There is a number of Private Notice Questions to the Minister for Enterprise and Employment relating to the crisis at TEAM Aer Lingus. I understand that the Minister of State, Deputy O'Rourke, proposes to take the question together. I will call the Deputies in the order in which they submitted their questions.
Private Notice Questions. - TEAM Aer Lingus Dispute.
asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment the action if any, he will take in view of the Labour Relations Commission recommendations on the problem at TEAM Aer Lingus.
asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment the action, if any, he proposes to take to avert the crisis at TEAM Aer Lingus in view of the risk of the loss of 1,900 jobs.
asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment the reasons the full report of the Labour Relations Commission was not made available to the unions at TEAM Aer Lingus; if in view of the current difficult situation at TEAM and the need to establish full confidence between management and unions; he will make the full report available to the unions; the further steps, if any, he intends to take to try to secure a settlement to the current dispute; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment if he will give clarification of the current Government stance on the TEAM Aer Lingus crisis.
asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, in view of the deepening crisis at TEAM Aer Lingus and the danger of up to 2,000 jobs being lost, the further initiative, if any, he will take to try to avert the crises and damaging industrial action that could spell the death knell of the company.
I call on the Minister of State to reply.
On a point of order——
We will come to the Deputy's question presently.
——Deputy Hogan's question has been tabled to the same Minister, the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications. Will my question be taken at the same time?
No. Deputy Hogan's question has been transferred to the Minister for Enterprise and Employment. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Rourke, will respond to the questions which have been posed.
I will be taking the questions addressed to me.
It is my information that the Minister of State is to take together the questions posed by Deputies R. Bruton, Owen, De Rossa, Hogan and Quill and that the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications will take the question tabled by Deputy Sargent.
I propose to deal only with the industrial relations aspects of the serious problems facing TEAM Aer Lingus. My colleague will deal with the commercial aspects.
All parties are fully aware that the future of the company is in danger unless this dispute is settled. Strenuous efforts have been made by the Labour Relations Commission to bring about a resolution. Also officials from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Irish Business and Employers Confederation met both sides last week. Having been briefed by the officials from ICTU and IBEC on Wednesday, 8 June, the Labour Relations Commission was requested to conduct an inquiry into the dispute under section 38(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
The Labour Relations Commission furnished the Department with the report of its investigation on Tuesday last 14 June, stating that the submissions made by the parties did not provide a basis for a negotiated settlement. The Government accepted the commission's proposed settlement terms that evening. The Government has decided not to release the full report as it contains sensitive trading, financial and commercial information which was provided in confidence to the Labour Relations Commission. Copies of the settlement terms have been forwarded to the parties by the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, who has also conveyed the Government's request to the parties to accept the settlement terms.
The industrial relations process has been fully utilised in this dispute and it is now a matter for management and the unions to reach an agreement which will secure the company's future. In view of the serious situation facing the company and the workers, I would again urge all parties to accept the settlement terms drawn up by the Labour Relations Commission and to give careful consideration to the implications of rejection of these proposals.
Is the Minister of State willing to release the details of the Labour Relations Commission's report apart from any sensitive commercial information to diffuse what is becoming an extremely charged dispute? Does she realise that the trade unions want to see the basis of the confidence expressed by the Minister, Deputy Quinn, who was quoted in The Irish Times as saying that this plan will resolve the viability issues at TEAM Aer Lingus and protect employment? Does she agree that those who are asked to accept that the plan will do this deserve to see the basis of the confidence expressed by the Minister? Was the chairman of the Labour Party speaking on behalf of the Government when he indicated that the solution to the problem lay in the unions, management and the commission putting their approaches on the table to allow proper negotiations to proceed?
paragraph 24 of the plan states that the potential of the plans produced by the craft union group to make significant contributions to the efficiency of the organisation and the development of its business must be acknowledged and that the parties are to establish immediately a joint non-negotiating forum whose major initial task will be to examine in detail the practicalities of adoption of the plan and set a course for putting in place those strategies which can make a contribution to the future of the company. That is not at variance with the Government decision; they are perfectly compatible. Any ideas put forward will be carefully considered. The Government has made a decision and it has been conveyed. All concerned are aware that the end of the road has been reached in terms of the industrial machinery available. All the procedures have been exhausted in this case.
The Deputy asked if the Government would consider releasing non-confidential trading and commercial information which was provided in confidence by the parties concerned to the Labour Relations Commission. The Government made an explicit decision that because the plan contains valuable and potentially damaging information, it should not be publicly released.
Is the Minister telling us that 55 pages of a 63 page document contain confidential and sensitive material? Surely it is possible to make available those 55 pages to the unions if she wants them to sit down and negotiate on the basis of the Labour Relations Commission's plan. Is she aware that the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Quinn, said in his statement that he had asked the Labour Relations Commission to find an agreed solution to the dispute at TEAM Aer Lingus? Is it not contradictory that the terms of the letter to the unions from the Minister, Deputy Cowen, were that the Government requested the parties to accept the settlement terms and that they should take them or leave them? How can that be referred to as an agreed solution when there was no opportunity for anybody, either management or unions, to discuss the plan with the Labour Relations Commission? Will the Minister not make available immediately to the unions the remaining 55 pages, or at least the 53 which do not contain sensitive information, so that they can sit down with the Labour Relations Commission and management to correct the problems which exist? Otherwise the Minister will be presiding over the loss of 1,900 jobs in North County Dublin.
The Deputy is mistaken in her remarks about negotiation. When I quoted from paragraph 24 of the plan I said that the parties were to establish immediately a joint non-negotiating forum. Paragraph 24, which was raised earlier by Deputy Bruton, concerns the acceptability of the plan in a non-negotiating forum.
They have not even seen the plan.
These proposals were made available to both sides.
I have them here.
I am sure they are available to everybody. The Deputy suggested that we would be responsible for the demise of 1,900 jobs. I wish to make it clear that we want TEAM Aer Lingus to remain a viable industry, that we want people to remain in employment. To that end the Government decided it was necessary to proceed in a certain way. The Deputy asked how many pages of the document contained confidential, financial and trading information. Each page of the plan impinges on different aspects in that regard and it would not be possible to publicly encapsulate one part of it without that having a bearing on another.
Will the Minister agree that this is not primarily an industrial dispute, but a dispute between workers and management about the survival of the company and the way it can be saved? The unions indicated that they were prepared to accept changes in work practices and to accept redundancies but that the plan put forward originally by management and now by the Labour Relations Commission will save neither jobs nor the company. The Government told the unions that if they do not accept the plan jobs will not be saved. Their answer is that if they accept the plan the company will not survive. Will the Minister not agree it is time the good offices of the Labour Relations Commission were used to facilitate a meeting between unions, the management and the shareholder, namely, the Government to plan the future of the company in a manner which will save it? I do not know if any other Member was as appalled as I was to hear the Minister of State say that so far as she is concerned the Government made a decision and that is the end of the line.
Take it or leave it.
That is not acceptable. We are talking about approximately 2,000 jobs going down the tubes. I hope to encourage the Minister of State and the Minister to get off their high horses, to meet the unions and management and discuss how the company can be saved.
No member of a party in this House is on a high horse about anything.
I am afraid there is.
Please allow the Minister of State to respond without interruption.
It may suit Opposition Deputies to adopt a certain stance but let us be honest and realistic about the facts. Exhaustive attempts have been made through the various machinery of industrial relations activity to reach an agreed solution between all sides in this dispute. In the preamble to its settlement terms for the dispute at TEAM Aer Lingus, the Labour Relations Commission said it was not possible, despite the most recent conciliation talks, to obtain a basis for the commencement of realistic negotiations and that the parties remained entrenched in their positions. I understand that document was made available to everybody. Far from anybody seeking to wash their hands of the matter, we are making sure that TEAM Aer Lingus remains in place and viable. If we adopted the point of view put forward by the Deputy we would merely see this as a company which is barely four years in existence, has accumulated major losses and is losing approximately £1 million a month. We would all prefer not to have to give the harsh facts, perhaps to ignore them but this is the position and the settlement terms, which will be carried through, run in tandem with the Government decision which was conveyed by letter to the management and unions.
Will the Minister agree that it was Government inactivity and inaction over many years that contributed to the financial crisis in Aer Lingus and in TEAM Aer Lingus? The Minister is well aware that in the run-up to the last general election politicians made promises irresponsibly about the future of various people, particularly the employees of TEAM Aer Lingus and Aer Lingus. Everything was rosy at that time. Has the Government a view on the management of TEAM Aer Lingus and the mistakes it has made? Is it taking action to correct personnel for the mistakes they made? Furthermore, is the Government planning any further initiative to break the deadlock or to take the initiative itself to resolve the matter, if the management of TEAM Aer Lingus is not prepared to do so?
The Minister, Deputy Cowen, wrote to the management and unions in this regard and clear statements have been made. There is no doubt that everybody in TEAM Aer Lingus must face reality as is the case with many other companies. Neither management nor the employees is exempt from facing up to reality in this dispute.
I accept that the confidential elements of the plan cannot be brought into the public arena. That would not be in the best interest either of the company or the workers, who I am convinced want to hold on to their jobs. We appear to have reached a deadlock in this dispute. Will the Minister consider giving the spokespersons for TEAM Aer Lingus a confidential briefing on the totality of the plan and trust their judgment and bona fides in relation to their wish to ensure the survival of the company? Will she take that initiative to break the deadlock so that the workers will know there is more to a rescue plan than considering the industrial relations element? Issues that concern management — or mismanagement — will have to be taken fully into account if we are to put in place the type of plan that will ensure the company's survival and guarantee the retention of jobs. Will the Minister give the spokespersons for TEAM Aer Lingus a confidential briefing on the totality of the plan? If that broke the deadlock it would be worthwhile and I would not consider it a risk.
Deputy Quill mentioned the plan and my colleague the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Cowen, will address that issue.
There appears to be some confusion as to which Departments questions were tabled. Having heard supplementaries from the other five Deputies who tabled questions, I propose to allow Deputy Sargent to put his question to the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications and thereafter I will allow questions from other Deputies to the two Ministers.
My question overlaps and I do not understand why it was not taken earlier.
That is the order in which they were submitted to the House.
I realise that, but mine is now separate from the others. Will the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications meet the staff representatives in TEAM Aer Lingus so that an agreed and viable plan for the company's future can be negotiated on the basis of the total experience and the information available to all concerned? Will he make a statement on the matter?
The restructuring of the airline and TEAM are essential components of Aer Lingus's Strategy for the Future on which the survival of the Aer Lingus Group depends.
The trade unions in the airline, with the assistance of the Labour Relations Commission, reached agreement with Aer Lingus management on restructuring proposals. Despite protracted negotiations, and the availability of the services of the Labour Relations Commission since September last, the trade unions in TEAM could not reach a similar agreement.
TEAM has a major financial crisis which, unless it is resolved now, will lead to its closure. It is currently losing £1 million per month and has debts of £65 million. It has run out of work and money. TEAM is only surviving at present because its external debt is guaranteed by its parent, Aer Lingus. This cannot continue any longer.
The airline, in addition to implementing agreed restructuring measures to make it viable in its own market, must also reduce its excessive burden of debt. It cannot do this if it continues to suffer the haemorrhage caused by financial subport of an unviable enterprise the size of TEAM. Its bankers would not tolerate such a position and viability of the airline would quickly be called into question.
The Government, with EU Commission approval, has committed itself to injecting £175 million, in three tranches, of scarce taxpayers' money into the Aer Lingus Group. This commitment and payment of the second and third tranches is subject to certain conditions, including successful restructuring of the whole group.
Workers in the airline have already agreed to restructuring measures. The Government could not permit the equity to be eaten up in continued TEAM losses. It would not be fair to the workers in the airline or to taxpayers. The European Commission would object to payment of the second tranche if it is not convinced that the restructuring is being fully implemented. On financial grounds, therefore, a solution to TEAM's problems must be found now, no more time is available.
Because of the financial crisis facing TEAM at the threat of imminent closure with the loss of up to 2,000 jobs, my colleague the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Quinn, ten days ago asked IBEC and ICTU to call in both sides to the dispute as a matter of urgency to explore the possibility of a framework under which negotiations to secure the future of the company could resume.
On 8 June 1994, following a briefing from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and IBEC on the position in TEAM Aer Lingus, the Minister referred the dispute to the Labour Relations Commission under the exceptional measure of section 38 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Minister requested both parties to defer any action which might aggravate the atmosphere for negotiations. On 14 June 1994 the Minister received the report of the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) on its investigation.
The Minister was told by the LRC that the submissions made by the parties did not provide a basis for a negotiated settlement. The LRC, however, set out its findings and conclusions in the form of settlement terms which would address the viability of the company and the continued employment of its workforce. The Minister brought the report to Government on the evening of 14 June. The Government accepted the LRC's proposed settlement terms and referred the settlement terms to the parties for urgent acceptance.
The company indicated that it has accepted the LRC recommendations despite the fact that it did not obtain all it had sought to achieve.
I urge the unions in TEAM to do likewise. They have frequently and consistently pronounced their commitment to making TEAM a viable company. This is the last chance to ensure that it is. I again urge them to take it.
I have not received an answer to my straightforward question. Notwithstanding the background information, the Minister will recall that last March the unions were told an agreement had been reached on restructuring which would be painful and one which was considered final. In the light of that, the previous impasses has more to do with the restructuring of restructuring rather than an industrial relation crisis. Will the Minister be generous to recognise that the unions were let down last March and are afraid that if they accept this proposal it will not guarantee the future of the company because that was not guaranteed by the last restructuring plan? Will the Minister recognise the legitimate and heartfelt concerns of the workers not only about their working conditions but for the company's future, and release the report? I recognise its public release would not be to the commercial advantage of the company. The Minister should take into his confidence the people whose jobs are at stake and put aside some time to allow them to voice their fears which are far deeper than industrial relations posturing. This is too do with their company. I ask the Minister to give them the time to put their case.
I released the history of this matter and it is now time to make a decision. The Labour Relations Commission settlement terms state that all undisputed points of agreement reached between the parties in negotiations since December 1993 and not referred to elsewhere in these proposals should be implemented. There was no overall agreement but the recommendation is that anything that was agreed during the course of the discussions should be implemented. The Labour Relations Commission points out that the settlement terms, including undisputed points of agreement reached since December 1993, should be accepted by all parties. It also states that in relation to any other proposals the unions may have, these should be discussed under the auspices of a joint non-negotiating to see in what way they can further assist the viability of the company and secure its future. I am as aware of the seriousness of the situation as any other Deputy and it does not give me any joy to emphasise that these final settlement terms must be accepted to ensure the viability of the company for the reasons I outlined.
I will take a future round of questions from the Deputies who tabled the question and I will facilitate Deputies Barrett and Ryan who are offering. We must have brevity of this stage of the proceedings.
Would the Minister agree that it shows bad faith on the part of the Government, having requested both parties to defer any action that might aggravate the atmosphere for negotiations, to take the findings of an inquiry as an all or nothing solution with no briefing, no discussion, no recognition of the management miscalculation in the past and expect people to accept that? Although I appreciate the urgency, would the Minister agree that his approach may precipitate disaster in the company with a very serious industrial relations breakdown?
On the contrary, I am not seeking to precipitate a disaster in the company. Since I obtained this dossier I have sought, with all the authority at my command, to deal with these problems in a way which will maintain the maximum level of employment in this company in its overall and constituent terms. The record will show that. It is wrong to suggest that there has not been discussion, that there have not been meetings. There have been meetings. The Labour Relations Commission final settlement terms refer to undisputed points of agreement being incorporated as part of the settlement terms that must be implemented. It is wrong for Deputy Bruton to suggest that this is in some way sudden. The exceptional circumstances that have prevailed meant that the Minister for Enterprise and Employment used the referral under section 38 (2).
Everyone is aware of the urgency of the situation. The Labour Relations Commission outlined during the investigation that a situation never pertained where the parties gave no indication of an ability to recognise and discuss a common agenda that would lead to an agreed survival plan. The Commission, mindful of the perilous situation of the company and with a view to maintaining the employment of the TEAM workforce and industrial peace, produced the final settlement terms. The members of the Industrial Relations Commission are the experts in this area. They have a proven track record. Their independence is acknowledged.
In aviation?
In all aspects. I will answer the Deputy in a moment; I am sure he will have a question. Anyone who questions the independence of the Labour Relations Commission is on very shaky ground. These are the structures we have put in place. We must acknowledge that these findings include items on which employers sought much more but did not get. This is a balanced decision, confronting the reality that faces the company.
I take no joy in contemplating what could happen if common sense does not prevail. The Government has shown good faith in this matter by accepting these proposals. Management is indicating that it will accept these proposals and I refuse to believe that the workers at TEAM Aer Lingus are not interested in maintaining those jobs. I know they are and everyone must confront reality now.
As to other ideas unions might have on this matter — I am sure there are many — there is within the Labour Relations Commission final settlement terms the possibility of a non-negotiating forum to further enhance viability subsequently. The experts say that these terms must be accepted if the company is to have a viable future. We can emphasise points as we wish but those are the facts and it gives me joy to have to say that. We must confront the reality now or we face the other prospect which it is not in anyone's interests to do. We must accept these proposals and move forward to ensure the future viability of the company.
Will the Minister say who on the Labour Relations Commission is the expert on aviation? To my knowledge the background of the Chairman is deeply in education and not aviation. Was there a change in the Labour Relations Commission brief? The Minister for Enterprise and Employment said that it was under section 38 (2) of the industrial relations legislation that the Labour Relations Commission was asked to carry out this study. That section is very specific and provides that the Commission should conduct an inquiry into the dispute and furnish a report on its findings. Between the time those terms of reference were given to the Labour Relations Commission and the time it produced a report what was published became a settlement. Does the Minister agree that the absolutism of his language will in no way assist in getting people back around the table? Will he reconsider the absolutism of his letter of 14 June to Mr. Frank O'Reilly which states accept this or nothing. At least we should give them a chance to sit down with the full facts at their fingertips and, perhaps, within the Labour Relations Commission report and settlement terms there will be a solution. At the moment nobody is talking to anybody.
As a former Minister for Labour I believe not in absolutism but in realism. There is no absolutism on my part. The only absolutes are that this company is losing £1 million a month, has no work and is running out of cash. The purpose of the industrial relations procedure that my colleague, the Minister of State, has outlined has been to seek common ground for the purposes of a negotiated settlement. The reason we do not have the report that the Opposition suggest would lead to a negotiated settlement is because of the urgency of the situation. The Labour Relations Commission listened to detailed suggestions from both sides. They listen to such complex submissions frequently in their work to ensure we have a good industrial relations climate. Anyone who would question their independence or their competence is on very shaky ground and, if they have any knowledge of the situation, are behaving irresponsibly. I assure the Deputy that both sides gave a full briefing and the Labour Relations Commission has come up with settlement terms for acceptance by all sides on the basis that there is no common agenda and with a view to maintaining the employment of the TEAM workforce. The settlement terms do not suit all sides but, in the interests of maintaining employment, everybody should accept them. That is the only realistic common-sense solution to this urgent and grave problem.
The manner in which the Government handled this matter is appalling. It has kicked to touch on every occasion; the latest was to the Labour Relations Commission although no one is questioning its independence.
Deputy Owen did.
Deputy Owen did not question the independence of the Labour Relations Commission.
The Minister said it is an expert in aviation.
The Deputy suggested that someone should change its brief.
If I am to facilitate the Deputies offering I must ask for brevity. A lot of time has been spent on this matter.
If this company is to be saved does the Minister not recognise that all parties concerned, including himself as representative of the shareholder, must sit down with management and unions to thrash out the future of the company? That cannot be done on the basis of diktat, or telling the workers that they will have sudden death tomorrow or a long lingering death over the next 12 months. The workers are convinced that this plan will not save the company — their only objective is to save it. I appeal to the Minister, even at this late date, to set about putting in motion, through the good offices of the Labour Relations Commission if necessary, a round table discussion between the shareholder represented by him, management and unions to find a solution to this appalling problem which could result in the closure not only of TEAM Aer Lingus but of Dublin Airport.
I am as interested as the Deputy and everybody in TEAM Aer Lingus in maintaining jobs there. There have been different views for some time as to how that can be done and protracted discussions and undisputed points of disagreement in different areas. The Labour Relations Commission is saying that final settlement terms must be implemented. It is telling workers and management to sit down in a non negotiating forum and consider further proposals that will be necessary to ensure the viability of the company. That is the result of all the discussions, conciliation talks and submissions.
The people with the expertise are requesting that everybody come to a balanced decision on this matter to maintain employment and ensure a viable future for the company. We must consider the fundamentals of this problem, how to address it and how to implement settlement terms to solve it. Workers and management should sit down in a non-negotiating forum and consider further issues that will have to be addressed to improve competitiveness in a very competitive environment.
If there is no work for the company its viability is at stake. No amount of discussion or points of view will solve that central problem. The competitiveness of the enterprise must be re-established as a matter of urgency in the interests of maintaining the jobs which the Deputy and I, and every Member of this House want to preserve to the maximum extent possible. I am trying, with all the clarity at my command, to communicate that net point and I do not do so in a contentious or confrontational way. Independent assessors and arbitrators have asked me, on behalf of the Government, to make a commitment to provide £25 million equity, and I willingly make that commitment.
Even though management has not got what was sought I will have to accept this plan as a means of re-establishing the viability of TEAM Aer Lingus. I understand the difficulties involved, but this is an urgent, grave problem. The matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission last week by my colleague, the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Quinn, in the public interest and in the interests of eveybody concerned with this enterprise I ask the trade unions and workers to accept the final settlement terms set out by the third parties who adjudicated on the matter and to participate in discussion with management to improve the viability of the company. Surely at this eleventh hour that is the common-sense approach to adopt? There are no winners and losers in this matter. Nobody will get everything they want from the Labour Relations Commission's final settlement terms but common-sense dictates that we solve the problem in this way.
I listened very carefully to a briefing today by union representatives of TEAM Aer Lingus and the one clear signal I got was that the unions remain to be convinced that the plan is comprehensive and market-based. They are deeply suspicious that the opposite is the case. I appeal to the Minister to try to create the conditions whereby the unions will be briefed on the main elements of the plan. It is their company and they have a greater interest in it than anybody else. They have given their sweat and blood to the company and it is vital that a proper survival plan is put in place to guarantee its future. Surely it is not asking too much, and it is not impossible to create the conditions whereby a proper and acceptable briefing on the main elements of the plan could be given to the union representatives?
To understand the nature of the business and the competitive marketplace in which the company must operate is fundamental to staying in business. Other issues may be discussed subsequently, but unless the fundamentals of the settlement terms are embraced the viability of the company will be in question. We all have common objectives. There are no soft landings, as there were no soft landings for workers in other parts of Aer Lingus. There are no easy options or easy solutions. Everybody is interested in solving the problem and this plan is the common-sense way to approach the issues. There can be no further negotiations. The Labour Relations Commission has provided clarification in so far as it can. Everyone understands that commercially sensitive information cannot be provided to the public to the benefit of competitors.
Everybody, including the workers, accept that.
The Labour Relations Commission is available for clarification. We have reached decision time. Common-sense should prevail and we should proceed on this basis.
They said "take it or leave it".
I would like a direct answer from the Minister to this question. We heard a great deal about his sentiments and the fact that he takes no joy from this matter. I asked a simple question: will he meet directly with the staff representatives? We have had protracted discussions but they have not been comprehensive. The Minister was not at the discussions and the report has not been given, even in a confidential way, to the people most affected. They are the people with the most expertise in the field. I am not disputing the independence of the Labour Relations Commission. Will the Minister answer my question: will he meet directly with the staff representatives in TEAM Aer Lingus?
The shareholder's involvement is only concerned with an equity injection into TEAM Aer Lingus. I received approval from the European Union to inject equity of £25 million. Having regard to my responsibilities to the taxpayer I can make that equity injection on the basis of the settlement terms being adopted. I have nothing further to offer. I am precluded from offering any more money for TEAM Aer Lingus because of the basis on which I have been allowed to make an equity injection.
We never mentioned money.
I am explaining the contribution the shareholder can make. There have been ongoing discussions for a long time between management and unions on day-to-day operations and agreement has been reached on some points. The matter has been referred to the industrial relations procedure and final settlement terms have been put forward on the basis of a common agenda. We have a grave and urgent situation and this is the way forward. We must accept these final settlement terms to maintain employment in TEAM Aer Lingus.
The only purpose that I could serve as shareholder is to provide more money but I do not have that facility. The Labour Relations Commission has hammered out the final settlement terms and is available to clarify matters.
Political sense is needed now. The Minister must get involved.
The concerns of the staff have been expressed here this afternoon. We are deeply concerned about the number of jobs at risk. I would like to question the Minister on behalf of the shareholders, that is, the Irish taxpayers. How can the taxpayers be satisfied that the proposed settlement — and the terms that I have seen outlined relate to days off, meal allowances, shift work — will bring the company back to profitability? The company has a debt of £65 million and has run out of work. There is nothing in the proposals that indicate how it will get work or how the taxpayer will recover his £65 million investment. There is no information on the board and the management structures. Surely Irish taxpayers are entitled to know whether the company will be competitive and will return to profitability. The taxpayer, that is the shareholder, is entitled to know more than what is contained in these settlement terms. I want to know what proposals the unions have to return the company to profitability which will guarantee the jobs in the long term. Taxpayers are entitled to know the answers to these questions and the Minister, as our agent, should advise us on how we will recover our money and secure the 1,900 jobs. We need to know also how the company proposes to get business, the membership of the board and the management of the company. Instead we have spent all day talking about annual leave, superannuation, sick leave and meal allowances. Does the Minister know what proposals management and the unions have put forward? These are the sort of questions that would be raised at an extraordinary annual general meeting of an ordinary company.
The questions relate to the competitiveness of the business and whether TEAM Aer Lingus can quote for work at a competitive price and that comes down to how the company is operated. The Labour Relations Commission has had full submissions from both sides as to how best that can be done. On the operational side, it sets out the work practices and how we recognise the seasonality of the business and what is required to do the business at a competitive price. The final settlement terms will allow us to be in that position. The unions suggestions on the management of the company will be addressed in a non-negotiating forum. The urgency is that the money is running out and no work is available and that problem must be addressed for the company to have a future. As I have said already, other issues can be addressed in a non negotiating forum with workers and management participating. However, this final settlement is a prerequisite for that to happen. It is decision time and common sense must prevail. I remain to be convinced that workers are not interested in maintaining their jobs, because I know they are. Common sense dictates that all sides accept these final settlement terms in order to grow the business from here on out.
The situation is grave and urgent. My two questions may possibly help the situation. First, will the Minister give a commitment that Mr. Mulvey will be available to discuss the final settlement with the unions and clarify matters for them? Second, will the Minister give a commitment to the unions that their survival plan will be examined objectively with a view to its implementation?
Any suggestions the staff of TEAM Aer Lingus have that will improve its competitiveness and ability to attract more work should be examined. In the meantime we have an urgent problem. The company is running out of cash and out of work and that has to be addressed as a priority. Of course, staff suggestions can be addressed by the non negotiating forum referred to in the Labour Relations Commission's final settlement terms. The potential of these plans are acknowledged. The final settlement terms provide the prospect of viability in the future. The Labour Relations Commission stated last night that there can be no more negotiation but that they can clarify matters. I would make the point that we are at the eleventh hour. We cannot have clarification sine die.
It would be helpful.
We can ask the British to give clarification to the IRA.
We are at decision time, Deputy, that is the position.
Tell them that face to face. Meet them and tell them that face to face.
We are at decision time. This provides us with the basis for a solution and I look forward to all parties accepting the final settlement terms outlined by the Labour Relations Commission. The clarification that the Deputy may seek is available from the Labour Relations Commission, but we are at the eleventh hour.
The Minister holds the key to getting them back to the table. He must get them back to the table.
Will the Minister be here over the weekend to deal with it?
That disposes of questions for today.