andMr. L. Belton asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs if he is aware of the considerable public disappointment at the failure of the Government to find a means of settling the current telephonists' dispute; and if, having regard to the hardship being suffered by those involved and the inconvenience caused to the public, he will agree to unconditional discussions in the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Telephonists' Dispute.
59.
I believe that the public are fully aware from the many statements already made that the question at issue in this dispute which affects 180 male night telephonists out of a total of 2,060 staff employed on telephone operating, is simply whether the Post Office Workers Union or the Irish Telephonists Association—the break-away group—should in future be recognised as representing male night telephonists. This question is clearly one for discussion between the union and the association and I have repeatedly suggested that progress can best be made by such a meeting, under an independent chairman. The Post Office Workers Union has stated that it is prepared to attend such a discussion but the association has refused to do so and has likewise rejected all proposals made to it by the panel of Civil Service staff associations. Unless the association alters its attitude, no progress is possible.
A meeting between the association and myself would serve no useful purpose. I strongly advise the more sensible of those men on strike to apply forthwith for re-employment.
Will the Minister not agree it appears that, if this dispute continues, the two groups to which he refers will become more incompatible? Is it not a fact that the Minister is the employer of the male night telephonists and how can he justify to the public his refusal to meet the group, which according to the figures he has given, represents the majority of the male night telephonists?
I did not say they were a substantial majority.
The figures the Minister gave indicated that the majority of male night telephonists——
I said 180 out of 2,060.
The Minister knows well there are not 2,060 male night telephonists. When will he tell the truth? He knows there are only about 250 male night telephonists and he comes in here speaking of thousands. There is a word that parliamentary language will not permit me to use to describe that.
I am talking about telephonists generally.
Not the male night telephonists.
That does not make any difference.
They are a separate grade and the Minister knows it.
The principle involved here is more important than the Deputy tries to make out. I am not going to defend by any action of mine any group who break away from any union and, by exerting pressure, obtain separate recognition as a union. That is the principle involved. I am standing by it.
The subpostmasters got away with it.
If you want to read the official magazine of the Post Office Workers Union——
I have read it.
The current issue sets out very clearly in the leading article what the position is. I am not going to be a party to creating a situation whereby it will be possible for any group to exert pressure at any time and by splintering unions get what they wish. This is the principle involved; otherwise it is fragmentation. The whole principle of trade unionism is involved in this; it is not this section alone. If we are to retain the confidence of trade unions we have to stand by them in what they are doing. I am not convinced by anything that has happened so far that the Post Office Workers Union, which is an old-established union with almost 8,000 members, is not quite capable of looking after the interests of all the telephonists, let alone the small section of night telephonists. The fact that the strike has gone on for nine weeks does not make it any more important today than it was the first day.
It is now on 11 weeks.
Would the Chair allow me to quote from the official——
No, I cannot allow the Minister.
While not denying the value of the principles to which the Minister has referred, would the Minister not accept also that there can be occasions on which serious injustice can be done when the majority of people in a particular grade show themselves dissatisfied with the negotiating machinery and with results of negotiations which have taken place? That is the situation now and it must be looked into.
There is sufficient machinery for the purposes of negotiation. We have set up sufficient machinery in complete agreement with the trade unions. There is ample machinery available for the purpose of deciding disputes of this kind. It has not been availed of. As this machinery is available, I will not be the one to go over the heads of those who agree to use it and make separate arrangements of my own. I am not referring to this group in particular. It might be any other group. I will not depart from the principle I have stated.
Would the Minister have regard——
This is bound to develop into an argument. It is now an argument, not question and answer.
In other words, there will be no food for Christmas for these people?
That is not the point.
It is the point.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister would lose nothing.
If nobody obeys the Chair, there is no use having a Chair. I am calling Question No. 60.