When proposing this Bill to the Dáil, I began by giving a brief account of the history of the dispute with which we are now concerned. I considered it was necessary to do that for the information of Deputies and it is necessary to repeat that history to some extent here because otherwise it would be difficult for Senators to understand the confused and involved nature of the situation that confronts us. It was said in the Dáil that the history of the dispute which I gave should have started much further back than I attempted to go. I began my account to the Dáil with the recommendation issued by the Labour Court in this dispute between the two trade unions that cater for electricians employed in the electrical contracting industry and the employer members of the National Joint Industrial Committee for the industry.
I suppose it is true to say that in this instance, and probably in relation to every trade dispute, the underlying causes could only be ascertained by going quite a long way back in time. However, I do not think it practicable to undertake such a comprehensive analysis for the purpose of deciding what is the appropriate course to take now. In effect, the dispute with which we are concerned began when the recommendations of the Labour Court were rejected by the unions concerned, rejected without being submitted to a ballot of the members and in circumstances which involved the beginning of a strike at comparatively short notice.
The Congress of Trade Unions tell me they endeavoured to intervene at this point to secure a delay in the issuing of strike notice, but unsuccessfully. The strike began on last Monday week, August 21st. In the normal course of an industrial dispute, the striking unions place pickets on the premises of employers with whom they are in dispute and pickets were placed on the premises of the E.S.B., including their generating stations, and other workers employed by the E.S.B. in these premises and at these generating stations in connection with the production of electricity refused to pass these pickets.
Shortly after the dispute began—on the same day, in fact—the Irish Congress of Trade Unions interested itself in the dispute. Arising from their activity and from discussions which they had with the Minister for Transport and Power, who was dealing with the matter on that day, pending the return to Dublin of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, a proposal emerged that the parties in the dispute would get together. The Minister for Transport and Power asked the E.S.B. to participate in these discussions on the suggestion of the Congress of Trade Unions and on the understanding, which was put forward by the Congress, that the pickets on the E.S.B. premises would be withdrawn.
That same night a meeting of the Committee of the Congress which comprises representatives of unions with members employed by the E.S.B. —there are approximately 18 such unions—authorised the Congress to issue a decision to the effect that the dispute in the E.S.B. should be confined to the workers directly concerned, that is, to the members of the Irish Engineering Industrial and Electrical Trade Union and the Electrical Trade Union (Ireland). In explanation of that direction given by the Congress, it was stated that the Congress had been requested to take steps to arrange a meeting between the parties.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce, who had returned from the west to Dublin immediately on hearing of the dispute, intervened the following day, Tuesday, August 22nd., and he had meetings that day with both representatives of the employers and the unions concerned, as well as with the Congress of Trade Unions. Following upon all these discussions, the Congress of Trade Unions that evening published an announcement which was signed by the representatives of all the non-electrical trade unions instructing their members to return to work as the Electricity Supply Board had given them an undertaking that, immediately on resumption of work by the members of these unions, any wage claims served on the Board on behalf of these workers, that is, manual workers represented by these unions, would be dealt with expeditiously by the Board.
In the meantime, the employers and representatives of the electrical unions had entered into negotiations in accordance with the procedure of the National Joint Industrial Committee under a chairman designated by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He had designated for that work the Chief Conciliation Officer of the Labour Court. In consequence of these developments, the electrical trade unions issued a statement that evening to the effect that discussions had been opened under the chairmanship of the Chief Conciliation Officer, that a basis for negotiation had been agreed, and accordingly both unions directed that all strike pickets should be withdrawn immediately, pending the termination of these discussions.
The negotiations continued into the next day, Wednesday, August 23rd. There was some confusion during that day regarding that direction to withdraw pickets from the E.S.B. stations and it was not until the night shift went on duty that there appears to have been a full return of these workers to their posts. On the evening of Wednesday 23rd., however, it was reported to the Minister for Industry and Commerce by the Chief Conciliation Officer who had been presiding over the negotiations that an agreement had been reached in the negotiations. It appears that the maximum offer which the employers' representatives were prepared to make was an increase to 5/7d. an hour on the rate recommended by the Labour Court—which had recommended 5/5d. an hour—the new rate to be related to the adjusted hours of working which had been recommended by the Labour Court and which, I gather, have never been in dispute at all between the employers and unions.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce considered that he should press the unions to submit that offer for the consideration of their members, without expressing any personal opinion on the merits of the offer—indeed during all these negotiations, he endeavoured to avoid getting involved in the actual details of negotiations —but on the ground that it was an offer which he thought should reasonably be submitted to the members of the unions to be decided on by a ballot vote. The union representatives agreed. They gave an assurance that there would be a ballot but said that they could not undertake to recommend acceptance of the offer, nor could they give an assurance that the withdrawal of the pickets would be maintained.
It was agreed between the Minister and the unions that the unions would permit electricians to take any action that might be necessary to enable essential supplies to be maintained. On the following morning, the pickets reappeared at all the premises and the E.S.B. reported that manual workers were again refusing to pass the pickets. There is perhaps some confusion as to what happened then. Some of the evening newspapers on August 25th contained statements attributed to the officers and executives of these electrical trade unions that they had rejected this pay increase of 8d. per hour and had advised their members to reject it, even though a ballot was proceeding.
Subsequently, the representatives of these unions denied in the course of negotiations with the employers' representatives that they had issued any statement of rejection prior to the commencement of the ballot or that they had recommended their members not to accept the offer. The result of the ballot became available on the following Monday, that is, the Monday of this week, and it was reported that there was a substantial majority against acceptance of the offer. The Minister accordingly asked both parties to meet him on the following day. He asked them to come invested with plenary powers and, in the case of the unions, he suggested that, if necessary, in order to assist in bringing matters to finality, they should bring their entire executives to meet him.
On Tuesday, the Minister met the parties separately and put forward a suggestion that an effort should be made to resolve this dispute on lines that had proved acceptable in the case of the C.I.E. dispute earlier in the year. In fact, the proposals which he made for a tribunal were based on what had been agreed to in connection with that dispute.
Three conditions arose, however, in that regard. The first was that the union executives would agree to recommend the findings of the tribunal for acceptance by their members. The second was that a ballot on the recommendation would be conducted by the tribunal and the third was that on the establishment of the tribunal the men would report to work immediately and that all pickets would be withdrawn pending the result of the ballot.
The employers' representatives indicated, when the proposition was put to them by the Minister, that they were prepared to accept that arrangement and undertook to bind themselves in advance to accept the findings of the tribunal. The unions' representatives who did not have all the members of their executive present on that occasion said that they had not a mandate to agree to these proposals.
The proposal was for a tribunal of five, with on the workers' side, representatives of the Congress and of the striking unions, and, on the employers' side, representatives of the E.S.B. and of the private contractors. The union representatives felt that it was undersirable to bring in on the tribunal the Congress of Irish Unions. The Minister accepted the proposal that the two workers' representatives should be drawn from the two unions involved in the dispute. They also agreed that the ballot should be conducted in accordance with their normal procedure but with a representative of the tribunal present.
The representatives said they could not recommend the resumption of work or the withdrawal of pickets while the tribunal was meeting or the ballot was proceeding because they did not consider they could effectively secure the compliance of their members with any such recommendation or directive. The employers' representatives had made it clear that they regarded the condition of return to work and removal of pickets as an essential condition of their agreement to bind themselves in advance to accept the findings of the tribunal.
The Minister did not press that point, however, with the unions and suggested that they should adjourn at that stage and consult with their executives and come back the following morning, which they did. When they came back the following morning, they said they could not agree to that condition. The Minister indicated that he would modify that condition to the extent of asking the unions to urge their members in the public interest to return to work while this process was going on.
The union representatives also said they were not prepared to recommend acceptance of the findings of the tribunal. All efforts to secure alteration in that view failed while, on the other hand, the employers' representatives were adamant on the acceptance of these two conditions. At that point, the Minister changed his approach. Instead of concentrating upon devising a method by which the process of ending the dispute could be started, he himself decided to participate in the negotiations. He asked the unions whether an offer of 5/8d. an hour would be recommended by them to their members and whether they would be prepared to instruct their members to report to work and to direct the removal of pickets pending the result of a ballot on that figure.
The Minister then withdrew from the meeting with the unions and after consideration the unions informed the Minister they were prepared to recommend to their members acceptance of the rate of 5/8d. an hour and to instruct their members to resume work, pending the result of the ballot. After some difficulty, the Minister persuaded the employers' representatives, whom he summoned to meet him, to agree to these terms. When they had agreed, it looked as if the dispute had been resolved and the announcement to that effect was made—the announcement indicating that the unions were recommending the acceptance of these terms and instructing their members to return to work by starting hour the next morning.
What happened after that is a matter upon which we have no very direct information except that conveyed to the Minister by the officers of the union. Apparently, when the union executives went back to their offices, they got a critical reception from members who had assembled there and ultimately this statement was issued:
On receipt of information by the strike committees that the members would not return to work until a decision was made on the ballot vote, messages were sent to the executive. The executive accordingly at a special meeting considered this position and they decided in the interests of all concerned to inform the Minister for Industry and Commerce that the arrangement is withdrawn and also to notify the parties to the strike.
That statement was issued by the Electrical Trades Union which is by far the larger of the two unions involved in this dispute catering for this category of tradesman. The executive of the other union have indicated they are prepared to go on with the agreement into which they had entered but that because of the development in the case of the Electrical Trades Union, they are not taking any further action in the matter. That was the position on yesterday morning.
Yesterday afternoon, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions endeavoured, I understand, but without success, to get the executive of the Electrical Trades Union to reverse its decision again and to reinstate the agreement. During the course of today, the Congress has been trying to get negotiations reopened. I said in the Dáil that we were not very hopeful of succeeding. The latest report is that, while some progress may have been made, that is still very much the position.
I mention the events of today because they are relative to the rest of my statement. When the Government met yesterday morning to consider the situation, it appeared to us that the prospect of settling this dispute by any process of negotiation would have to be regarded as ended, at any rate for the time being. It is of course a situation in which time is a most important factor. A failure of electrical power either generally or over a wide area of the country could develop at very short notice indeed. It was then that we decided to ask the Ceann Comhairle and the Cathaoirleach to convene meetings of the Dáil and Seanad to consider certain proposals in regard to it. We felt that, apart from any question of proposals by the Government, the elected representatives of the people who are seriously threatened in this situation should have an opportunity of expressing their view.
However, we prepared certain proposals for consideration and these are embodied in the Bill before the House. To some extent, they have been modified or, at any rate, our intentions in regard to them have been altered, as a result of events during today and as a result of statements which were made in the Dáil today, to which I gave very careful attention, particularly where they appeared to imply some misunderstanding of the Government's intention, and amendments were made by the Dáil, at my suggestion, in the Bill which has been circulated to the House, to which I will refer later.
The first proposal contained in the Bill is the establishment of a tribunal on the general lines of that which was under discussion between the unions concerned and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, with the duty of determining what rate of remuneration should in all the circumstances apply to the persons involved in the dispute.
I am sure Senators will appreciate that when that method of bringing a dispute to an end is adopted, it must give some assurance of finality and that, of course, was the point on which the negotiations apparently broke down, but the Bill would provide for that by giving the force of law to whatever rates of remuneration of these electricians the tribunal might determine.
In that regard, first of all, it is clear that certain misunderstandings arose as a result of which amendments were made in the Bill. These amendments are for the purpose of clarifying the Government's intention, which has been strengthened by the course of events today, not to utilise that device of a statutory tribunal to determine the appropriate rate of wages in this instance at all while there is any prospect of a settlement by a process of negotiation and so long as the danger of a stoppage of electric power is only imminent.
I do not know to what extent the intervention by the Congress of Trade Unions at this stage can, in fact, be effective in securing the reopening of negotiations or achieving agreed proposals. Senators will, I am sure, appreciate the difficulty of the situation. On Wednesday night, all those concerned in the negotiations, the representatives present of the trade unions and the representatives of the employers, after some reluctance and hesitation, had all agreed upon terms to bring the dispute to an end. The fact that these terms did not become effective is a factor in the situation to which we must have regard and must obviously put in the mind of everybody concerned some doubts as to the possibility at this stage of getting negotiations reopened at all or, at any rate, if reopened, successfully concluded.
There are certain aspects of this proposal I want to refer to because of statements made in the Dáil and to ensure that neither members of the Seanad nor members of the public will be under any misunderstanding as to the nature of the proposals we are putting forward now or as to the Government's viewpoint regarding the settlement of trade disputes of this character in general.
I, personally, do not believe in the practicability of any system of compulsory arbitration as a method of resolving trade disputes between either State boards or private employers and their staffs. I think today's debate in the Dáil, if it served no other purpose, will help in bringing home to people, who have been over a long period talking glibly about the desirability of a system of compulsory arbitration, its complete impracticability, apart altogether from the question of its desirability.
We are not in this Bill proposing for the electricians involved in this dispute or for the employees of the E.S.B. generally or for any other category of employees any system of compulsory arbitration. We are putting forward here a suggestion, the best that occurred to us, for resolving a critical dispute, a dispute that could have most critical consequences for the country as a whole and which might well involve grave hardship for people who are not in a position to defend themselves against the consequences of it, to be used only when all other methods of resolving that dispute have proved ineffective.
Apart altogether from any views I may hold on the practicability of compulsory arbitration, still less do I believe in any system of Government control of wages or, indeed, any system which involves the arbitrary determination of the remuneration of workers. So far as I personally am concerned, I will resist proposals of that character, no matter from what quarter they may come. I believe—and in this matter my belief is sustained by my own experience over a very long number of years—in the process of settling rates of remuneration of workers of all categories by a process of free discussion and negotiation. If this Bill appears to contemplate any departure from what is normal practice, anything contrary to these views which I am now expressing, I justify it merely as a last resort in a situation which cannot be resolved in any other way, a situation which involves grave danger for the whole community, and as a temporary device for dealing with that situation.
It is proposed, further, to set up another tribunal or committee or board of inquiry to examine procedures of the Electricity Supply Board for settling the remuneration of their staffs and for dealing with disputes concerning their conditions of employment.
May I say the first tribunal, if it ever functions at all, will be concerned with the wages of workers involved in the dispute, not necessarily the employees of the Electricity Supply Board only? I confess that I had at first thought that the function of the Government would be limited to proposing that arrangement merely in regard to the workers of the Electricity Supply Board who are, after all, the people who are involved in the public service that we want to have maintained and that we should not bring within its scope similar workers employed by private contractors, but when I met the Congress of Trade Unions yesterday and asked their advice upon that point, they pointed out to me the practical difficulties that might be created by trying to segregate one category of these workers from another. Consequently, Section 3 of the Bill is framed to cover all these workers.