asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs why during the week of 9th February, 1970, an employee of his Department, who is a member of the Irish Post Office Engineering Union, was issued with instructions by the Department to the effect that, if he refused to pass a strike picket and to carry out work on a premises where an official trade dispute was in progress, he would be suspended.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Trade Dispute Incident.
15.
Staff of my Department engaged in telephone engineering work who enter the premises of a firm involved in a trade dispute do so in order to install or maintain apparatus which is the property of the Department, and part of the public telephone service network. They do not perform any work proper to the firm's employees. Accordingly, they are required to perform their normal duties in circumstnces such as those mentioned by the Deputy.
Are we now to take it that it is the policy of the Department to issue this type of instruction in these circumstances? Is the Minister aware that if the suspension had to be put into force it would have caused a serious disruption of service in this area and it would have caused a further dispute?
That is a rather hypothetical question. It has been the Department's consistent practice to provide and maintain its services to parties involved in a trade dispute and the members of my Department and the staffs who have to go to premises where employees are on strike do not, in fact, perform any part of the work of the employees concerned. I do not think it can be claimed that they are becoming involved in a strike or strike-breaking in any shape or form.
Is it the policy of the Department to insist on men violating their consciences under penalty of dismissal?
No, it is Deputy Pattison's conscience.
As the Minister is aware in this particular incident there was an official trade dispute concerning conditions of employment——
We cannot discuss the matter. The Deputy may put a question to the Minister.
I am asking the Minister whether he is aware of the circumstances? Members of the Irish Post Office Engineering Union, in accordance with the executive directive and annual conference decision of their union that official trade union pickets should not be passed by members of the union, refused to pass the picket and, as a result of their refusing to do so, the engineering director in Waterford threatened them with suspension and this was conveyed by the Department to these men. Does the Minister not agree it was very provocative on the part of the Department to place men in that kind of invidious position and that it should, in fact, be the subject of some reconsideration by the Department?
I cannot accept the implications of this. We have had trade disputes of various kinds down the years. Take the example of the postman. He was expected to deliver his letters to buildings, institutions or firms which were involved in strikes. This is a similar situation. Our service is to the public. It is a service as such which interferes in no way with whatever dispute may be going on in a premises. I feel that members of the Labour Party are pressing the point a little bit too much in this regard.
We will press it a lot further. The Minister can be sure of that.
(Interruptions.)
Is the Minister suggesting that the normal practice in this country is for pickets to be passed by everybody?
What did Deputy Lenehan say?
Mr. J. Lenehan
You heard it.
I heard the Deputy on a few occasions and I was not impressed.
I should like to ask the Minister whether he is suggesting in his reply that it is the practice as regards pickets in Ireland that they are passed by everybody other than workers who would engage in the work which itself is in dispute? It is my understanding that attempts to deliver material to a firm are normally a matter for picketing and the normal practice is that the picket is not passed. Is the Minister suggesting that a picket should keep out only those who would do the work of the men on strike and that everybody else should normally pass the picket? That seems to be what the Minister is implying.
I feel that as a general principle my Department, providing a public service, should not be involved or should not be forced to be involved in a dispute of this nature.
Might I ask one question? Does the Minister suggest that, if there is a strike and if the firm concerned are carrying on with staff— staff for which we have a certain name —while the strike is on and if some machinery breaks down, other trade unionists should go in and assist those people who are trying to carry on? Could the Minister answer that, so that we would know where we stand?
As far as I know, this was not a question of repairs. In this case the Johnstown exchange was being converted to automatic working. It was a question of switching the telephone equipment and making certain arrangements in connection with conversion to automatic working. It was not a question of going in to carry out repairs.
Is the Minister aware that on previous occasions when repairs were required and similar instructions were given, the staff refused to carry them out? They will continue to do so.
This was a business premises. Would the Minister agree the purpose of the telephone was for the carrying on of the business?
It was being transferred over to an automatic exchange.
The point about it is that any people who pay rental or who use this public service expect to be provided by my Department with the service for which they are paying. There was no dispute involving the staff of my Department. From that point of view I can see no reason why we should not try to provide the service which we are expected to provide.
Thank you, "William Martin Murphy".
One final supplementary.
We cannot debate this question all day.