(South Tipperary) asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs if in view of the many disquieting developments in the telephone operators' dispute, he will take immediate steps to resolve the present difficulties and if he will make a statement in the matter.
Private Notice Question. - Night Telephonists' Dispute.
Mr. T. O'Donnell, Mr. Ryan, Mr. L. Belton and Mr. P. Hogan
In order that the issues involved in this matter may be clearly understood, it is necessary to give a brief review of the events which have led to the present strike by certain male night telephonists. In 1963 a number of male night telephonists broke away from the Post office Workers' Union because they disagreed with decisions taken by the National Executive of that union on matters connected with the sub-postmasters' strike which was then in progress. This break-away group formed the Irish Telephonists' Association and subsequently sought recognition under the Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme for the Civil Service as representing male night telephonists. Under the terms of this scheme which was set up by agreement between the Minister for Finance and the various Civil Service Staff Organisations, the grant of recognition is a matter for the Minister for Finance but he is required to consult the Staff Side panel which represents all the organisations that are parties to the Scheme before granting recognition to any new Association.
The Minister for Finance consulted the Staff Side panel about the application by the Irish Telephonists' Association and the panel recommended that recognition should not be granted to the Association. In a subsequent letter from my Department to the Association it was suggested that a meeting between the Association and the Post Office Workers' Union under a mutually agreed Chairman would help to resolve the differences and that if the outcome should prove otherwise the report of the Chairman would provide an independent assessment of the matters at issue between the two staff groups. The Association did not accept the suggestion and they took one-night strike action on 30th March last. The suggestion was repeated to them later but was again not accepted.
On the other hand, the Post Office Workers' Union had indicated that it was agreeable to such a meeting. The Association wrote to the Minister for Finance on the 4th August requesting an interview with him to discuss their claim for recognition. The Minister for Finance replied on 12th August to the effect that he considered the request for an interview should be addressed to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. The Association wrote to me on the 1st September requesting that a deputation be received from the Association to discuss the question of official recognition for the Association.
A reply issued on 14th September indicated that I was prepared to receive a deputation at a mutually convenient time. Reports of the intention of the Association to take industrial action in support of their application appeared in an evening newspaper on 17th September. An officer of the Association telephoned the Department on 20th September with a view to fixing a date and time for the meeting with me. He was informed that in view of the threats of industrial action which had been published in the interim I would have to reconsider my offer to meet a deputation from the Association.
On 22nd September my Department wrote to the Association with regard to these published threats stating that it was not clear whether the statements referred to were made with the approval of the Association and represented the Association's intention and that I would be glad to hear from them on these matters. No reply was received to this letter and strike action commenced on the evening of 24th September and pickets were placed on the telephone exchanges in Dublin, Limerick and Cork.
On the following day an interim injunction was obtained from the High Court restraining the Chairman and certain other named individuals, their servants and agents, from picketing Post Office premises. The picketing was not discontinued, however, and was later extended to the GPO, Pearse Street Sorting Office and Hammam Buildings. It has since ceased at these centres. On 8th October an interlocutory injunction was obtained against the persons already mentioned. On 21st October a committal order was made by the High Court against three of six defendants. The other three had given undertakings in the course of the proceedings to refrain from picketing or arranging for picketing.
It will I think be clear from what I have said that the matter at issue is in effect a dispute between the Association and the Post Office Workers' Union as to which of them should represent male night telephonists. The Association does not hold official recognition and my Department cannot, therefore, deal with it as a negotiating body. Since the strike started various grievances which the Association maintains that it desires to see redressed have been published but as all telephone operating grades including male night telephonists continue to be represented by the Post Office Workers' Union claims and representations on behalf of male night telephonists can be dealt with under the existing machinery.
The staff employed on operating telephone exchanges is approximately 2,060, comprising 1,570 female telephonists, 294 male night telephonists— including some 150 believed to be members of the Association—and 200 night and Sunday telephone attendants. These people are all engaged in the same type of work and in the large exchanges male and female operators work together for several hours each day. These figures indicate that the membership of the Association does not even represent the majority of the male staff and that it is only a fraction of the total operating figure.
As I have said earlier it has been suggested to the Association that they should meet the union in an effort to resolve the differences and I still think that this offers the best hope for an amicable solution. It is regrettable that two members of the Association have had to be imprisoned for contempt of the High Court Order but the remedy for their unfortunate position lies in their own hands. I am sure the House will agree with me that the authority of the courts must be up-held.
My main concern in this matter from the outset has been to minimise the effects of this irresponsible strike action on the telephone service. It is for this reason that I sought an injunction to restrain picketing in order to ensure as far as possible that other members of the staff would not be prevented from coming to work. I am glad to say that despite the continuation of the pickets the great majority of the staff at the three exchanges affected have continued to report for duty. Nevertheless, I could not allow a position to drag on where substantial numbers of male operators were not reporting for duty and thus causing serious disruption to the public service after 10 o'clock at night. Accordingly, on 12th October I directed that each of those people should be informed that unless he resumed duty he would be regarded as having abandoned his position in the Civil Service. I would earnestly advise them to consider their position because time is running out and already the question of their dismissal is under consideration.
In Dublin, and to a lesser degree in Cork and Limerick, we employ numbers of part-time night telephone assistants to operate during periods of pressure between 7 p.m. and 11 p.m. These are not Civil Servants. They have no continuity of employment and they are paid an hourly rate for the work they do. Contrary to statements which have appeared in the newspapers these part-timers do not affect in any way the prospects of full-time employment of male night telephonists. I regret to have to say, however, that as a direct result of serious intimidation by members of the Association the stage has now been reached where none of these part-time night telephone assistants is attending for duty at the Dublin exchange.
That is a serious state of affairs. But more serious still, in my view, is the threat to ordered trade unionism that arises from breakaway action on the part of small groups.
Will the Minister agree there is no telephonist on the staff side panel, that this dispute has been developing for the past two years, and that recent developments are not conducive to a settlement of the admittedly difficult issues involved? While there is still an opportunity for reasonable negotiations, will the Minister endeavour at this stage to open those negotiations before the situation gets out of hand altogether?
I think that the offer made of a meeting between the two parties concerned, with a mutually agreed chairman, is the best possible effort that could be made, and certainly provides all the necessary ingredients for a good discussion. As I have stated, that course is still open and always has been. There is no more suitable tribunal I can think of than that already offered. The Deputy must appreciate that the principle involved here is not a usual one. It is a question of whether we are to support an effort at solidarity within trade unionism as such, or allow anyone, anywhere, any time, to take strike action in support of anything. We have all been pursuing a definite means of finding agreement in disputes. Great trouble has been gone to, to devise and set up suitable machinery for this purpose. If we are to support what we have mutually agreed with the unions, we have to show we are prepared to stand by it, and that we will not have absolute anarchy.
Will the Minister admit there is no telephonist on the staff side panel?
Can the Minister say if arrangements are being made to have discussions between the Telephonists' Association and the Post Office Workers' Union under an independent chairman for the purpose of settling the dispute?
That is exactly what I advocated.
Is the Minister aware that arrangements are now being made to try to bring that about?
If this can be done it is exactly what I think is the ideal solution. It has been offered on more than one occasion, and it is still available. I cannot think of any better machinery.
Will the Minister agree that if these arrangements are being made, the less said about the dispute at this stage the better, and the less coercive action by the Government or anyone else in the dispute, the better?
This is exactly what I have just said—an arrangement between the official unions and the association with a mutually agreed chairman. No coercive action has been taken other than what was absolutely essential in the interests of ordered trade unionism and good relationship between management and employees. This is the only course open to anyone to take. It is not coercive. It is the ordinary course which the trade unions themselves would expect anyone to take.
Would the Minister at this stage consider freeing all those at present imprisoned so that the matter can be started with a clean sheet?
This is where we started. This is where I came in. I was prepared to meet them provided they would withdraw any threat of strike action. That, I thought, was agreed. An evening paper published a front page report that strike action was to be taken. They were asked to withdraw this or whether this represented the official view. There was no reply and the action took place. Deputy Tully said that perhaps the less said at this time the better. I am not going to give any undertaking other than what I have said already.
The Minister told us there are two persons in jail for disobeying a court Order. Is that the total number of persons in jail?
It is more than that.
Two distinct matters are involved in this. So far as respect for the National Parliament is concerned, this applies to every citizen whether engaged in a trade dispute or not. The Government do not intend to allow Members of Parliament attending to their duties here to be subjected to impediment or embarrassment. That is definite. If these people want to pursue a trade dispute there are legitimate courses open to them. But if they want to involve themselves in anti-State activities then they cannot expect to be treated different from anyone else who does the same.
If there is no impediment or embarrassment, is there any objection to peaceful demonstration?
We should not tolerate any picketing of the national Parliament in circumstances which could embarrass Members attending to their duties here.
Can the Taoiseach distinguish between picketing and peaceful demonstration?
Yes. There should be no impediment or embarrassment to a Deputy attending the national Parliament. We passed a law for that purpose.
If the demonstration is lawful?
I was merely asking the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs pursuant to what authority the others are in jail. Is it the Offences against the State Act?
This is an entirely different matter from the trade dispute.
The Offences against the State Act provisions apply in this matter because these people are regarded as indulging in anti-State activity.
It prohibits picketing of Leinster House.
In order to clear the air and for the sake of peace and the welfare of the country and the national interest, would the Minister agree unconditionally to meet some representatives of these men now? There would be no loss of face on anybody's part and it might go a long way towards a happy ending of this difficulty.
(South Tipperary): In the end, it will have to be fixed by compromise. It would do no good to drag it on indefinitely.
And it is an unhealthy situation.
Let us not have too many committees. Deputy Tully informed the House that there are moves to bring the two parties together with a view to resolving it. So far as it is within the Government's power, they should try to have these negotiations on a peaceful basis by releasing those at present in prison.
Let us see if the negotiations will start.
I would agree with Deputy Corish.
If, as Deputy Tully has stated, negotiations will be carried on under the auspices of an independent chairman, then, in order that they may be carried on in a proper atmosphere, the Government should use all their influence to see that the persons in prison are released.
If negotiations begin between the association and the official trade union, that will be a new situation.
The Minister should be in on it.
The Minister is not involved in it.
(South Tipperary): Is it not a fact that there are two points of dispute—(1) dissatisfaction with working conditions and (2) dissatisfaction with the form of advocacy available to the workers? Surely the Minister has a responsibility to put his house in order and to see that the dissatisfaction about non-establishment and duty hours will be investigated irrespective of the union dispute, which had been magnified in this particular case?
When the Taoiseach says a new situation would arise when negotiations have begun, I accept that and that its full implications are realised.
Leave it at that.