Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 9 Apr 1946

Vol. 100 No. 12

Committee on Finance. - Adjournment Debate: Teachers' Strike.

Mr. Byrne

At Question Time to-day, I asked the following question, No. 18 on the Order Paper:—

"To ask the Minister for Education whether he has any proposals for the settlement of the dispute, on the question of the inadequate salaries now being paid, between his Department and the national school teachers; and, further, if he will state whether it is proposed to appoint, or to accept the offer of, an outside body to arbitrate in the dispute."

The Minister replied as follows:—

"The dispute between my Department and the national school teachers does not concern the scale of salary now paid but new and very much improved scales which it was proposed to pay but which were rejected by the Teachers' Organisation. The position of the Government has been clearly stated already and the only proposal I can make is that, in the interests of all parties, the teachers should decide to terminate this ill-advised strike at the earliest possible date. With regard to the second part of the Deputy's question, the Government does not regard the issue in dispute as one which lends itself to arbitration and the answer is, therefore, in the negative."

With full appreciation of the Minister's difficulties in regard to the last line of his reply, "that it does not lend itself to arbitration," I ask him why not? What is the difference between a dispute between his Department and the teachers and a dispute between a body of individuals outside and their employers? I hold that in this matter the Dáil has been treated with contempt and that we, the members elected to look after our constituencies, have been informed only through advertisements in the newspapers of what has taken place, with nothing more than a short newspaper advertisement and a reply by the teachers. I think that the Dáil is entitled to more consideration and that this is the place for the Minister to make an announcement and tell us how he has treated the teaching profession, when he met the teachers and what his proposals were.

I do not intend to go into the merits of this dispute. It would not be fair to the Minister or to the House, as it would be a matter for a motion taking two or three hours to discuss, giving each one an opportunity and giving the Minister full opportunity to reply. For many months and many years since this State was established, there is no body of men and women who have got more lip service and praise than the teachers. Lip service is all very fine, but if a junior teacher does not get sufficient salary to buy himself or herself a second suit of clothing in a period of five years, then I say there is something wrong with the State as employers. I am aware that junior school teachers in the City of Dublin, young men, were not able to buy a second suit of clothes in a period of five years. As well as that, the teachers have in many cases been serving in very wretched schools. People may think they have had an easy time, but with the demand of the Taoiseach for a high standard of Irish, these young men and women, for many hours after school and even up to midnight, have been working and training so as to keep up the standard required of them in Irish. I ask the Minister if he thinks he has treated them fairly.

As far as I know, this is the first time the teachers, or any other organisation associated with the State, have had to accept and adopt the strike weapon. It is the only weapon the workers have against tyranny, whether it be tyranny of a Government or of a body of employers. That right is theirs. In that connection, I want to draw attention to the fact that when the teachers found themselves having to face a strike in order to bring their conditions home to the country, the Minister, in my view, adopted the most tyrannical attitude—one that no body, no, federation of employers, ever adopted in this country. That attitude was shown in the sending of a letter to the men and women teachers of the country, which stated that, if they attempted to strike, his offer would be withdrawn, carrying with it, of course, the innuendo that they were breaking their pension rights. To a body of men and women who had done so much for the building up of this State, what did that do? It irritated them, and, in my opinion, it forced the strike. The stupidity of whoever prepared that letter for the Minister—if it was not prepared by the Minister himself— forced the hands of those who might have reconsidered the position and not gone on strike at all. Through his letter, the Minister challenged the whole trade union movement, and to their credit be it said every member of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation is involved in this dispute. Those who are not on strike are giving their loyalty and practical support to those who are carrying on the fight in Dublin for better conditions for teachers.

It was stated recently by a Minister that the Government themselves were contemplating setting up machinery for conciliation, to be operated before strikes took place. Was there ever a more golden opportunity offered to any Minister than the present one, to set up conciliation machinery, to step in and once and for all show the workers and employers alike that there was machinery that would prevent strikes or at least go a good way to prevent them?

I am, and I am sure every other member of the House is, against strikes. In the long run it is the strikers who pay; it is their women and their children who suffer. Whether it be to-day or to-morrow, the Minister, and all employers of workers who feel it necessary to go out on strike, will find that the day will come when there must be conciliation and they must arbitrate. While full of appreciation of the Minister's difficulties, I ask him to drop now that domineering attitude of his and withdraw the letter which he sent to the teachers, telling them what would happen if they went on strike. I believe it is not too late.

I want you all to understand that in this matter I do not speak even for one teacher. Not one teacher in Dublin or in any part of Ireland was aware that I was putting down such a question. To-morrow, in any of the newspapers, they may repudiate me completely. Regardless of the teachers, or the Government as their employers, I think I have a duty to perform to the mothers of the 40,000 children who are at the moment being deprived of their education. As I said to-day, it will be disastrous if this dispute is allowed to continue and if the children are allowed to walk the streets. Even the tenement children in Dublin who are not at school have said to me: "Ah, Mr. Byrne, we would rather be at school and wait for our natural, our ordinary holidays." What will happen a child who has a liking for school? Of course, that does sound strange, and it may be strange to a number of us, but what is to happen to a child who has a desire for school, who wants to go to school and who is looking forward to his ordinary holidays?

When I gave notice that I would raise this matter on the Adjournment, I did so on the spur of the moment because I was dissatisfied, and I know that other members of the House were dissatisfied, with the Minister's reply, which stated:—

"With regard to the second part of the Deputy's question, the Government does not regard the issue in dispute as one which lends itself to arbitration."

In that connection I asked the Minister would he accept the good advice of an outside arbitrator. I had in mind a body of school managers, parish priests of the city, the children in whose schools are deprived, because of the dispute, of the education to which they are entitled. I had in mind that it was quite possible a number of those parish managers might get together and offer to the Minister their good advice with the view of bringing to an end the present unfortunate dispute.

I have little else to say. I did my utmost to avoid getting into the details of the dispute. I remember the old days—I can go back 40 years to the days in the City of Dublin when quay labourers were paid 18/- a week. I remember the strikes when the masters, the employers' federation, cracked the whip, saying: "Get back to your work; there is nothing here for you." I remember strikes dragging on for months, and the women and children suffered. I remember the coal strike, which lasted for months. I remember the carters' strike, which lasted for months. Then the tram strike and the coal heavers' strike lasted for months. In the end, each strike in turn had to be arbitrated upon.

Why should the Minister take up the attitude now that he wants nobody to help him to bring this unfortunate matter to an end? Does he realise what he is doing? Does he realise the encouragement he is giving to other employers? The emergency Orders may be withdrawn very shortly and other employers may take up the same attitude as the Minister. Instead of an attitude of conciliation and arbitration, they may take up the attitude that the Minister is now taking up with the result that there will be prolonged strikes and grave hardship to the families of the workers who may be involved.

I will finish by appealing to the Minister to give us some word of encouragement that he does not want this strike to continue. He said to-day: "Let the men go back to work; let them decide to terminate this ill-advised strike at the earliest possible date and——." There was no indication that he would have the matter considered; he did not say that his staff would go into the matter or that he would ask advice from the managers or others interested. It is because he stopped at that "and" and gave no encouragement, only cracking the whip and saying: "Get back to work; I have made my final offer and I am master", that I decided to raise this subject on the Adjournment. I appeal to the Minister to change his attitude and decide to meet the teachers or those who have authority to speak for them. I can assure the Minister I have no authority to speak for them. Not one teacher in the country was aware that I was putting down the question at all.

Minister for Education (Mr. Derrig)

The Deputy had opportunities to raise this matter during the course of the Central Fund Bill debate. The matter was mentioned by another Deputy and I replied to him. Subsequently it was raised in the Seanad and I replied there. I am always prepared to reply, but, on the occasion of a question, obviously this matter cannot be gone into, as the Deputy admits, satisfactorily. He admits also that it cannot be gone into satisfactorily now. He admits that he is unacquainted with the details. He has not taken the trouble to study them.

Mr. Byrne

I am acquainted with them, but I did not want to enter into them.

Mr. Derrig

He has not taken the trouble, I presume, to read the speeches I delivered on this matter. The facts given by me have not been disputed so far. The Deputy has not attempted to dispute them. Nevertheless, he has made an attack upon me, which is what I might expect from him. The decision taken by the Teachers' Organisation on this matter was not known when the Deputy put down his question and, unless my memory fails me, I think he stated that he had been approached by women teachers. I suggested to him then that his intervention at that stage was unhelpful. I am of opinion that his intervention this evening is more unhelpful still.

Mr. Byrne

It is a pity the Minister did not listen to me that time.

Mr. Derrig

The Deputy referred to the circular I issued to the teachers. That circular was in reply to a statement in a letter from the Teachers' Organisation informing me that the executive had decided that the members of the organisation engaged in schools in the City of Dublin would be called out on strike on Wednesday, March 20th. The Government are perfectly entitled to withdraw their offer and, in my opinion, they would not be acting with a full sense of responsibility if they did not adopt every means open to them, legally, to bring home to the teachers the serious nature of the action upon which they were embarking.

As regards the Deputy's reference to my "innuendo" in the "tyrannical document" which I issued about the teachers pension rights, there was no innuendo. What was stated is the opinion of the Government's law officers. Any teacher or other public servant who withdraws his services in such a manner thereby deprives himself of all benefits and rights accruing to him during his employment. I was simply stating the legal position. The Deputy must know that, when strikes of this kind occurred before, legislation had to be introduced to restore to the strikers, when they returned to work eventually, their pension rights. I am fully aware of the ill-effects of the strike and of the hardships which are brought upon parents, many of whom are not in a position to endure such hardships owing to poverty, unemployment, illness, shortage of accommodation and other unfavourable circumstances. Neither do I underestimate— and I need not now stress this—the serious results of this ill-considered action upon the education and the future of the children who are affected by it. It is a matter of the gravest concern to their parents. The majority of these children have to depend solely upon the education they receive in the national schools. Why, then, should they have inflicted upon them, and on their parents, this additional penalty at the hands of their teachers?

Is not the reason this, that a minority—and, in my opinion, a small minority—have forced this situation, in the erroneous belief that they will eventually force the public to compel the Government to yield to their demands? Yet, those who have precipitated this action know full well, and even admit, that they cannot win. It is quite clear to those who take this matter seriously, and to those who have responsibility in connection with it, as I have, that the longer the strike continues, the more difficult will it be to restore conditions in our schools to normal, without carrying on and continuing the ill-effects of it. The Government does not wish this grievous situation to continue a day longer. They would be very glad, indeed, to see it ended. They are not animated by any vindictiveness, any pettishness or any desire to score over the teachers or to defeat them in this strike. They are, certainly, very seriously concerned regarding the grave results to the children. But they are also equally, if not more seriously concerned, regarding the grave results that would accrue to the community as a whole if this strike should succeed or if, when ended, it should be made to appear that it had succeeded.

The Deputy, if he had any sense of responsibility, would have admitted— and Deputies and Senators of all Parties will agree—that it is quite impossible that the Government should concede to strike action something that they had refused in the ordinary way to peaceful and harmonious negotiations. Negotiations between the teachers and myself went on for some three months. There was exhaustive discussion and correspondence. The attitude of the Government is best manifested by the fact that, when the teachers on the 16th November rejected the original offer I made to them, that offer was improved very substantially not once, but twice, to the extent, between two amounts, of £250,000 per annum over the 1938 scale, and an addition to the present cost of £1,250,000 or a percentage over-all increase over teachers' remuneration in 1938 of 40 per cent. The teachers did not go on strike in 1924 when a cut was imposed upon them nor did they go on strike in 1934. They would not have gone on strike, I venture to say, under the old régime. They are not going on strike now against something wrong that has been done to them or some injustice to which they are being subjected. They are on strike because they want to force the Government to do something that it thinks, and has good reason for believing, it is not entitled to do. This matter has been the subject of serious, careful and sympathetic consideration by the Government over a considerable period. In my opinion, the offer was a fair and reasonable one and was not, as I have stated, ungenerous in all the circumstances.

The Deputy talked about arbitration. It would take too long to deal with the question of arbitration now, but, whatever may be said, there is a strong case against arbitration in the case of remuneration of public servants or others paid from the National Exchequer because, in effect, it seems to me that the position might be summarised in this way—that the Government would be handing over its authority and its discretion to an arbitrator.

He would make an effective decision, and the Government could not honourably refuse to carry that decision into effect, no matter what the consequences might be to the National Exchequer, and no matter what the extent or the enormity of the bill which the taxpayers might have to carry. In this particular case, negotiations went on for a considerable time and, during the course of these negotiations, the question of a strike, which had not arisen, was mentioned in a letter from the teachers of 10th December. It stated:—

"The executive sincerely hope that this is not the Government's last word on the matter, but should that be so, and should this offer of £150,000 represent the final effort of the Government to reach agreement, the executive desire to repeat what was stated to you in the course of Saturday's interview, namely, that the Dublin members of the organisation will be called out on strike on January 17th. The executive do not wish that this should be regarded as in any sense a threat. It is a bare statement of the course which events will eventually take if the appeal which has been made to the Government through you is ignored, and it is stated now in order to impress on the Government the seriousness of the position as it now stands."

Before I had time to communicate with the teachers about the matter, the paragraph was withdrawn. On December 11, I received the following letter:—

"We have learned with regret that a paragraph in the letter addressed to you on the 10th instant is regarded as containing a threat to strike.

That being so, we desire to say that the paragraph in question is hereby unreservedly withdrawn. We feel that, in taking this action, we are expressing the views of the whole executive.

(Signed) T. J. O'CONNELL,

General Secretary.

D. J. KELLEHER,

Vice-President."

On February 12, I received the following letter from the general secretary of the Teachers' Organisation:—

"I am to inform you that at the Special Congress held on February 9, the following resolution was adopted:—

That Congress rejects the Government's offer, and directs the executive to make further representations immediately to the Government with a view to improving the present offer as regards scales and date of operation; and that the final offer be submitted to a referendum of all the members of the organisation in the Twenty-six Counties—this referendum to be by secret ballot on the lines of the C.E.C. elections."

I wrote to the teachers pointing out that the Government had submitted the offer as in every sense final, and that the executive could not have been under any misapprehension on that point after the last meeting. I pointed out that there was no hope whatever that any improvement in the new scales offered would result from further negotiation, and also that the date had been fixed in order to meet the wishes of the teachers. It was the earliest date which the Government felt possible to name. In view of these circumstances I explained that the offer must be regarded as final and irrevocable. I took it that the offer would be submitted to the teachers throughout the country for acceptance or rejection. What was my surprise to find that a circular was sent out and that in the daily newspapers a statement was made—which, in my opinion, was in violent conflict with the trend of the negotiations which had been going on—that if the offer of the Government was rejected, the executive proposed to call the teachers out on strike.

That was not the kind of negotiation, the kind of goodwill or good feeling that I should have expected from the representations of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation. This strike may continue for a very long time or it may end fairly quickly. There is only one way in which it can be brought to a rapid conclusion and that is through the action of those who called the strike. They are the only persons who can bring it to an end. They can do that, in my opinion, without any loss of face. There is no compulsion upon them. They can do it in the public interest, and in the interests of the children regarding whose education and future they ought to be concerned. The Government have no desire to humiliate the teachers in any way. There is no desire to make matters difficult for them. Nobody is more anxious than I am that the strike should terminate and that we should, as speedily as possible, get back to normal conditions. In view of the circumstances which I have explained, I think the House will agree that it would be very bad policy, indeed, very much against the national interest, and that the country would have to pay very dearly, if the Government were to yield to this strike action.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, April 10th, 1946.