Deputy O'Donnell has sought and been granted permission to raise a question on the adjournment concerning the matter of the situation in the telecommunications branch of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. The Deputy has 20 minutes.
Adjournment Debate. - Telecommunications Dispute.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis an Ceann Comhairle as ucht gur thug sé cead dom an cheist anthábhachtach seo a ordú ar athló na Dála.
I regret having to bring the Minister in on the adjournment but as spokesman for my party on telecommunications I am gravely concerned about the serious escalation over the past 24 hours of the situation in regard to the telecommunications services of the Minister's Department. Today the situation is utterly chaotic. I understand from the latest reports that lines to Limerick, Galway, Cork and the UK are totally out of action. I do not have to recount for the Members of the House the extreme frustration of trying to make telephone calls from this House during the past 24 hours.
There is a grave public concern about the protracted nature of these disputes which instead of being resolved are worsening. The problems, to use the modern terminology, are escalating. Concern has been expressed by many people, by business and community leaders, about the dispute. The public have every right to be concerned about this totally unsatisfactory situation in the telecommunications section of the Minister's Department.
I am sure I do not have to point out to the Minister the vital role the telecommunications service plays in modern life. That service is of vital importance to the business, commercial and industrial life of a small country such as this on the periphery of Europe. We are dependent on exports and, consequently, it is essential that we have an efficient telecommunications service. The situation is even more serious when one considers that in addition to the telephone and telex services we witnessed in recent years a rapid growth in the computerisation of many businesses. Many concerns now have computer terminals linked to a central computer and are using Post Office lines and cables to have data processed by a central computer. In spite of all this over the past nine months 15 separate disputes took place and they crippled the telephone and telex services.
We are all aware that 12,500 people in Blackrock have been without postal services for the last three weeks. It is not my intention to avail of my full 20 minutes because I wish to give an opportunity to the former Taoiseach, Deputy Liam Cosgrave, and my colleague from the Labour Party, Deputy John Ryan, to express their opinions on this matter. I sought permission to raise this issue tonight because it appears that no progress has been made in these disputes and the Minister appears unable or unwilling to resolve the difficulties which best this most important section of his Department. It is not my intention to go into the details of the various points at issue in these disputes, but irrespective of what the pros and cons of the issues are there is an obligation on the Minister to ensure that the country's telecommunications service is maintained.
It is obvious to everybody that there is something seriously and radically wrong with the whole industrial relations set-up within the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. This has been recognised by many people and it was even referred to in the Fianna Fáil Manifesto. An undertaking was given in that manifesto that special steps would be taken to set up the appropriate machinery to ensure good industrial relations in the Department. From the information available to me and the discussions I have had with various people—in fact, one does not need to be an expert to realise this—it is clear that there is something radically wrong with the set-up in that Department. The public are demanding that the Minister for Labour and the industrial relations mechanism and machinery of the Labour Court, face up to this serious situation.
I should like to illustrate how serious the situation is. Two weeks ago when I was visiting the headquarters of Gaeltarra Éireann in Galway I had occasion to make a telephone call to Donegal but I was unsuccessful in my efforts. I am sure the Minister is aware that there are a number of important industries in Donegal which are associate companies of Gaeltarra Éireann and that many of those firms are engaged in the export business. I am sure the Minister is also aware that the export business of many concerns in the north-west was totally disrupted because of the telecommunications situation. The time has come for the Minister to face up to this serious situation. In fairness, it must be recognised that the Department, and in particular the telecommunications section, has become through advances in modern technology a much more complex department than it was. It may be that the industrial relations machinery, the procedures and the modus operandi which were formulated in the past are no longer suitable.
I urge the Minister to come to grips with this serious situation. On Monday last, following a request by many people I sent a telegram to the Taoiseach asking him to intervene or appoint a mediator. In fairness to the Taoiseach I should like to acknowledge the fact that he replied to me today. He informed me that he and his colleagues were giving close and continuous attention to this problem. I suggest that there should be a complete and thorough review of the industrial relations machinery in the Department. In the short term I suggest that a mediator be appointed to ensure that the disputes in the telecommunications section and in Blackrock are resolved and that all the various categories of workers are got back to work as quickly as possible.
This is something in the short term. In the long term I respectfully suggest that some form of tribunal, commission or committee—I do not care what it is called—should be set up and given a mandate to examine and assess and formulate an industrial relations strategy appropriate to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs in this modern age. I would like now to give way to the former Taoiseach, Deputy Liam Cosgrave.
It is the chair who calls the speakers. Deputy Cosgrave.
It is hardly necessary to emphasise to the Minister and his colleague, the Minister of State, the serious problems which have arisen for business, trade and commerce. The situation in my constituency is that business people are unable to place orders and make contact with customers. This has involved financial loss because of the decision involved in the present dispute which exists there. I suggest to the Minister that it is time to reappraise the whole system and the work schedule. There is need for a certain amount of flexibility in revising the arrangements. While I appreciate the importance of using established procedures they should not override the public interest and the obligation to maintain an adequate service.
It is time, because of the frequency of the disputes in this area, to review the situation in an objective way. I believe this is an opportune occasion to do so. The problem created, not only in the Blackrock Post Office but in the constituency of Dún Laoghaire as well as in a wider area, is very grave for business as well as domestic users of the postal service. I know the Minister is aware of certain other aspects of the problem which I do not think it is necessary to refer to. I believe it is time to have a fresh look at the situation.
I rise to support Deputies O'Donnell and Cosgrave on this very important issue because, as spokesman for my party on industrial relations, I feel the situation is so bad now that a crisis exists in the services of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. I can see a complete close down and a cessation of the services if the Government do not take strict action in the matter. As Deputy O'Donnell already pointed out, for some years now we have spent millions installing sophisticated and modern facilities to ensure that at commercial level and at every day life level we are as near comparable as possible to many of the countries we are joined with in the EEC.
Labour relations in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs during the past six months are like a festering sore. I know from my discussions with many members of the staff of the Department that the mood there is one of unease and uncertainty. Despite all our efforts and investment in modern facilities, if we have not good labour relations within the Department this is all for nothing and can do little but disimprove the service. During the past six weeks there has been a great deterioration in the services and I publicly appealed to the Taoiseach to intervene in the matter. Unfortunately there was no response.
Three weeks ago, with particular reference to the Blackrock Post Office, I contacted the Minister for Labour and he replied that it was not within his area of responsibility. He referred my representation to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. It has now reached the stage that the ball is in the court of the Taoiseach, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, his Minister of State and the Minister for Labour to resolve without delay the serious situation or face a complete closedown. There has been coming and going, settling and unsettling within the last six months. I recall four different areas in the country where there was a labour disturbance in the Post Office engineering section, the workers went back to work and within a month the situation was back to square one. I am satisfied that the workers are responsible men. They appreciate the jobs they have and they know what efforts have been made to improve the facilities and the services. But there is something wrong. The people are asking what is wrong and where it is wrong. Are we dealing with our workers through regulations based on a situation which existed in 1878?
Do we need another look at our regulations? Is this an example of an area where there could be worker participation? Something must be done, because things cannot go on the way they are at the moment. As Deputy O'Donnell pointed out, the situation has become so bad that our industrial and commercial life will be disrupted within a week if something serious is not done by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. It is a matter of Government responsibility. I appreciate that there are ways and means through which such labour disputes can be handled but it has reached a point where it must be the concern of the Government to see that this unhappy situation is brought to a happy conclusion for the sake of the country, our commercial life and the workers employed in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.
As Fine Gael spokesman on labour matters I am very anxious for the Minister to consider the union's proposal for a month's truce in order to stop all the haggling that has been going on in the Department for the past six months. As Deputy O'Donnell said, there have been 15 different disputes and the strain on relations in those six months through those 15 different disputes must be enormous. The more disputes there are the less amenable workers will be to a solution. Would the Minister consider that the written regulations laid down for employess in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs may be too rigid, too out of date and too detailed and that perhaps they need revision?
May I begin by expressing regret to the public for the inconvenience and hardship being caused to them by the present disruption of the telephone and telex services. I need not remind the House that this industrial action is a problem I inherited. It began in May 1977 in my predecessor's time when some members of the union, against the instructions of their executive, refused to hand up departmental records in breach of their conditions of employment and of agreements on peaceful procedures with their union. Later the unofficial strike was made official. Since then industrial action has continued in an unbroken series of strikes and other acts of indiscipline which have involved groups of staff for different periods in many centres.
Sometimes those actions have been official and sometimes unofficial. When one issue was settled another started. It was claimed by the union at the beginning of those actions and has since been claimed occasionally that they were for the purpose of compelling the Department to conclude a productivity agreement. The truth is that my Department have been more than willing to enter into a productivity agreement. In negotiations in 1976 informal agreement in principle was reached on many features of such an agreement and my Department had proposed an introduction date. An offer to share the benefits of increased productivity with the union's members had been made and payment on account offered. After the union conference in May last year the executive made no further use of the negotiating machinery. Various efforts been made over the period to bring this industrial action to an end. In August last the Steering Committee of the Employer-Labour Conference made recommendaions for a resumption of normal work which both the union and the Department accepted. However, the industrial action continued. I would underline that these proposals were made by the Steering Committee of the Employer-Labour Conference and not by the Department.
In November arrangements for return to normal work were again formulated during discussions which I had with the representatives of the Executive Council of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions lasting over two days. Briefly, these recommendations and arrangements provided that the Department would lift suspensions, that the union would cease industrial action, that the union would undertake that the staff would carry out instructions and that any claims, problems or proposals would be processed speedily through the standard negotiating machinery. I accepted these recommendations in both instances and I honoured them. The union executive accepted them but did not honour them. The industrial action continued, on an official basis in some instances and on an unofficial basis in others.
Unofficial industrial action was still continuing recently in three centres— in the central telephone exchange and in Distillery Road in Dublin and at Letterkenny. The three alleged issues on which the present industrial action is being taken are related to the productivity deal, to the suspensions in Russell Street and to Letterkenny. I want to underline the fact that these are not the real reasons. How could they be? The Department are more than willing to enter into a productivity agreement and have gone so far as to state that there is ample scope for considerable benefits to the staff in such a deal.
As regards Russell Street all that is involved is the garaging of official vans a few hundred yards from the present depot. No change of headquarters is involved. I want to underline that. By using this garage the Department could take on extra staff to relieve unemployment. There has never been any agreement on consultation in connection with garaging Therefore, there is no basis for dispute here either.
In Letterkenny the alleged grievance was that the Department had not yet settled the staffing for the new auto-manual exchange there not due to be opened until 1979. The action began on the refusal of a technician to replace an electric light bulb required for the fitting out of the new exchange. I do not think comment is necessary in this instance.
On 3 January the executive of the union wrote to assure me that these actions were unofficial. In their letter they mentioned that in Russell Street the executive requested the staff to resume duty in line with discussions held between them and the union and to use Russell Street as a garaging area. Regrettably, they say, the staff concerned have not gone along with the executive's request. I could say the same thing applies to the other matters dealt with in the letter. We were informed that these were unofficial strikes. Yet I learned later from their own union journal that the union executives were financing these unofficial actions. I do not think it is necessary for me to comment in a matter such as this.
The real problem—and I believe the public must be aware of it from the various statements in the papers, and they should be aware of it—is that there is a deep split in the union executive. Some members of the executive have been campaigning openly against decisions of the executive. Others have been threatening to bring the Department to their knees and create chaos at a time when the executive were trying to bring about a return to normal work. The reasonable proposals that were formulated by the Employer-Labour Conference and the Executive Council of ICTU, and which were accepted by the union, were frustrated by individual members. This has been obvious for a long time from reports in the media. Even the union's own journal has drawn attention to it. I quote from the editorial in the latest issue of the union journal. The Relay, of November-December 1977:
Within our own union, during 1977, we have witnessed the results of terrible bitterness at national executive level. For months past the friction has been obvious for all to see and unfortunately it has done nothing to enhance the reputation of the IPOEU or to improve its functioning.
This division is the kernel of the matter and not staff rules or regulations, or changes in work practices or productivity deals. The public and the ordinary members of the union are the sufferers.
Deputy Mitchell referred to what he called the truce offer. Effectively what was being asked for in the union's letter was that agreements which had been negotiated through the Steering Committee of the Employer-Labour Conference and with the Executive Council of ICTU, that all the agreed negotiating procedures, should be set aside, and instead that the demands of groups engaged in unofficial industrial action, and which the executive itself had stated were in defiance of their instructions, should be acceded to. I do not believe that this proposal was put forward as a serious suggestion. Its acceptance would have been a recipe for anarchy. I do not know what these groups hope to gain by the course they have adopted. By their actions they have delayed for almost a year negotiations on the productivity agreement from which the staff stand to benefit substantially. They are creating serious and unnecessary difficulties and hardship for the public generally, particularly those engaged in trade and industry, and seriously impeding progress with plans for further developing the telecommunications service. At a time of high unemployment their actions have prevented the Department and industry from giving additional employment and, at times, have placed in jeopardy the jobs of other people in less secure employment than themselves.
I wish to make it clear beyond any possibility of misunderstanding that continuation of the present action can bring no benefits whatsoever to the staff. I would hope that the union executive and the staff would realise that they have obligations as well as rights, and that in the present instance whatever sense of grievance some of the staff may have does not transcend these obligations.
I felt constrained, because of the spate of what I could term misleading propaganda, to put the facts fully before the House. I have acted, I think, with restraint and patience in this matter since I became Minister in the hope that the executive would be able to get the whole matter under control. I do not want confrontation. It is my earnest wish to have good relations with the staff in all grades in the Department so that a much improved and more reliable service can be given to the public with advantage to the staff also. I began some months ago a review of industrial relations. Therefore I would appeal again to those concerned to call off this campaign and to return to the use of the agreed negotiating procedures. When they do they have my assurance that I will play my part. I want to say that the negotiating procedures in themselves are not sacrosanct. I think Deputy Michell raised something of this kind. We can always change these procedures by agreement. I should like to emphasise that there are quite a number of unions in the Department and it would be with the agreement of all of these unions, and not simply to satisfy one union, that these changes could be made. I have begun a review. It is difficult to get a worth-while result from this review until I am in a position to consult with all of the unions, including this one.
Let me finally appeal very strongly to the union to accept the agreed negotiation procedures and return to normal working. As I have said already, if they do, I can assure them—and I want to emphasise that—I will play my part.
The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 10.30 a.m., Thursday, 9 February 1978.