Deputy MacBride has given notice to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of Question No. 41 which appeared on the Dáil Order Paper on Wednesday, 3rd December.
Adjournment Debate. - National Teachers' Conciliation and Arbitration.
Yesterday, I asked the Minister for Education to state "in relation to the conciliation and arbitration machinery for national teachers agreed to by the Department of Education and the I.N.T.O. in February, 1951, why the review provided for by this agreement has not taken place and, further, whether he is now prepared to agree to the carrying out of such review without further delay."
The Minister, in his reply which was given by the Parliamentary Secretary, said:—
"The experimental scheme of conciliation and arbitration for national teachers, based on a similar scheme for the Civil Service, was subject to review a year after its formal establishment on 1st March, 1951. Arrangements for such review were put in hand immediately on the termination of the experimental scheme but the review could not be completed pending the outcome of negotiations in connection with a revised Civil Service scheme. A new element was introduced, however, into the situation concerning national teachers by the fact that the teachers' organisation was officially supporting High Court proceedings on behalf of two teachers in regard to a matter which had been considered by the Conciliation Council. I am at present in correspondence with the teachers' organisation in regard to the position."
There were some supplementary questions which I do not think threw very much more light on the situation than that which is revealed by the Minister's answer. The Tánaiste, at first, when I asked whether the effect of the reply was to suggest that, because two teachers had availed of their constitutional rights to go to the court to establish their case, conciliation and arbitration was to be denied to the rest of the teachers, said that had not been suggested, and then, at a later stage, in reply to a supplementary question by Deputy Mulcahy, he said that one of the normal conditions attaching to arbitration is that it is the sole method of settling matters in dispute. I sought leave to raise this matter, because I consider that, apart from the issues involved, it raises certain matters of constitutional importance.
Before dealing with these, I should like to underline one or two of the statements contained in the Minister's reply. The first matter that I should like to mention is the wording used by the Minister in his reply which describes a scheme of conciliation as an experimental scheme. It is true that the scheme in question was made subject to review at the end of the year, but that was merely in order to permit the scheme to be amended if defects were found in it at the end of the year. The scheme itself was very carefully drawn up after long negotiations and consultations between the Department of Education and the teachers' organisation. Article 4 of the scheme provided that a scheme for the formation of a Conciliation Council and Arbitration Board would be subject to review a year after its formal establishment. That is the normal provision, I think, in such schemes. I do not think that that would entitle the scheme to be treated purely as an experimental scheme. I think it was intended both by the Government at the time—the Department of Education on the one hand—and the teachers' organisation, on the other hand, that this scheme should form the basis of permanent machinery whereby disputes concerning the salaries, emoluments and conditions of employment between the teachers and the Department of Education could be resolved.
The Minister, in his reply, gives two reasons as to why the machinery provided for in the scheme—the machinery for review of the scheme and the continued operation of the scheme—was not given effect to. In the first place, he says that the Department was waiting for a determination of the negotiations in connection with the revised Civil Service scheme. There is no mention, and there was no mention at the time that this original scheme was discussed, of any condition which would make it dependent upon any other conciliation or arbitration scheme that might be agreed upon in regard to civil servants generally. The matter of the teachers' conciliation and arbitration machinery was considered separately, and I can conceive of no reason why it should be dependent upon the outcome of any conciliation or arbitration proceedings affecting civil servants as a whole. The provisions for conciliation and arbitration for the teachers would be rendered nugatory if they were to be dependent upon the outcome of arbitration proceedings in regard to civil servants or to any other class in the community.
On the same basis it might be argued that the Labour Court should refuse to consider any claim brought before it by one trade union until it has considered the claims put forward by four other trade unions. I do not know whether the intention was that the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal might arrive at findings which might not be commensurate with the increase in the cost of living, and the Department of Finance could place some hope in the fact that the arbitrations would not be so favourable to the civil servants. That was possibly one of the reasons. I do not think it is a worthy reason or a reason which the Minister should stand over.
The really more serious aspect, from the point of view of this House and from any point of view, is the reason advanced by the Minister in the latter portion of his answer. The effect of that reply is that the Minister, as the employer of the teachers in the country, refuses to operate a scheme to which he has agreed because two teachers have availed of their constitutional right to resort to the courts to test out the validity of certain findings in regard to married teachers. I ask the Minister to consider this in a detached and reasonable fashion.
What would be his attitude to an employer who refused to discuss terms of employment or refused to carry out an agreement because some of the workers were resorting to the courts in order to enforce their legal rights? For instance, we have a number of statutes which provide for conditions of employment. Would an employer be entitled to say to his employees: "If you seek to enforce that statute against me, if you seek to avail of your constitutional rights, then I will penalise you either by dismissing you or refusing to grant you the increase to which you are entitled"? Surely that is not a tenable position. Surely the Minister would be one of the first to denounce an employer who used his position as an employer to try and blackmail his employees from availing of the rights to which they are entitled. If the Minister considers the situation objectively and away from possible preoccupation which the cares of office and negotiations of this kind may involve, he will realise that his position in that respect is untenable, and that it is setting a bad headline.
It is doubtful whether the Minister's attitude is constitutional. Our Constitution gives a right—and a constitutional right is one of the fundamental rights of every citizen of this State— to resort to the courts and be equal before the law. I do not think the Minister has a right to impose any condition upon the teachers or upon any other State employees, and to say to a State employee, or any group of State employees: "If you seek to avail of your constitutional rights, I will not arbitrate or I will not pay you any increase in wages or salaries which may be due to you by reason of an increase in the cost of living"
I should like to remind the Deputy that his 20 minutes expires at 11 o'clock.
There is no substance in the reasons advanced by the Minister. I know that in the course of discussions that took place, or some of the correspondence, which took place, the view was advanced on behalf of the Minister that the court's decision in the two cases pending might affect the whole structure of the salary basis. I do not think there is very much substance in that argument, and I think the Minister will realise that there is not very much substance in it, because I understand that the cases which are being litigated only apply to a very limited class of teachers, teachers who were unmarried before a certain date in 1941, if I am not mistaken.
I am suggesting that the real reason for this action is that it is part of the delaying tactics which possibly the Minister has been pressed to take by the Department of Finance. I do not think the Minister should resort to these methods in dealing with the teachers. The relationship between the teachers and the Department may have been difficult, but better relations have been achieved in the course of recent years. The Minister started off well, and it would be a pity if at this stage he were to damage that good relationship which is so essential between the Department and the teachers.
Apart from that, the Minister should not hold a threat of this kind over the teachers and use methods that are not very far removed from blackmail to try to prevent teachers, either as an organised body or as individuals, obtaining rights to which they are entitled by the Constitution and the law of this country. He should not use his position as an employer to say: "If you go to court, if you resort to your constitutional rights, then I will refuse to give you any increase, I will refuse to arbitrate, I will penalise you because you are doing what you are entitled to do by law and under the Constitution of this State."
Mr. A. Byrne
Very shameful tactics.
I regard this problem as a very serious one. In my opinion, Deputy MacBride has raised a question about it in a most irresponsible fashion. He has misstated the facts and practically accused me twice of being a blackmailer. Surely he is not so ill-informed as to be unaware that a scheme of conciliation and arbitration has been offered to the teachers. The Government did not act in any frivolous fashion in this matter. They gave very grave and serious consideration to the whole problem, and the teachers on their part, too, approached the matter with a full sense of the gravity of their responsibility. They did not permit the matter to be handled merely by their executive no matter what confidence they had in that executive. They decided a delegate convention should be called to consider the offer made to the teachers by the Government. I will not say anything to-night that might in any way adversely affect the arrival at a satisfactory solution that the Government is so anxious to find and that, I am sure, the great body of the teachers is so anxious to find.
Reading over the questions, the supplementary questions put and the various remarks, I feel that there has been some misunderstanding of the basis of the proposal for conciliation and arbitration. So that we should not be any longer talking at cross purposes I think I should give my understanding of what that basis was. It seems to me that it was intended that conciliation and arbitration should be a permanent feature of the relations and discussions between the teachers and the Government if the scheme was found to be workable and satisfactory, but it was set up for a trial period of 12 months and if either party to the discussions discovered as a result of experience that there were any defects or any objectionable features in the scheme as it existed, either or both parties would put forward proposals to remove those objectionable features.
That was done by the teachers and it was done by the Department of Education. Irrespective of what Deputy MacBride has said, there really is no analogy between the scheme for conciliation and arbitration and the Labour Court. The scheme was an extension of the conciliation and arbitration scheme by which Civil Service differences were settled and until the scheme for the Civil Service had been rearranged after the 12 months' trial period, it would not be possible to put into operation a scheme of conciliation and arbitration for the teachers.
I do not think that there should be any real objection to the fact that there was an association between the scheme for the Civil Service and the teachers and that the operation of one in some measure affected the other. There was, of course, a certain amount of delay, and grievance in regard to that delay has been very emphatically expressed. I do not know if Deputy MacBride still believes in a state of permanent revolution, but it seems to me that even between revolutions, no matter how often they occur, there ought to be some period of peace and when a problem is settled at conciliation level there ought to be a truce for a while. It seems to me also that a review of the settlement was not a matter of extreme urgency. A settlement in the question of teachers' salaries, was made, I think, on 29th February, nine months ago. A reconstitution of the scheme is now offered. It does not seem to me that the period of parturition is abnormal.
I am glad that is the view the Minister takes.
I do not get that.
Is that to be regarded as the normal measure of delay that should take place?
If the Deputy wants to make another speech he can go right ahead.
The Minister has five minutes more.
Is that all? I am in no hurry.
The House has decided.
While I thought that there was no undue delay, the I.N.T.O., apparently, thought otherwise and they involved themselves in litigation on a matter that had already been discussed at conciliation level. Deputy MacBride said here that my action was a denial of the constitutional right of certain individuals. It was no such thing. There was no denial of the constitutional right of any teacher. Any man who feels himself aggrieved, who feels that he has been wrongly treated, has a legal remedy for that treatment or grievance and is fully entitled to come to the courts; nobody, not even the Government, can prevent him. But an organisation that enters into an arrangement to settle their differences by way of conciliation and arbitration must, if they are to show any good faith, refrain from trying out alternative methods. I have not asked the gentlemen who are the litigants in this case to refrain from litigation. I say: "Let them go ahead," and I wish them luck, but I do object—and I think it is wrong—to an organisation that has entered into the working of a scheme of conciliation and arbitration resorting to litigation as an organisation.
Are they not entitled to?
This seems to me to be an eminently reasonable attitude. I regard conciliation and arbitration as a very satisfactory method of dealing with the problem. I regard the continuance of conciliation and arbitration as highly desirable. There was no intention at any time of denying it to the teachers. It is not denied them. They are holding a congress, a delegate convention, to discuss the problem. I think that Deputy MacBride should have waited for the decision of the teachers' congress, and I propose to do so.
The Dáil adjourned at 11.10 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 5th December, 1952.