Enterprise Ireland management and SIPTU in July 1998. The Labour Relations Commission facilitated discussions between the parties in the period September to December 1998.

A framework for a proposal was outlined by management to the union on 12 December. On 14 December a general meeting of SIPTU members considered the framework and the outcome was to initiate a ballot for industrial action up to and including strike action. A formal proposal was subsequently sent to the union and rejected.

On 18 January 1999 SIPTU advised that industrial action would commence with effect from 1 February 1999. Management has been unequivocal in its stated position that discussions should continue utilising the services of the industrial relations agencies before any form of industrial action was taken. In my capacity as Minister of State with responsibility for labour affairs, I urge both parties to comply with the normal industrial relations procedures, including direct discussions and recourse to the LRC or the Labour Court as appropriate. This is in line with the approach required under the industrial relations procedures of the agencies under the terms of Partnership 2000 and under good industrial relations procedures generally. It is understood that the Labour Court indicated that an early hearing of the case could be arranged.

I share the Deputy's concern about the potential impact which this action may have on our efforts to develop enterprise, including the attraction of foreign investment. However, the enterprise development agencies have traditionally been characterised by professional staff who consistently show a deep commitment to their clients' interests. I would hope that the staff of the agencies will continue to ensure that the interests of their clients are protected and that the impact on them would be minimised.

There have been reports in today's media of allegations that this problem is a result of the Tánaiste's approach to complex industrial relations issues. Indeed, this point has been repeated here by Deputy Owen. In the absence of the Tánaiste, I wish to absolutely refute such allegations. In considering the establishment of Enterprise Ireland full account was taken of industrial relations and staffing issues. As I have outlined already, these matters were discussed early last year between the Department and SIPTU, following which they were properly referred for direct consideration between management and the union.

Mrs. Owen:

That is the problem.

Mr. T. Kitt:

Management engaged in full and meaningful negotiations culminating in a proposal to the union, within the framework of public sector pay policy, which safeguards the existing terms and conditions of all staff and, in addition, would offer significant new opportunities for a substantial number of staff.

Mrs. Owen:

It is not good enough.