Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

I thank Deputy Andrews for raising the matter and acknowledge his constant contact on this matter over recent weeks.

The industrial dispute involving workers from Marine Terminals Limited has resulted from workers' concerns over the company's initial cost-cutting proposals involving 13 compulsory redundancies and the introduction of new contracts of employment for the remaining workforce. I understand that a number of workers have voluntarily availed of the redundancy offer. The company offered a severance package of two weeks pay per year of service, in addition to statutory entitlements. The new contracts proposed by the company would involve a reduction in pay and allowances averaging, according to company figures, €15,000 per worker. Up to 50 workers, who are represented by SIPTU's MPGWU Branch, have been involved in the dispute.

On 20 May 2009, following two months of local talks, the parties attended at the Labour Relations Commission for conciliation talks. However, I understand there was disagreement about the presence at talks of security personnel accompanying the employer representative and, accordingly, the talks did not proceed.

Subsequently, the union referred a complaint to the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment under the Protection of Employment (Exceptional Collective Redundancies and Related Matters) Act, 2007 which was referred to the redundancy panel. The panel advised the Minister to seek the opinion of the Labour Court. The Labour Court's opinion was that the 13 compulsory redundancies were legitimate redundancies. Shortly afterwards, these workers were made redundant by the company. However, the court felt that if workers were made redundant for not accepting new contracts of employment, as had been threatened by the company, an exceptional collective redundancy situation could arise.

I understand that the company subsequently introduced short-time working and replaced workers who reported sick with workers from elsewhere in the group. I understand that the company may have provided living and sleeping facilities at the MTL terminal for some or all of these workers, who come from Belfast and Scotland.

On 3 July 2009, pickets were mounted at Marine Terminal and have been ongoing since. Protest marches have also been organised. According to the union, the company issued P45s to more of the workers. Talks in mid-August failed to progress the issues in dispute and the company rejected a proposal to refer the issues to the Labour Court.

Two injunctions were obtained by MTL against the union and named individuals. The first was obtained in early July and limited the picket at the company's cargo terminal to communicating information, or peacefully persuading people to abstain from work. The second, obtained at the end of August, resulted from allegations of intimidation and harassment of workers. Following a protest which involved boats attempting to blockade the port on 27 August, Dublin Port Company obtained an injunction against a number of people. I assume these are the people to whom Deputy Andrews referred.

Talks were held at the Labour Relations Commission in late August and early September. Unfortunately, no agreement was possible and the union referred the issues to the Labour Court, pursuant to section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. Under this provision the union would be bound by the court's subsequent recommendation.

I understand that the court has scheduled a hearing for the afternoon of Monday 28 September and has invited the company to attend. The experience and expertise of the court, in my view, now offers the best avenue for resolving the issues in dispute. I urge the company to agree to attend the Labour Court hearing and for both parties to engage fully in the process. I urge the parties to put their difficulties and differences behind them and approach the court hearing in good faith and with a view to accepting the outcome of the process, namely, the Labour Court's recommendation.

Ireland's system of industrial relations is, essentially, voluntary in nature and responsibility for the resolution of industrial disputes is a matter for the parties involved. The system of industrial relations in Ireland is designed to help and support parties in their efforts to resolve their differences, rather than imposing a solution on the parties to an industrial dispute. Responsibility for the settlement of this dispute rests, ultimately, is with the parties themselves. The obligation lies with the parties to seek to resolve their differences and to carry their efforts through to completion.

See this speech in context