asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether his Department has received representations from the Post Office Workers' Union regarding the application of the provisions of the Office Premises Act, 1958 to the post office premises at Pearse Street and Parnell Square, Dublin; when the representations were received; and what action has been taken by his Department since their receipt.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Office Premises Act, 1958.
19.
Representations from the Post Office Workers' Union in regard to the application of the Office Premises Act, 1958 to premises at Parnell Square and Pearse Street, Dublin in the occupation of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs were received in my Department on the 12th February, 1962. Examination of the representations involved consultation with other Departments concerned. This consultation indicated that the matters specifically complained of by the union were receiving attention. A reply was issued to the union on 14th May, 1962.
The Minister mentions that these representations were receiving attention. By whom?
I said they involved consultation with other Departments concerned. In the matter of complaints about office premises under the Office Premises Act, if these offices are offices which are the property of Government Departments the complaints are normally conducted through these other Government Departments. In this case the complaints involved the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and the Office of Public Works and it was these two sections of administration who carried out the investigation of the complaints at the time.
As the administrative authority, would the Minister say whether the Department of Industry and Commerce are satisfied that these complaints were well founded and, if so, what the Department as the administrative authority has done to ensure their rectification?
There were 14 complaints. Eight had already been attended to by the 15th March and I think the union was so informed. One was in hands——
When was the union informed?
I understand the union received a communication from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs on or about 5th April that eight of the complaints had been attended to.
I want to state categorically that the union was not so informed.
Well, at all events, whether they were or not, the fact remains that eight complaints were satisfactorily dealt with by 15th March. One was in hands, one was of a nature that in the circumstances did not warrant its being attended to and four others were outstanding at the time. These referred to Pearse Street and three of these were subsequently rectified. The fourth complaint was of a nature which did not render it easily remedied. That was the position.
Are any complaints still unattended to?
I take it the last one I referred to—the one not easily remedied—has not been attended to because it would involve considerable reconstruction of the Pearse Street premises which anyway are going to be vacated and the Department of Posts and Telegraphs are transferring to another sorting office.
As the Post Office is so accustomed to operating in architectural hovels would the Minister ensure that all these complaints are attended to where they are reasonable and ought to be attended to?
I assume most of them were very reasonable but the one I referred to as not being easily remedied was about the over-heating of a room due to proximity to a boiler flue and to rectify which would involve major structural alterations. In view of the fact that the sorting office is being transferred to new premises the expense would not be warranted.
Is the Minister aware that no later than yesterday, 21st May, the roof was leaking and that has been going on for 40 years?
That complaint has not come to my notice. At any rate, the Deputy was Minister during those 40 years and he did not attend to it.
That is the job of the Post Office. It shows the hovels in which the administrative work is being carried out.