asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs what is the present position with regard to the dispute between him and the Subpostmasters' Union; whether negotiations have been reopened between himself and the Union; whether subpostmasters who took part in the recent strike action have been sent any form to sign by his Department, and, if so, what was the wording of such form; and whether he will now consider providing any form of impartial arbitration to study the various claims on wages and conditions made by the subpostmasters.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Claims of Subpostmasters' Union.
79.
A letter was sent to the Subpostmasters' Union on 8th June about some matters that need to be cleared up before a meeting of the Consultative Council can be arranged to resume negotiations on current pay claims. The letter was acknowledged by the union and a reply is now awaited.
It would be contrary to practice to disclose the contents of Departmental communications to individual subpostmasters.
As I have stated repeatedly in reply to previous Questions, it is not proposed to provide arbitration machinery for subpostmasters.
Will the Minister say whether or not he intimated to the executive of the Subpostmasters' Union, through a third party which included four members of the Fianna Fáil Party, that there would be an immediate meeting at which the subpostmasters would be offered a substantial cash increase, that arbitration would be given to them within 12 months or two years, and that he had no knowledge of the circular that was sent to the subpostmasters the day after the strike?
I refer the Deputy to the replies I gave to Questions in this House. In regard to the supplementary question the Deputy has asked, he would need to be much more specific. If he puts down that question for answer next week, I shall answer it. To expect a long statement here in reply to the Deputy's supplementary question is asking too much. However, I should like to tell the Deputy that I did not give the assurance that the Deputy has just quoted here, if I understand him correctly. I did not ask anybody to see me in relation to this matter. I did not send for anybody nor did I request anybody to see the Subpostmasters' Union executive for me. I decided for myself and I made up my own mind that I would not victimise or use any discrimination against any subpostmaster because he closed his office and engaged in the strike. I think the subpostmasters were given to understand that they could make immediate contact with the secretary of the Consultative Council with a view to a meeting of the Consultative Council as soon as it could be arranged. There was no question of any offer being made. The subpostmasters were given to understand, I presume, that they could resume negotiations on their pay claim with the Consultative Council at the point at which they were broken off. I understood that the official side on the Consultative Council had given them to understand then that if they produced data and substantiated a claim, the percentage offered would be increased and that the outstanding claims that had not been discussed up to that point were still open for discussion. I hope that if the Subpostmasters' Union resume negotiations on their pay claim, the Consultative Council will deal fairly with the pay claims that are outstanding.
Does the Minister know that this Union has found it difficult to get in touch with the officials of his Department in this matter, and has he no knowledge of the information that was given to the Subpostmasters' Union by a third party which I am informed included Deputy Mrs. Lynch, Deputy Brady, Deputy Cummins and Deputy Gogan? These four people brought a certain message from the Minister to the Subpostmasters' Union, a message which I believe was since repudiated by the Minister.
I do not know anything about anybody attending a meeting of the subpostmasters. However, the Deputy also asked me about a notification which was sent to the subpostmasters that I knew nothing about. That notification was issued from a number of head offices to their respective districts by the head postmasters. The head postmaster was quite within his rights in issuing that notification. There was no necessity for him to look for my prior approval of the document he issued and I did not know it was issued until afterwards.
Was it spontaneous combustion? How did they all know about it the following day?
The head postmaster is a responsible officer of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. I presume he is appointed a head postmaster because he knows the regulations and knows his business. The head postmasters of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs have certain obligations to discharge to the public and in discharging those obligations to the public they are entitled to take certain action. It is my business as Minister to see that officers of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs are fortified in whatever legitimate action they take to provide an efficient post office service.
Is the Minister aware that it is being alleged by the Subpostmasters' Union that, in consequence of the intervention of four Fianna Fáil Deputies and another person, named Shannon, stated to be high in the councils of the Fianna Fáil Party, the subpostmasters' executive was addressed in the Clarence Hotel by this Mr. Shannon, who held out to them that he had been in touch with the Minister and that, if they called off the strike, they would get an increase in pay exceeding their expectations and the Consultative Council would meet regularly a few times per month until all their claims had been dealt with? In addition, within 12 months or two years, they would get an independent arbitration. Is the Minister aware that these statements were made by a person who claimed, according to the Subpostmasters' Union, to be an intermediary between them and the Department, and to have contact with the Minister? I should like to ask the Minister had he any contact directly or indirectly with this Mr. Shannon?
I am not responsible for what anybody said to the subpostmasters. Neither did I send anybody to them. I had a telephone call from Mr. Shannon at my own house on that morning. I told him I would not see him. I told him, if the strike lasted, I would consider seriously terminating the agreement entered into by the subpostmasters and making on-the-spot appointments from the people who are clamouring to get these offices.
How long would they work? As long as the ones the Minister got a couple of months ago.
Mr. Shannon then asked me to see him as a private individual to have a private conversation about the matter. I read out to Mr. Shannon the statement I made in this House in answer to the questions put to me by Deputy Corish and, I think, Deputy Flanagan. I told him that was how the matter stood and that there was no departure on my part from that situation.
One final question.
The Chair has already allowed a number of Supplementary Questions.
This is the last one. It is important to get this said from the point of view of the subpostmasters. Does the Minister say that what was intimated to the Subpostmasters' Union, and substantiated by the four Deputies I have mentioned, was incorrect?
I do not know what was said or what was substantiated. I do know that whenever anybody tries to arrive at some arrangement, or whenever anybody tries to meet representatives in a case of this kind, there is always misconception and ministerpretation. It is nearly impossible to get a clear statement of the terms used. It may be that all those things added up led to a misunderstanding in relation to some of the matters.
Might I suggest that the four Fianna Fáil Deputies might clear up the misunderstanding because it now seems these people were led astray?
Sir Anthony Esmonde rose.
I am calling Question No. 80.
I have not asked a supplementary yet.
The Chair is the sole judge of the number of supplementaries, and the Chair has been very lenient in this case.
The Chair is aware that the subpostmasters called off the strike. Is the Chair aware that the subpostmasters were misled by Mr. Shannon?