asked the Minister for Labour if he, or agencies under his Department, have been asked to advise on, or conciliate in its current labour relations problems by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs; and if any initiative in that regard has been taken by his Department.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Department of Posts and Telegraphs Dispute.
28.
I have been involved in discussions with the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs concerning this dispute and have indeed accompanied him at a recent meeting with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in the matter.
I am in full agreement with the action being taken by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in this most difficult dispute. I wish to state that I am satisfied that the dispute can be settled through the established machinery which, I should remind the House, is the outcome of comprehensive negotiations between the Department and all the unions—that is, of course, if these procedures are used.
I would also like to put on record my view that departure from the negotiated procedures accepted by the Department and the unions could have adverse consequences for industrial relations in the future.
On a point of order, I want to register my dissatisfaction——
The point of order is accepted.
——with the treatment I am getting when asking supplementary questions.
I must warn the Deputy, as I have already, that if he tries to monopolise Question Time with irrelevant questions I will have to take drastic action. Supplementary questions, as I have already mentioned a number of times to the Deputy, are only for the elucidation of information sought in the original question. None of the questions that the Deputy has been asking is permissible if the Chair wants to rule strictly. We have 359 questions, and the Deputy must get out of this habit.
I seldom come into the House at Question Time but I have responsibility for Fine Gael in the Labour area.
I am concerned with giving the Deputy, like every other Deputy in the House, all the fair play he is entitled to.
I am fairly new to the House. I look for guidance as to what recourse a Deputy who, like me, feels he is getting unfair treatment from the Chair, has. I am asking for guidance.
It is not the Chair's duty to explain. The Deputy can raise the matter with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I suggest that the Deputy look up the Standing Orders in relation to questions, which will be of tremendous help to a new Deputy.
I did not get the full answer that the Minister gave to Question No. 28 and, as it is important, I would ask, through the Chair, that it be read again.
Will the Minister please repeat the reply to Question No. 28?
I have been involved in discussions with the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs concerning this dispute and have, indeed, accompanied him at a recent meeting with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in the matter.
I am in full agreement with the action being taken by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in this most difficult dispute. I wish to state that I am satisfied that the dispute can be settled through the established machinery which, I should remind the House, is the outcome of comprehensive negotiations between the Department and all the unions—that is, of course, if these procedures are used.
I would like to put on record my view that departure from the negotiated procedures accepted by the Department and the unions could have adverse consequences for industrial relations in the future.
Do I take it from the reply that the Minister for Labour agrees with and supports the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in calling for a return to work of those employed in the Post Office?
Of course.
Do I take it that the Minister for Labour disassociates himself from a situation where those at work are contrived into a situation where they are suspended, and will the Minister ask the Labour Court to investigate these allegations?
I have no evidence of what the Deputy suggests.
The Minister may be aware of a comment by a judge in the High Court yesterday who stated that the Minister had contrived to put people in a suspensory situation.
That is totally out of order.
Surely the Minister will not accept a situation where he can agree with the action of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in view of a judge's remark yesterday that there was a plot——
That is not in order. Questions cannot be asked about matters raised in the courts.
Surely the Minister cannot accept that.
I am calling the next question.
The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is putting people out of work and not getting them back to work.
May I ask a supplementary question?
Yes, just one.
The Chair, as a former Minister for Labour, will understand, that this is an interesting subject. It is interesting to note that the Minister for Labour is in agreement with the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. Does the present Minister for Labour see any role for himself or his Department if this dispute continues?
I will be keeping in close touch with the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in this situation and with developments generally.
This is a very difficult and, I think, the most serious dispute in the country for years. Can the Minister tell me if this dispute extended to Cork today?
Not to my knowledge
That is a separate question, but in the interests of Cork I will permit the Minister to answer it.
I would have thought that the Minister would have had the same problem that I had this morning because of the dispute.
On a point of order, if the Chair's rulings regarding supplementary questions are to be based on the geographical location of a Minister or Deputy one would despair as to the impartiality and fairness that would be extended in the asking of supplementary questions.
I hope the Deputy is not taking my remarks seriously.
I am taking some of the Chair's rulings very seriously.
I have been more than liberal with regard to supplementary questions.
The Chair could have fooled me.
The House will take leave to differ.
I am prepared to accept any examination by what-ever procedure the Deputy may wish. I am calling Question No. 29.