(Dublin Central): I thank the Ceann Comhairle for affording me the opportunity of raising here this evening the question of the dispute between the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and the Irish Post Office Engineering Union.
Adjournment Debate. - Post Office Dispute.
The dispute is not between the union and the Department.
(Dublin Central): It is a dispute that has been in existence for some time although the strike has been in operation only for the past few weeks. However, the origins of this conflict go back for about two years.
At the outset I wish to make it clear that I am not in any way endeavouring to jeopardise any negotiations which might take place but we are reaching a serious situation in relation to the telephone service, especially on the south side of the city where many business firms and private subscribers are deprived of this service. One can appreciate the serious effects this situation can have on the social and economic life of the city. Should the Minister think that any of the information at my disposal is not accurate, I should be glad if he would correct me.
I understand that there are 1,200 people involved in the dispute and that unless some agreement is reached between the two parties, the consequencies will be very serious.
From the information available to me it appears that agreement was reached two years ago regarding the provision of proper facilities for the parking of vans at the Walkinstown Road site. The men had been obliged to park their vans at Greenmount near Harold's Cross but this site was totally unsatisfactory because of the condition of the surface. However, the promised facilities were not made available. Consequently, the men's patience became exhausted and they began parking their vans at Parnell Road. This is a very busy area and at certain times is a clearway so this action on the part of the men caused much congestion. Fines were issued by the Corporation and some vans were towed away. The Department instructed the men to park their vans on the open space available there but because they refused to comply with that request a number of them were suspended on 22nd December.
I understand that there are negotiations in progress aimed at settling the dispute but it might be no harm to remind the House of the regulations under which these people were suspended. These regulations embrace insubordination as would any regulations concerning discipline. However, the regulations to which I am referring date back to 1894. It is obvious that they are totally inadequate for today and are not in line with modern trade union thinking. Section 383 of these regulations is the one embracing insubordination and this section reads that if an officer is guilty of insubordination he must be suspended from duty, that this rule is without exception, that the officer must remain under suspension until such time as he expresses regret and obeys. The regulation says that in ordinary circumstances he should then be restored to duty and the facts reported without delay.
I should like to hear the views of trade unionists on this especially having regard to the circumstances in which these men were suspended. Had they been suspended for insobriety or for refusing to carry out a genuine order or for misconduct within their branch, I could understand the regulation applying to some extent, but asking people to express regret is too much in this day and age. I cannot recall any trade union dispute during past years in which any member was asked to comply with such a request. The outcome of this dispute will hinge to a large extent on this section of the regulations. I realise that any set of regulations must cover misconduct but I would ask the Minister to direct his attention to the proviso regarding the expression of regret and that of obeying. From reading regulations of this kind, which were drafted more than 80 years ago, one can appreciate that they were drawn up before ever there were trade union regulations in existence.
As we go through the regulations we can see that it is an offence to act as security for a fellow officer in raising a loan. It is an offence to engage in betting or gambling of any form. These are the regulations that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs are operating under at this time. The Minister should update them because otherwise he will have many disputes on his hands. I should like to direct the attention of the Minister to these facts.
I admit that there could be right on the Minister's side and I am anxious to get his point of view regarding who is responsible on this occasion. Had the men a genuine grievance for taking instructions from their union to park their vans or not to park them on the open space? I believe they did what was right at the time, that they had no choice. The Minister and the Department should have made proper provision on the adjacent site which was to be prepared for this section of the post office workers.
I hope the Minister will try to get an end to the strike. If positive steps are not taken it will develop into a far more serious strike and I would regret that. My reason for raising this matter on the Adjournment was to direct the attention of the Minister to these points. Many business and private people have contacted me with regard to their telephones which are out of operation. All of us are aware of the recent astronomical increase in charges. People are entitled to the service. There may be rights and wrongs on both sides and I should like to hear the Minister's views.
I should not like it to go out from this short discussion that this party in any way support unofficial strike action but when an unofficial strike action of such dimension takes place it is a matter of concern for all Members, no matter on which side of the House they sit. The media, no doubt well briefed by the Minister, have suggested to the public that more than 1,000 men are on strike because a couple of men were afraid to get their shoes muddy. I should like to put it on record that so far as my information and research are concerned nothing could be further from the truth.
To follow what Deputy Fitzpatrick said, perhaps it is true that the origins of this dispute go back to the Victorian staff relations policy applied by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs for several decades, certainly at least since I came into public life. The personnel relations between the Minister and the workers in his Department are very important because he is the largest employer of workers in the State, whether in the private or the State sector. I agree with Deputy Fitzpatrick that he should examine the regulations in order to have them revised completely.
However, the more immediate reason for the stoppage has its origin in a ministerial decision. That decision, as Deputy Fitzpatrick pointed out, was not to proceed with the opening of the depot in Walkinstown Avenue. It has been opened since the strike took place but that is not sufficient; if it had been opened before the strike took place we would not have this problem. It was an agreement freely entered into between the unions and the Minister approximately two years ago and was not applied. The situation was aggravated to a greater extent by the Minister's decision to restrict overtime during the Christmas period. That might be right because we knew that owing to increased postal charges the volume of business might go down. However, there were new empty vans at Jones' Road and in other depots throughout the country that could carry out the work these men would do on an overtime basis but which were given out to private contract by the Minister. That was a decision of the Minister's and he must take full responsibility for it.
The straw that eventually broke the camel's back was the fact that two days before Christmas the Minister decided to suspend certain men without pay. This happened when the banks were closed and when there was no way for them to get money to look after their families during Christmas. That eventually led to the situation the Minister now faces. The suspensions increased to approximately 40 and now more than 1,000 people have downed their tools. I cannot understand why the executive of the union concerned did not declare this strike official. I know they do not have a great reserve of funds but I think the evidence will show that the Minister would prefer not to negotiate with this union at all because it is not an officially recognised union so far as his Department are concerned.
That is incorrect.
Regardless of what affiliation this union has on a national basis, we cannot get away from the fact that they are a properly constituted union——
Certainly.
——and they are entitled to represent the men. I appeal to the Minister to lift the suspensions and allow the men go back to work. He can settle the dispute if he does so now and does not allow it to hang on for too long.
My reason for speaking in the debate is that I live in and represent the Walkinstown area. It is badly affected by the strike and a number of people in industry have been in touch with me regarding their telephones which are out of order. Walkinstown has been badly hit by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. We have the worst postal delivery service in the country. Up to last week the people there were still getting their Christmas mail as a result of something that happened in the Department. Now they are badly hit with regard to their telephone service and quite a number of the people involved are living in the area. It was a sad day in Irish life when a number of these employees were suspended just before Christmas. I would ask the Minister to intervene in the matter and to do something about it.
First, I should like to express my regret to telephone users in the Dublin area for the inconvenience and hardship that unofficial industrial action taken by some engineering staff in recent weeks, and which is still continuing, has caused them. That action can bring no benefit to the staff. Therefore, I hope that the men involved will realise this, will stop their action and return to work. This is what was asked of them.
This is an unofficial strike. It is not, as Deputy Fitzpatrick said, a dispute between the Irish Post Office Engineering Union and the Department——
(Dublin Central): It will not be long before it is.
The executive of the union are opposed to the strike and that distinction should have been clearly drawn by the Fianna Fáil spokesman on this subject but it was not drawn by him. Nor is it true, as Deputy Lemass said that the Irish Post Office Engineering Union is not a recognised union. It is a recognised union. This is an unofficial strike by members of a recognised union. Newspaper reports have made it clear that it was called against the instructions of the union's national executive who had earlier instructed the branches concerned that this illegal parking should cease. I do not think anyone on the benches over there referred to the parking as illegal, which it was. The union has been defied on both occasions.
In these difficult times which we are passing through it is essential for orderly negotiations that the elected executive bodies of unions should not have their authority undermined. This is of urgent importance now but it has always been of importance. Had Deputy Fitzpatrick consulted those members of his party, who were Ministers for Posts and Telegraphs before me, they could have told him that they, too, had to take a firm stand on this issue and under these very regulations which they maintained and which he now seeks to undermine. None of them is now in the House and I can see the reason why. The reason is that Deputy Fitzpatrick has made a rather serious mistake. They could have told him if he had asked them that a quick way to industrial anarchy lies in encouraging unofficial strikes, particularly in essential industries like telecommunications. They could also have told him that my party in the past never yielded to the temptation, which it is, of making political capital out of such strikes. The Labour Party in and out of office have consistently opposed the unofficial strike which undermines the real interests of workers just as it causes great inconvenience to the public and often to the men who are so misguided as to take that action.
Deputy Fitzpatrick and other Fianna Fáil speakers have stressed the inconvenience—it is a very real one and is in danger of growing— which has been caused to the public by this action. I ask them to realise that the effect of their intervention here and of their repeating the arguments of these unofficial strikers, who are acting against their union, can only be to encourage the men in the misguided pursuit of this strike. They will say: "Public opinion is on our side. The biggest party in this country are on our side. If we keep it up we will win". If they do that is an illusion in which they will have been encouraged because any of my predecessors could have informed the Fianna Fáil Deputies who spoke today, that the Department cannot and will not capitulate to this kind of action and, therefore, if this strike continues, no capitulation will follow. The inconvenience will have been drawn out.
The Department cannot capitulate because that means destroying all discipline in the public service and, therefore, all efficiency and it would mean much more serious and prolonged inconvenience to the public. The Department have always recognised this, irrespective of who was Minister. I am sorry to say that it is deplorable—I respect Deputy Fitzpatrick but he has made a serious error on this occasion—that the shadow Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has failed to recognise this and is thereby encouraging an unofficial strike. It may be that one day the shadow Minister will become Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and if he does he will be very sorry that he is on record as speaking as he has in this debate as the mouthpiece for unofficial strikes.
I would now like to describe the events leading to the suspensions which have taken place. About two years ago the Department bought a property consisting of a factory building and a large parking area in Walkinstown for use as an additional engineering depot on the south side of the city to provide for staff accommodation and for the parking of departmental vehicles. The intention was that a number of outdoor staff headquartered at the existing depot at Harold's Cross would be transferred to the new depot as soon as certain structural works and improvements were carried out to the former factory building. In the meantime, the parking area was made available for engineering vans for which there was not adequate space at the Harold's Cross depot. The depot at Walkinstown was suitable in every respect for parking purposes. It has a hard-surfaced area capable of taking up to 150 vans at a time although space for about 30 is all that is needed at present.
In May, 1975 local union branch representatives expressed dissatisfaction to local management that the additional accommodation at Walkinstown had not yet been made available and intimated that the staff would resume parking their vans at the Harold's Cross depot. As the garage there could not house all the vans it was arranged that the overflow would be parked on a vacant site nearby. The vacant site, although not ideal for parking, was no worse than any parking lots used throughout the city.
In October, 1975 the local union branch representatives wrote to local management to say that they feared that the vacant site would become unsuitable for parking during the winter. While the local management did not accept that the site would become unsuitable they informed them that if the staff did not wish to park there the Walkinstown depot should be used. The staff continued to use the vacant site up to 24th November. On that day the staff parked their vehicles on a clearway at Harold's Cross although specifically instructed not to do so. In order to avoid a breach of the parking regulations involved and to reduce inconvenience and risk to the public the Department arranged to bring on some drivers early each morning to remove the vehicles before the clearway regulations became operative but the staff concerned stopped doing so after a few days on the instructions of their union branches.
During the course of this illegal parking some 100 parking fines were imposed and three vehicles were impounded. Finally, on 22nd December, on a further refusal by the drivers to carry out instructions given to them to park at Walkinstown and not on the clearway, 29 drivers were suspended. The union executive and the local union branches had been warned in advance that such action would have to be taken. The Department showed a certain amount of patience in this matter. Two accidents had already occurred involving the vans illegally parked and there was a constant risk of further accidents occurring. I ask how could the Department allow that to continue? In related incidents later, 11 members of the staff were suspended when they refused to carry out normal work.
The parking accommodation provided at Walkinstown has always been suitable for that purpose and it has never been contended by the staff that it is not. The suitability of the depot for parking purposes was not affected by the structural alterations that were to be carried out in the factory building. These alterations were to enable the depot to be used as a staff headquarters.
The work required to enable the Walkinstown depot to be used as a staff headquarters was completed recently. It was not possible to complete this work earlier partly because of other commitments and partly because of protracted negotiations about accommodation with various staff groups. The local branch representatives were kept informed of developments in making this accommodation available and they and the headquarters of the union concerned had been clearly told, before the resort to illegal parking, that the accommodation would be available within a few weeks. The transfer of some staff headquarters from Harold's Cross to Walkinstown and the parking of vehicles at Walkinstown are separate issues.
Although Deputy Fitzpatrick has made considerable comment on the question of office accommodation at Walkinstown the fact is that when the illegal parking began no mention of this was made. I regret very much that illegal action and the subsequent deplore any attempt to make political unofficial strike that has arisen and I capital as a result. To the extent that there may be dissatisfaction about the provision of more office accommodation at Walkinstown then I would hope that the men would realise that such a problem can be resolved through the normal processes of union negotiation on the resumption of work.
The Community is, as has been said opposite, making large sums of money available for telephone development and in the course of such an expansion, problems and stresses are bound to arise. They are also arising in every other area of national effort. There can be no hope of progress except by orderly negotiations and there is need for an understanding by all concerned that the resources of money and men do not exist to enable us to resolve all problems quickly. In this particular case, I hope that on reconsideration the men who were responsible for organising the very unusual action of parking some 30 vans day after day on a busy clearway, so as to inconvenience and put seriously at risk the public using the road, will realise how ill-advised they were. Deputies opposite should tell them so.
The current unofficial strike can only result in loss to the strikers and in serious inconvenience and hardship to telephone users. It is putting in jeopardy the jobs of other workers and making it that much more difficult to get on with the economic recovery so urgently needed. While the strikers may feel that in a State industry their jobs are likely to be safe they should take into account that their action may put other people in less secure employment out of jobs altogether. Please do not encourage this unofficial strike.
(Dublin Central): May I say something on a point of clarification?
I must inform the House that the time allotted for this debate is now past.
(Dublin Central): I would like to put the record straight. The Minister came in here with a prepared brief. I never said that at any time I supported unofficial strikes. I am too long in business to encourage anything like that.
The Dáil adjourned at 5.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 27th January, 1976.