asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs whether he has had any further discussions with the Irish Subpostmasters' Union with a view to solving the matters at issue.
58.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dispute with Subpostmasters' Union.
57.
asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs if in view of the serious threat of the closing of all the sub-post offices and the consequent inconvenience to the public and business community he will state what arrangements he has made to continue service in cases of urgency; and if he will now enter into immediate negotiations with the union with a view to solving the problem.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 57 and 58 together.
In my reply of 22nd May, I explained that the Subpostmasters' Union broke off negotiations on their pay claims in March last. In these discussions, it was made known that it was the Government's intention that their remuneration should be adjusted upward in line with the increases which had been granted in other sections of the public service. Subsequent to the breaking off of the negotiations, I received, at their request, a deputation from the union to discuss their assertions that the Subpostmasters' Consultative Council —which was established by agreement between the union and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in 1956—had not proved satisfactory to them. The union produced no evidence that, since the establishment of the Council, subpostmasters had not fared as well as other groups in the Post Office service. After careful consideration of their representations, I wrote to the union on 9th May conveying my conclusion that the Council, which had settled the three previous main pay claims by agreement, had functioned satisfactorily.
I also dealt with the question of arbitration and gave my reasons for concluding, as all my predecessors had concluded, that arbitration machinery was not appropriate in the special circumstances of subpostmasters. I do not propose to repeat them in detail here as they have already been given in reply to a question on 22nd May. The outstanding differences between a subpostmaster's position and that of an ordinary employee is, of course, that subpostmasters merely contract to be responsible for having work done and do not have to engage in the day-to-day work themselves. It is common knowledge that the majority of subpostmasters operate their post offices in conjunction with retail trading establishments. It is, indeed, my experience that there is keen competition amongst traders to secure a sub-post office appointment.
I suggested that the union could best make progress by resuming negotiations on their claims at the Council. I said also that while I did not think any purpose would be served by my personally meeting the deputation again, I was prepared to do so if they wanted a meeting.
The union decided instead to instruct its members to break their agreement with the Department and I regret to say that some have done so by closing their offices to-day, despite a clear statement which was put before them regarding the consequences of such action.
I desire to make it clear, beyond any possibility of misunderstanding, that the Government will make no concession, neither in respect of the remuneration of subpostmasters nor the procedures for dealing with such matters in the future, as a consequence of the improper action which some subpostmasters have now taken, nor will there be any discussion with their union while this situation continues.
I have made arrangements which have been extensively publicised for reducing the inconvenience caused by the subpostmasters' action as much as possible, and I propose to make further arrangements to restore normal postal facilities as soon as possible in all localities where the existing sub-post offices have ceased to do business.
May I ask the Minister, in view of the fact that every sub-post office in the country is closed to-day——
That is not so.
It is so.
It is not so and I know it is not so.
May I ask the Minister then what information he has in his Department, or personally——
I have answered the two questions put to me and I do not propose to say any more.
In view of the fact that they are on strike, will the Minister give any consideration to the address of the Bishop of Cork, Most Reverend Dr. Lucey, at the subpostmasters' conference in Cork——
I should prefer to read Most Reverend Dr. Philbin on that.
Is it not a fact that Most Reverend Dr. Lucey said that the Department could not take it upon itself to be judge and jury in deciding the claims of its own servants? Does the Minister consider that statement of the Bishop of Cork worthy of attention?
I am not answering any further questions on this matter.
Might I ask the Minister why, when the British and Six Counties administrations found it possible to get over difficulties between the administration and the subpostmasters by the establishment of an arbitration scheme, he cannot devise some equality suitable scheme so as to enable this dispute to be resolved in a conciliatory spirit?
There is no comparison between the post office services in Britain and here. In Britain, they made a profit of £22,000,000.
Is it not a fact that the basic rate allowed to subpostmasters has never been increased and that any increase given to them was on that low basic rate? I asked on the last occasion if the Minister for Finance, with the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, would meet the committee of the union. I have no doubt the matter could be settled and the strike ended in one hour, if that were done.
They have got percentage increases on their basic pay. They got £130,000 a year in increased pay.
Is it not a fact that the Minister is being used as a rubber stamp by a high official in his Department?
Any decision I have taken has been my own decision.
A dispute now exists. Will the Minister not reconsider his intention of refusing to discuss the matter until the present action by the subpostmasters is suspended? Is that not the most obscurantist approach? Surely we should not take it on our heads to adopt the antediluvian view that we will not talk to them while the dispute lasts?
This is not a matter that can well be dealt with by way of question and answer. If there is a desire to have the matter debated more extensively, we shall be very happy to devote time for it tomorrow or Thursday.
Arising out of that intervention, I should like to say that my sole interest in this matter is to leave the door open for discussion and settlement of this dispute. Whether it would be of any material help to that end to have a debate here on it I venture to doubt. All I am concerned with is that the Minister should not irrevocably bind himself not to have any discussions or negotiations unless or until the present misunderstanding is adjusted.
The quickest way of bringing this foolish business to an end is to make it quite clear that no concessions of any kind will be given as a result of this action.
The big stick.
The Government are not a private employer. The Government speak for the community and may not be dictated to by any group.
They were dictated to by the Guards.
(Interruptions.)
If Deputies want a discussion, they can have it.
Question and answer is scarcely a suitable way of dealing with this matter. I shall allow only three further supplementary questions.
Will the Taoiseach not agree that it is undesirable for the Government or anybody else to wave the big stick at this stage of what is simply a trade dispute? Will the Taoiseach even at this stage not try to persuade the Government—if the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is not prepared or able to do so—that this should be carried on in the ordinary way trade disputes are carried on——
I want to make it quite clear—and I think this will help to bring this business to an end—that as far as this Government are concerned, there will be no concessions given or any kind of negotiation in consequence of the action which has been taken.
(Interruptions.)
Arising out of the Taoiseach's offer to provide an opportunity to discuss this matter, if that is desired, would the Minister instead consider inviting representatives of all the parties to meet him to see in what way this whole dispute could be amicably settled and a resumption of work provided for?
If they want to do business, they can withdraw the strike notice.
I am very sorry the Taoiseach has made such a statement as we heard. I remember a strike in 1946——
This is not a question.
——and I know the damage that was done.
May I ask the Minister a further question?