asked the Minister for Education if he will state, in relation to the conciliation and arbitration machinery for national teachers agreed to by the Department of Education and the I.N.T.O. in February, 1951, why the review provided for by this agreement has not taken place and, further, whether he is now prepared to agree to the carrying out of such review without further delay.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - National Teachers' Arbitration Machinery.
The experimental scheme of conciliation and arbitration for national teachers, based on a similar scheme for the Civil Service, was subject to review a year after its formal establishment on 1st March, 1951. Arrangements for such review were put in hand immediately on the termination of the experimental scheme but the review could not be completed pending the outcome of negotiations in connection with a revised Civil Service scheme. A new element was introduced, however, into the situation concerning national teachers by the fact that the teachers' organisation was officially supporting High Court proceedings on behalf of two teachers in regard to a matter which had been considered by the conciliation council. I am at present in correspondence with the teachers' organisation in regard to the position.
Surely the Parliamentary Secretary does not suggest to the House that because two teachers have availed of their constitutional right to go into the courts of this country to establish their claim, conciliation and arbitration machinery is to be denied to the rest of the teachers?
That has not been suggested.
Is not that the effect of the answer?
It is not.
Will the Tánaiste allow the Parliamentary Secretary to reply?
The Parliamentary Secretary is replying for the Minister and he should not be cross-examined on matters of detail.
If the Parliamentary Secretary is sufficiently responsible to reply to the question, surely he is sufficiently responsible to reply to the supplementary question without assistance from the Tánaiste?
I will give any assistance that is required.
I have no more information to give.
In view of the reference to the original scheme as an experimental scheme, will the Parliamentary Secretary say where the idea of experimental comes from? Is it not a fact that the original scheme of conciliation and arbitration was established as a permanent matter and that the only question left for consideration at the end of 12 months was whether it required to be adjusted in any way? Surely there was never any suggestion that, conciliation and arbitration machinery having been established, it would be stopped or halted in any way?
One of the normal conditions attached to arbitration is that it is the sole method of settling matters in dispute.
Are we to understand that the position is that the arbitration scheme which was put into force still exists and that this ministerial attitude is taken up now because a case has been introduced in the courts?
The arbitration scheme lapsed. It was an experimental scheme for one year.
That is not so. It was introduced as a permanent idea subject to modifications being made if necessary.
It was only a temporary scheme.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to raise this question on the Adjournment.
I will communicate with the Deputy.