I thank you for your kind permission to raise the failure of the Minister to take all steps possible to resolve the industrial dispute at Dunnes Stores in Henry Street. With your permission I propose to take up less than my allotted time and Senator Eoin Ryan and Senator Higgins hope to make some brief remarks.
Adjournment Matter. - Dublin Stores Industrial Dispute.
I have no objection if the Senator is not dividing time that he has not got.
I do not think I am. The history of the dispute in Dunnes Stores goes back to a motion passed at the annual conference of the Irish Distributive and Administrative Trade Union last year, a motion calling for a boycott of all South African goods and services. The management of Dunnes Stores, Henry Street, were so advised, following which individual union members were summoned to the office by Dunnes to establish their intentions in this matter. Any member indicating strong support for the union's policy was immediately placed on a check-out with the following inevitable results. Ms. Mary Manning informed a customer of the union's policy on South African goods. She was suspended indefinitely by her employer for refusing to check-out the goods in question. Official pickets were placed on 19 July 1984, after a compromise proposal had been rejected by the company. Two subsequent meetings with management have failed to produce a resolution satisfactory to the union's viewpoint. On one occasion a spokesman for the company told them that members who feel very strongly about South African goods should go and get jobs elsewhere. The union is seeking the reinstatement of the person at the centre of the dispute, together with some arrangements so that she does not have to, or anybody else who feels the same does not have to, handle South African produce.
This boycott is not particularly directed at Dunne Stores. Clery and Company have withdrawn South African produce from their shelves, as have Roches Stores and Bests have withdrawn South African manufactured clothing. It is not particularly an issue with Dunnes Stores but simply an issue that Dunnes Stores have chosen to be particularly difficult about. In fact, only one company, Dunnes Stores in Henry Street, Dublin, has felt obliged to take the form of disciplinary action that has been taken against these people.
On 8 and 9 December 1984, as a mark of his endorsement, Bishop Desmond Tutu met two of the representatives of the strikers and indicated his approval. The union in question, IDATU, wrote to the Minister on 12 December 1984 in connection with the dispute asking for his intervention. Two months later, on 8 February 1985, the Minister replied. The singularly long gap of itself would invite an explantion. I understand that the Minister's letter indicated that it was not his policy to intervene in industrial disputes, that he was satisfied that the machinery available for resolving industrial disputes was adequate and he regretted that the management did not appear to be prepared to use that machinery.
In this context, because the Minister has apparently insisted that this is an industrial dispute in the general sense in which we understand those things, it is important to remember what we are talking about. We are talking about brave people who have made an extraordinarily principled stand against the most obnoxious system of Government that exists on this planet. It is appropriate that some of the shameful statistics that are the nature of that regime should go on the record. Eighty-six per cent of the land is reserved for 4.5 million whites, who constitute only 15.5 per cent of the population. Expenditure on education in South Africa for each white child in 1983 was £787 sterling, for each black child it was £95. Black children, in the black homelands as they are called, are 20 times more likely to die before the age of five than white children. In particular, it is important to understand the repression of trade union rights among the black majority in South Africa. From 1973 there has been a right to strike but it is so severely restrictive that of the 1,400 strikes by black workers over the past eight years only three were officially legal. Picketing and incitement to strike is illegal, as is financial assistance to those engaged in an illegal strike. In 1980, 10,000 black workers were broken up, the union representing them was broken up, and they were bussed back to the tribal homelands where they had never actually been in their lives, not being natives of those areas.
Trade union leaders constantly face harassment. There is ample evidence again in this morning's newspapers that yet again another group of South African black trade union leaders have been arrested. There is a long list of repression. Anybody in any political party in this country does not need convincing about the nature of the regime in South Africa. There is no point in my going into any more detail on that.
At the core of this dispute is the decision by a small number of very brave people to put themselves where their consciences suggested they should be, that is in a position where they regarded produce from South Africa as being tainted by the most repressive and appalling regime in the world and therefore, following the advice and requests of the anti-apartheid movement, refused to handle that material. We are not talking about an ordinary industrial dispute. It is a most extraordinary industrial dispute, because of the issue involved, because of the attitude of the management involved and, above all, because of the courage and principle and the bravery of the people involved. I will quote from some of the people who have spoken in defence of those brave people in Dunnes Stores. Bishop Desmond Tutu:
We admire and commend your courage and your concern for the voiceless people of South Africa.
The African National Congress:
We applaud the principled stand taken by Mary Manning and her fellow workers.
The South African Congress of Trade Unions:
The South African Congress of Trade Unions wishes to congratulate the workers of Dunnes Stores on their bold action.
The problem, in this case, is not that workers are refusing to be reasonable. The problem is of an entirely obdurate management refusing to be reasonable. If the Minister tells me that he has a policy of not intervening in industrial disputes, we can argue about that, I would not necessarily disagree with him in general. But this is not an industrial dispute. It is a matter of bravery, courage and principle by a few people who are extremely isolated and need the support of those of us — I know the Minister is among us — who strongly condemn the regime in South Africa. The issue here is that the Minister has powers at his disposal which might not necessarily resolve the dispute but which could considerably increase the pressure and the leverage available to pressurise the management in that store to respond to the needs of the consciences of their employees. Therefore, I have to repeat the theme of what I have to say. This is not an industrial dispute in the ordinary sense of the word. This is an issue where people have taken a principled stand. I am sick to death of references to conscience. I would be better off not to mention that particular aspect of the human psyche here ever again. It is an interesting fact that ten ordinary people, without any of the leadership, without any of the pressures, without any of the other things we associate with high principles, took a stand and are now, apparently, being abandoned by all of us, by the system and regrettably by the Minister who has powers.
I suggest that the Minister could appoint a mediator, a person of sufficient stature, who would, at least, increase the pressure on the management to respond to the trade union's demands. The trade union are not demanding that Dunnes Stores should cease to handle South African goods, though that would be a very reasonable request to make. But they are not demanding that. They are demanding that those of their members who feel in conscience that they cannot handle South African produce should be given that right. I hasten to add that if a good Catholic in this country refused to handle contraceptives and was sacked from his job, the whole of the Irish establishment would be down on their necks to say that the person's right to conscientious dissent had been suppressed. I would respectfully suggest that the consciences of the workers in Dunnes Stores deserve equal consideration and equal respect. I put it to the Minister that he has powers under industrial relations legislation, that he could use those powers and that there would be no precedent being established because of the fundamentally different nature of the dispute from the ordinary industrial dispute.
Senator E. Ryan. It is only right that I should say this. I do not mind staying here for five or ten minutes, nor does the Minister, but there is a vote in the other House at 8.30 p.m. I would be very grateful if you could be brief.
I will be very brief. I would like to support Senator B. Ryan. I am a member and a sponsor of the Anti-Apartheid Movement and as such I abhor the system in South Africa. The regime there is probably the most detestable one in the world. I believe there should be no co-operation and no contact with South Africa in these circumstances. One of the ways in which we can show our feelings about this is not to buy any goods from South Africa. Consequently, I admire and respect those employees who protested against the sale of fruit in Dunnes Stores and who made very considerable sacrifices in support of this principle. I deplore the fact that Dunnes Stores have persisted in importing fruit from South Africa. However, there are difficulties. I think that Dunnes Stores or any employer for that matter are entitled to run their own business as they think fit, and I cannot accept the right of staff to attempt to dictate to them what they should sell or how they should run their business. It is a matter of some difficulty from that point of view. It should have been possible to handle this situation in a more sensitive way by Dunnes Stores in moving the staff to an area where the problem would not arise and by the staff in accepting and co-operating in some solution of that kind. I do not know the full facts. It appears to me that there has been an element of confrontation on both sides in this matter. It was unfortunate that that should have occurred.
I agree with Senator B. Ryan that some effort should be made to find a solution to this problem that would avoid either of the parties concerned in losing face at this stage. Obviously, if this is going to be done it needs somebody in authority, whether it be the Minister for Labour or somebody else, to initiate some form of mediation to enable this matter to be solved in an acceptable way.
I certainly express my unreserved respect and admiration for the staff who have put forward their principles in this very effective way.
I thank Senator B. Ryan for sharing his time with me, and I will be very brief. I am indeed a sponsor of the Anti-Apartheid Movement with my colleague, the Minister for Labour, Deputy Quinn, and I express my admiration for the people who have in fact, perhaps unfairly, had to shoulder the burden of what should have been a total social movement of boycott of South African produce. In many ways, the people on strike have reminded us powerfully of the importance of consistency between action and language. Too often, we have condemned apartheid and not delivered it into effective action. They have taken the language of their trade union, its policy position, and have translated it into their actions. Having done that, they should not be allowed now to be isolated. For that reason, what we need to do is for all of us to assume the social burden of opposition to apartheid and a boycott of South African produce.
I know that the Minister, as my predecessor spokesman on Foreign Affairs for the Labour Party, for example, has often spoken effectively against apartheid in all its forms. We should now seek to integrate two principles of foreign policy that need not contradict each other. Our opposition to apartheid could be linked with our support for developing countries. Perhaps a boycott of South African produce could be turned positively to a support for poorer countries producing such fruit as they offer, for example, in a labour-intensive way. I think an integration of these two principles of foreign policy would be welcome. I know I am urging them on somebody who is sympathetic in the case of the Minister. I hope that this issue will be solved. Those people have suffered too much in isolation, those brave young girls, early in their lives, have taken on the burden of making consistent a foreign policy attitude, respect for downtrodden people in South Africa and are putting all they have on the line.
Two things are important now. Firstly, it is important that we broaden in our approach to the problem the whole question of making our opposition to apartheid effective and that we return to the girl who lost her job and to her colleagues and those who put all they had to offer on the line in defence of the principle of opposition to apartheid — their jobs.
I join with my fellow Senators in encouraging the Minister in every action he might want to take in that regard.
I would like to thank the House for giving me an opportunity to respond to this matter. I do not say that in any gratuitous way. I am sorry that we do not have more time to handle this issue as extensively as I would like.
May I put on record the clear position of the Government, which is one of total opposition to the whole system of apartheid, and in the interest of time I will not reiterate it at any great length. It is known that successive Governments — and I am grateful for, and from his previous record I would expect, the presence of Senator E. Ryan as an indication of the consistent view that the Fianna Fáil Party when in Government have taken on this issue as well. There is clearly all-party, including Independents, agreement on this issue.
Internationally we support the UN arms embargo, we advocate further international sanctions specifically in oil and investment and we have voted for these in the United Nations. We condemn apartheid on all occasions on which we have the opportunity to do so. Domestically, we have reduced State contact between the Republic of South Africa and the Republic of Ireland to no or minimal contact. We do not allow the promotion of trade by any of the State agencies. We deny access to South African sporting teams to this country. We asked Irish teams not to go to South Africa. We are not enabled by our Constitution to prevent people from travelling where they freely choose to go, and I do not think the Seanad would ask us to take on those powers.
My own views, and I am grateful to Senator Higgins for joining me in his own sponsorship along with Senator E. Ryan of the Anti-Apartheid Movement, are well known. We are clear in relation to the politics of this. We have a common view in relation to our abhorrence of this particular system and our desire to do something concrete about it.
The fact of the matter is that the consequences of the political action which the courageous women in Dunnes Stores took resulted in an industrial relations dispute. While it may have been politically motivated for reasons which all of us would support, the outcome of what they did has resulted in an industrial dispute and any attempt to intervene, and there have been attempts to intervene including some by myself, have got to take account of the fact that there is an industrial dispute and that it will be treated in the confines in which industrial relations operate within this country and within the immediate confines of the relationships between that company and the union that organises the vast bulk of the workers in it, IDATU.
Members are probably aware that there are currently two other disputes with that union which are unresolved, one in Wexford and one in Castlebar. As a consequence, communications between management and the unions have virtually come to a standstill.
My responsibility as Minister for Labour, and it is one I hold very strongly in relation to the area of industrial relations, is not to try to get in and participate in the process of industrial relations but to ensure that the machinery for industrial relations operates and is kept operating in an effective manner. We have sought, along with others — because we have responded to the request to see if a resolution to this problem was possible — to urge that the various bodies would use the existing machinery that is there. To date, neither side has seen fit to do so. I am referring to the institutions of the Labour Court in general. There have been informal discussions between various groups from the Anti-Apartheid Movement and from others to see if there was a way in which some form of dialogue could commence from which the prospect of a solution might possibly emerge. I have sadly to report to the House that, as of now, to the best of our knowledge, there is effectively no dialogue between both sides. In that situation it is very difficult, if not impossible, to try to promote some form of solution to a problem that has brought about the present conflict. In addition it should be said, lest the record might perhaps be misunderstood by others that while the general secretary of the union, Mr. Mitchell, wrote to me some time ago and, as Senator Ryan correctly stated, our official reply back to him in writing was on 8 February, approximately two months subsequent to his first letter coming into us, it would be wrong — and I do not for one moment suggest that Senator Ryan attempted to convey the impression, but the record of the House needs to be amended — to infer that there had been no contact between ourselves and the union. In fact, there were a number of conversations between my Department and Mr. Mitchell. There were a number of discussions as to what action could be taken. We are not in a position where we can force people to talk to each other. We do not have that power and I do not think an industrial relations regime would function in a democratic society if we tried to use that kind of heavy hand.
The company is in the position where it is not the only Irish food distribution company involved in the importation of produce from South Africa. I believe and I think the Seanad will support me in this belief that the way forward to the resolution of this particular problem is to find a formula that will respond to the kind of positive approach that Senator Micheal D. Higgins was indicating, that is, for all of the major distributors of food, particularly of fruit, in the large retail outlets and the wholesalers to come to an understanding and agreement that they will not import South African produce. The vast bulk of what we import from South Africa is fruit and it is fruit produced in conditions that can only be described as those of exploitation. As Senator Ryan said in his opening contribution, that exploitation has been clearly documented in the various reports published by the UDF, by the Anti-Apartheid Movement and by numerous committees of the United Nations Anti-Apartheid Committee. It is my intention to try to find a solution within that kind of framework where the individual companies who were involved in the distributive process would come together, arrive at some kind of voluntary arrangement, because it can only be voluntary; we cannot enforce it as such because we believe as an economy in the principles of open trade. We as an economy benefit very much from that in the sense that we export far more per head of population than any other member state of the EC and by definition virtually any other country in the world. Therefore, it would be totally against our overall benefit to try to argue for restrictions on trade in that respect.
To conclude, I believe that the formula that has the prospect for a solution is one that enables both sides to recognise that this problem is a political one. It has manifested itself as an industrial relations difficulty in this particular instance but it has the potential to appear in other parts of the country and in other stores and a solution here will not address itself to the main problem. Therefore, the formula should be the broader one as pointed out by Senator Michael D. Higgins. It would be my intention to attempt to see if that is possible with further consultations with both sides.
There is nothing more I can say at this stage other than to put my personal admiration on the record of this House for the courage of the women involved in Dunnes Stores. They probably feel that the rest of the country walks up and down that street without any regard for the action that they have taken. If we can send any message from this House it is one of recognition for what they have done in relation to trying to put into practical reality the politics that we so easily on occasions give words to in fora like this. Secondly, following upon their example, we should try to find a solution to their immediate industrial relations problem within the framework of existing industrial relations machinery. That has been sought in the past without success. We will renew our efforts to find success in the future, at the same time, moving to the broader plain of looking for a framework within which this problem can go away in a much more permanent manner. That is the only way at this stage, regrettably, that I can respond to the matter that Senator Ryan with his colleagues has raised on the adjournment.
I would like to thank the Senators for the short speeches that accommodated the Minister and the House.
The Seanad adjourned at 8.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 27 February 1985.