Irish Ferries

national | worker & community struggles and protests | news report Wednesday October 05, 2005 14:02 by Dáil observer

Joe Higgins questions Taoiseach in Dáil on Irish Ferries during Tuesday's Leaders' Questions and asks him: "Why are ships flying banana boat flags of convenience allowed to ply EU waters with impunity after all the Taoiseach's talk of social charters, workers' rights and the rest of it during, for example, recent referenda?"

Dáil Éireann, Leaders’ Questions, 4th October 2005

Joe Higgins (Socialist Party): Last week the Taoiseach said Irish Ferries was engaged in sharp practice in sacking 543 trade union workers and replacing them with exploited labour from eastern Europe. Was that not utterly empty lip-service from him as in the past 12 months it has emerged that his Government gave millions of euro to the same company, Irish Ferries, in redundancy grants to do exactly the same thing to 150 workers on the MV Normandy? Can the Taoiseach explain the difference? Where was his indignation then?

The conditions sought by Irish Ferries for their new workers can only be described as semi-bonded labour. They will slave for 84 hours per week, work for months on end with no break and eat and sleep in their workplace - the ship - for €3.50 per hour. That is a mere €3.50 more than the galley slaves of ancient Rome except, I am sure, if we were around in those days, the galley bosses would have saved us guff about obeying workers' rights. The reality is the naked greed evident here for profit from exploited labour places the moral standards of the likes of Irish Ferries somewhere between those of a slum landlord and a slave trader. Yet we are told 95% of all ships in and out of Irish waters have so-called contracted out labour.

Why are ships flying banana boat flags of convenience allowed to ply EU waters with impunity after all the Taoiseach's talk of social charters, workers' rights and the rest of it during, for example, recent referenda? Is the answer that the policy of European big business, supported by governments like the Taoiseach's, is that migrant labour is there to be abused as is happening in front of the Taoiseach's eyes in the construction industry, the meat industry and in many other industries in order to maximise profit?

Has IBEC - the bosses' organisation - not been exposed as the biggest, most blatant user of all flags of convenience called social partners when it obviously has no allegiance to it in backing Irish Ferries to the hilt? Will the Taoiseach introduce legislation to break this cycle of exploitation? Will it be a matter of urgency in this Dáil? Will the Taoiseach bring it to Europe to break the exploitation now rampant in European Union waters of vulnerable workers?

The Taoiseach: I dealt with this last week. As the Deputy knows, the flag of convenience has been used on the seas generally for many decades. It has been exploited far beyond Irish Ferries. In fact, Irish Ferries made the point to its workforce for the past number of years that it was one of the few companies not engaged in this practice and the reason it was arguing about its cost base was that so many others were engaged in this practice. This practice has been engaged in for a long time on the open seas. I do not know when it started but it certainly was not in recent decades.

On 19 September Irish Ferries announced it had offered a voluntary severance package to 543 of its seafaring employees on its Irish Sea services between Dublin and Holyhead and Rosslare and Pembroke. An offer was made to any employees who wished to stay on. As the Deputy said, under those offers, there was a voluntary redundancy package of up to eight weeks' pay per year of service, including two weeks' statutory pay provided there was agreement with the company. Last week I said we were looking at the legalities of that. We raised it and we will talk to the trade union about it because if some people go, we must be careful we do not create difficulties for individual employees as well.

The objection I have with the company is that it said it would replace these departing staff with crew from an agency employing cheaper eastern European personnel which many others on the seas do. The Government believes in an Irish labour context the action Irish Ferries took was sharp practice and totally unacceptable. The Deputy quoted me correctly in that regard.
The national implementation body met last week and welcomed the invitation by the chairman of the Labour Court to the parties to meet separately in informal and exploratory talks. It recommended the parties respond positively to the court's invitation. I welcome the fact the company and the unions met at the Labour Court yesterday and I urge all the parties to co-operate with the industrial relations machinery of the State because that is how this issue will be dealt with.

For the Deputy's information, the preliminary advice received from the Attorney General as to whether a statutory redundancy situation exists was that on the basis of the information available it may not fall within the definition of the Redundancy Payments Acts. No formal communication as yet has been received from Irish Ferries, so the discussions go on.

If there is a requirement for changes to legislation in this regard, obviously the relevant Department will look at some of the issues arising. However, we have made our points very clearly to IBEC which I think accepts them, as does the company. The Deputy knows the impracticality of saying these companies which face change and opposition should never make anyone redundant. The reality is we are in a situation where normal industrial relations are being followed, which I welcome. We should leave the discussions to take place where they rightly should, that is, in the Labour Court.

J. Higgins: So-called normal industrial relations means the Labour Court. In the case of the MV Normandy, the Labour Court, if I might paraphrase it, said flags of convenience are all the rage and it could do nothing about it. It recommended that the deal had to be accepted. It was exactly the same thing. Some 150 workers on trade union rates of pay and conditions were replaced by cheap, agency labour. That is what happened on the MV Normandy and the Taoiseach's Government paid millions of euro to supplement that. What is the difference? Will the Taoiseach explain it when he responds?

The Taoiseach said flags of convenience have been used for many decades. That is an indictment of his Government and his fellow governments in the European Union. It shows ship workers that they must rely on their own strength. Should they not fight this campaign to drag down their wages and conditions with effective strike action to paralyse companies like Irish Ferries until they agree to continue to employ workers on trade union rates of pay and decent working conditions? When ship workers in France and other countries face the same thing, should they not join together with them to ensure it happens?

Where does this leave the concept of so-called partnership? Why should workers have any sense of belief that bosses who do this type of thing to them are their partners? In what sense can they be said to be their partners? When the Taoiseach said IBEC and Irish Ferries "now accept", is he saying they have accepted they will not sack those 543 workers? Have they given him that assurance?

The Taoiseach: I am trying to help to resolve a situation in Irish Ferries and not to create a problem in other companies. Government policy has always been that Irish seafaring employment is maximised for its own sake so that Ireland can develop and grow its maritime sector. The loss of significant Irish seafaring employment in Irish Ferries would be a significant blow. That is why we are trying to avoid that happening. We need to ensure matters are progressed in a manner that does not lead to disruption of transport services. I do not think the Deputy is serious but if he believes closing the seas of Europe would, in some way, help the Irish workforce, he has another thing coming to him.

On the Deputy's last point, the very fact there is social partnership means we can engage with workers and employers. If we went back to the old way, we know what would happen. They would just close, there would be nobody to talk to and they would move on. The fact social partnership is in place means workers can use it as a basis to get-----

J. Higgins: It is a sham.

Finian McGrath (Independent): Texting "Questions and Answers".

The Taoiseach: It is not a sham. The old days when the Deputy was inciting people to such actions was when we had high unemployment and high emigration. While sometimes I feel the Deputy is joking, other times I feel he honestly believes that going back to 20% unemployment rates and high emigration is progress.

J. Higgins: What has that go to do with it?

The Taoiseach: It has much to do with it. Social partnership addressed this and moved us away from the old rant that the Deputy and others had 20 years ago.

J. Higgins: Would the Taoiseach work under the same conditions?

The Taoiseach: We went down the tubes when we followed that line. It was when we turned that around that we made this country a success. Talk about closing down the Irish seas and stopping exports from entering is the most stupid thing I have heard Deputy Joe Higgins say in a long time.

J. Higgins: Proper union rates must be paid and conditions must be good.

The Taoiseach: These matters are nonsense. The Deputy should be advising those who listen to him, although they are not many, that social partnership is right and that they should be engaged and active in it.

Brendan Smith (Fianna Fáil): Hear, hear.

Bernard Allen (Fine Gael): Time to hoist the Jolly Roger.