Conor Lenihan (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)

I thank Deputy Ferris for raising this important matter on the Adjournment. The strike involves a number of craftworkers who have been on strike since August 2009 in support of three dismissed colleagues. I understand this dispute arose following a decision by the company to dismiss the workers following an investigation into alleged improper use of the company's IT system. The union representing the affected workers, the TEEU, has disputed the company's stated reason for the dismissals and believes that the dismissals were a result of an earlier dispute over several workers sharing a confidential e-mail about redundancies, which had been sent to a union member in error. I understand the company does not recognise the trade union for collective bargaining purposes, nor is it obliged to do so.

The National Implementation Body had previously intervened in the dispute suggesting independent mediation by a third party outside the Labour Relations Commission and Labour Court. However, this initiative was not taken up by the company. The union subsequently referred the case to the Labour Court on 6 October 2009, in accordance with section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. This means that the recommendation is binding on the union but not on the company. A Labour Court hearing took place on 4 December 2009. I understand that the company did not attend the hearing but that IBEC was in attendance. In a statement to the court, the company maintained that it did not engage with unions and that the court was not the appropriate forum to hear the case. Its case was that the workers committed serious transgressions and that they were afforded all rights in the investigation and appeal hearings undertaken by the company.

The Labour Court issued its recommendation on 8 December 2009. The court was satisfied that, on the uncontested information before it, the dismissals in question were unjustified. In the circumstances of this case, the normal approach of the court would be to recommend that the workers dismissed be reinstated without loss of pay. The court noted that the union had revised its claim and was seeking a financial settlement for those concerned.

In this context, the court recommended that the parties should engage, through an intermediary if necessary, with a view to agreeing an acceptable compensation package, that this engagement should continue for one week following the date of the court's recommendation and that if final agreement was not reached, the matter should be referred back to the court. The court also recommended that the dispute should be ended on these terms and there should be an immediate return to work. In addition, there should be no victimisation of any type on either side.

Green Isle Foods rejected the Labour Court recommendation aimed at ending the strike. Media reports quoted a company spokesman as stating that it would not be bound by the Labour Court recommendation as it did not accept that the court was an appropriate mechanism by which to resolve this issue.

I regret that the company has not found it possible to accept the Labour Court recommendation and that it has not opted as yet for the established route of settling employment grievances. The experience and expertise of the Labour Court offers the most appropriate and effective avenue for resolving such disputes.

I understand that on 17 February 2010, a shop steward at the plant began a hunger strike in protest at the refusal by the company to accept the Labour Court recommendation. A second worker joined the hunger strike on 24 February. A third worker may join the hunger strike tomorrow, Wednesday, 3 March. I understand the company has said that it had made every effort to resolve the dispute and that mediation at local level, involving members of this House, is being pursued in an effort to find a settlement to the dispute.

It is a matter of great concern that this dispute has reached a stage where some workers believe they must go to the extreme length of going on hunger strike in order to achieve a settlement. I very much regret that the company has so far not found it possible to engage with the industrial relations machinery of the State during the protracted dispute. Notwithstanding the company's stance and mediation efforts ongoing at local level, the services of the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court remain available to the parties, if required, to assist in finding a resolution to the dispute.

Responsibility for the resolution of industrial disputes between employers and workers, whether in redundancy or other collective disputes, rests with the employer, the workers and their representatives. The State provides the industrial relations dispute settlement machinery free of charge to assist this process which, in line with the general principles of industrial relations in Ireland, is voluntary in nature.

I again urge all the parties involved in this dispute to work together to break the current impasse and to avail of the established machinery for dispute resolution. I again thank Deputy Ferris for raising this matter in the House.

See this speech in context