Deputy Desmond O'Malley gave me notice of his intention to raise a Private Notice Question.
Private Notice Question: - Post Office Technicians' Dispute.
asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs if he will take urgent steps to resolve the dispute between the Post Office technicians and his Department in view of the almost complete breakdown of non-local telephone and telex communication in the Limerick region, which is causing great inconvenience and loss.
I regret very much the inconvenience and loss caused by the unofficial strike action taken by certain engineering branch technicians in the Limerick area. The action is in contravention of the national agreement and of the agreement on conciliation and arbitration to which the union is a party. It has been, I understand, taken and continued against the advice and direction of the union.
The staff concerned have received all the national agreement increases. On top of those they received an increase of 10 per cent partly on a productivity basis. Their union immediately after made a further claim, the effect of which would be to move all the staff up one grade higher. Concession of the claim would cost at least £1.5 million a year and add at least 15 per cent to the cost of the grades. The national agreement requires that such a claim could be accepted only if it could be met by way of greater productivity.
The Department and the union have been engaged in a detailed examination to identify ways of increasing productivity which would be acceptable to the staff, and a stage had been reached where final negotiations could shortly begin.
I do not know if the action taken by the maintenance staff in Limerick was intended to forestall those negotiations. Certainly it can only obstruct progress towards an equitable settlement, cause, as the Deputy has said, inconvenience and loss to the public, and place the jobs of the strikers and those of many other workers at risk. It may even endanger life. The staff concerned should return immediately to work so as to enable their union to process their claim in accordance with the terms of the national agreement and of the conciliation and arbitration scheme for the Civil Service.
When Limerick is mentioned I suppose it also means Clare and Tipperary, which is part of the original region. Is the Minister aware that there is a little more than inconvenience. For instance, for the last couple of days it has been impossible to make contact with ambulances or hospitals for urgent medical cases. Is he also aware that in today's paper it is reported that the strike has spread further west and further south in the mid-western region and also that the leader of the union has almost acknowledged the strike in his criticism of the Minister's statement that people had interfered with the technicians on the job? Above all, my question relates to the possible fatal results of not being able to make contact with hospitals or ambulances in emergencies.
From what the Deputy has said I take it he shares with me an anxiety to deplore the action which has so seriously jeopardised essential services and the whole quality of life in the regions affected. The Deputy is aware that the union in question has asked the strikers to return to work, that the strike is an unofficial one and that, contrary to any previous experience, the rate of fault and disruption in the mechanism of the phone service has been much greater since the discontinuance of the work in question. In those circumstances the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was quite justified in drawing public attention to the fact that the service has been disrupted far beyond any normal experience.
Is the Minister suggesting that the service has been deliberately sabotaged since this strike began?
I am stating as a fact that the rate of disruption of service is much greater than anything previously experienced. The equipment in question, most of it being automatic, is quite capable in normal circumstances of continuing without any serious disruption for months. The strike began only last Monday week and now, as Deputy Loughnane has pointed out, there are whole areas of the countryside cut off. There is a question there that needs to be answered.
It appears there is a possibility that the strike may become official at some future time. In view of the very serious problems, medical, industrial and of many other kinds, being caused, could the Minister arrange that on some basis somebody would talk to the people concerned in an effort to try to get them to go back to work?
The proper system of conciliation and arbitration is proceeding. At no time did the union or any section of the union make any complaint either to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs or to the Minister for the Public Service about delays in the handling of the claim. Indeed in this morning's papers it is recorded that the union itself recognises that progress has been necessarily slow because of the complexity of the claim. The negotiations which are in hand are proceeding and will proceed.
In view of the seriousness, mentioned by the Deputies on this side and acknowledged by the Minister, of a disruption of this kind, if there is a continuance of this strike has the Minister any means of ensuring a reintroduction of communication or an alternative means of communication?
What has happened is not a strike. Unofficial action has been taken by a limited number of people contrary to the wishes of the Post Office Engineering Union which has asked them to return to work. Action taken by the State to ensure at least a minimum of maintenance service has been obstructed and people engaged in that maintenance work, which would at least have provided essential services of the kind the Deputies opposite are seeking, have been frustrated by threats to them and indeed to their private homes. It is an intolerable situation and it is one that should not occur. It is right that in this Parliament of the nation we on both sides of the House would join in making a plea to the people involved to return to work so that this matter can be negotiated in the fastest possible way.
Some months ago in this House the Minister for Labour informed me, by way of reply to a parliamentary question, that his intention was to set up a committee to act as an early warning system to end disputes of this nature. Subsequently he said he was having difficulty in setting up this type of committee. Would the Minister not agree that an early warning system operated by a committee of this nature could be very useful in preventing a dispute like this from reaching the stage it has now reached?
The Deputy will realise that if people take unofficial action there is no early warning system which can identify when unofficial action against the wishes of the union is going to be taken, and that is what has occurred in this case. In those circumstances it is not open to the State to be in negotiation with people who are themselves not in good standing with their union, who are acting contrary to the wishes of their union, contrary to the provisions of the national wage agreement and contrary to the conciliation and arbitration scheme which is required to be respected by all parties to it.
Order of Business.
Would the Minister——
Deputies will agree that the Chair has allowed quite a lot of latitude on this matter.
I will be very brief. Would the Minister agree that this type of dispute appears to be coming in the last year or so in State and semi-State bodies?
The Deputy is broadening the scope of the question.
I am referring specifically to the dispute. In view of that, I do not agree with what the Minister has said. I think this early warning system could be of vital importance to anticipate trouble, both official and unofficial.
There are such provisions but the provisions were not used by the people in question. The provisions of the conciliation and arbitration scheme allow people who have any complaints about delay in the processing of their claims to notify the Minister directly concerned and/or the Minister for the Public Service. No notification was served on either Minister. This is an unreasonable action taken by a very small number of people, and unfortunately it has caused maximum inconvenience to the innocent public, which is most unfair.