asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs whether he has now received a communication from the Subpostmasters' Union in reply to his letter of 9th May last; whether he has any comment to make on this communication, particularly in regard to the likelihood of the closing-down of sub-post offices throughout the country; and whether he will now give further consideration to the request of the Subpostmasters' Union for access to independent conciliation and arbitration machinery.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Conciliation and Arbitration for Subpostmasters.
46.
I have since received a reply from the Subpostmasters' Union to my letter of 9th May. In the reply, the union repeated its dissatisfaction with the operation of the Consultative Council and served notice of intention to close down sub-offices from a date to be announced.
I regret that the union has not accepted my suggestion that it should resume negotiation on its claims. I have reminded the union and all subpostmasters that the action proposed by the union is entirely irregular. I do not know whether any subpostmasters will close their offices as threatened but I have warned the union that the Government will not tolerate action by subpostmasters in contravention of the agreement entered into by them with the Department and will make no concession to such action. I also advised the union and individual subpostmasters that should any subpostmaster act as proposed, he would be contravening his conditions of appointment and would leave himself open to termination of the appointment.
With regard to arbitration machinery, the position is that I had given this matter very careful consideration before writing to the union on 9th May and I am fully satisfied for the reasons stated in reply to Parliamentary Questions on Tuesday 22nd May (Cols. 1193/6) that a scheme of arbitration would not be appropriate in the circumstances of subpostmasters.
I may add that I hope that even at this stage the union will reconsider its position; will withdraw the threat of irregular action; and will resume negotiations at the Consultive Council. It is most desirable that the union and individual members should realise that strike action in the public service cannot and will not be tolerated.
In view of the fact that the subpostmasters' union has told the Minister on many occasions they regard the Consultative Council as being completely unsatisfactory, will he not now event at this late stage consider giving them facilities to bring their grievances before an independent body, such as is established and available to subpostmasters in Britain and the Six Counties?
I have stated the position in my long reply to the question and I have nothing further to add.
In view of the fact that the settlement of disputes in the industrial and commercial field, in the Civil Service and branches of the Statesponsored organisations is now so much a part of our everyday lives, in which it is recognised that this type of machinery is the best method of settling disputes, would the Minister even now invite the subpostmasters union to meet him with a view to endeavouring to surmount whatever difficulties appear to exist in the establishment of an arbitration scheme for subpostmasters? After all, the British and the Six County people have been able to get over the difficulties and it should be possible to do the same here. The Minister's reply, however, is more like a reply in 1862 than in 1962.
That is an argument.
There will be no time for argument when the strike is on and everybody is looking for a settlement.
Would the Minister say what are his objections to arbitration?
I have already set them out in reply to the question addressed to me on 22nd May.
Surely that argument does not carry weight?
All the very same arguments were used in 1949 and 1955 when they were excluded from arbitration.
But the cost of living has altered a little since then.
In view of the fact there will be grave repercussions if the subpostmasters decide to close down the sub-post offices and in view of the fact that many pensioners will be denied payment of their pensions and that telephone and postal communications will be upset, would the Minister not consider that such a request by the subpostmasters' union is reasonable? Further, will he say what he has to lose? The subpostmasters have already stated they will agree to abide by the findings of any independent tribunal. Therefore, should the Minister not consider their requests?
They have the Consultative Council and they have not made full use of it.
Would the Minister consider meeting them again?
I have already met them on the limited question of their submission in relation to what they consider to be the non-effective working of the Consultative Council. I do not see on what point I could meet them now. If they want to discuss pay claims, the Consultative Council is there at which they can put forward such claims.
Will the Minister discuss machinery for the settlement of these claims? Everybody will want to do it when the strike takes place.
Would the Minister indicate what he means by "illegal action?"
I said "irregular action".
Apart from what the Minister might think of the proposed claim, does he appreciate the difficulties there will be in the country and what plans, if any, he has to meet such a situation?
I appreciate all the difficulties. I appreciate that whenever a strike occurs in any public service, there is public inconvenience. I shall take all the steps open to me to reduce public inconvenience to a minimum.
Does the Minister believe he can do nothing further?
The Deputy should advise the subpostmasters to come back to the Consultative Council and discuss their claims there.
The Deputy believes they should get conciliation and arbitration.
The Minister has not answered the question about "irregular action".