asked the Minister for Finance if he will. state whether the Government has suspended the operation of the arbitration machinery for the Civil Service; and, if so, if he will state why it was suspended before all Civil Service organisations had an opportunity of utilising the machinery and when the scheme was due for revision and, further, which side was responsible for the delay in the full utilisation of the machinery of Civil Service arbitration.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Civil Service Arbitration Machinery.
The machinery of conciliation and arbitration for the Civil Service was introduced initially for a year. The agreement with the Civil Service staff associations provided that at the end of the year it would be subject to review. The year came to an end on 31st May, 1951. Arrangements for the review of the scheme, in accordance with the agreement, were then put in train, and when I assumed office as Minister for Finance I continued the review arrangements. The review of the scheme has not yet been completed. A great deal of ground has been covered and agreement has been reached on a number of amendments which it is proposed to introduce in the revised scheme. Agreement has not been reached in relation to certain contemplated official amendments. I propose to receive a staff deputation at an early date to give them an opportunity of discussing these amendments with me personally.
The settling of the order of priority of staff claims under the scheme of conciliation and arbitration was left to the staff organisations themselves. A considerable number of staff claims were considered and disposed of under the machinery during the trial year of its operation but within the limit of time available it was not possible to handle every staff claim formulated. The unavoidable result was that certain staff claims—which were doubtless regarded by the staff organisations as of a lesser degree of urgency than the claims first presented—had not been dealt with by the time the machinery ceased to function.
There can, therefore, be no question of holding either the official or the staff side responsible for delay in the full utilisation of the conciliation and arbitration machinery. During the trial year the machinery was as fully utilised as it could have been, regard being had to staff priorities and the availability of the administration for dealing with staff claims as they were presented. I might point out that the principal claim handled, viz., the general revision of Civil Service pay, resulted in substantial increases in pay for all sections of the Civil Service.