Vol. 309 No. 1
asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs if any effort is being made to settle the postal dispute at Enfield, County Meath; if he is satisfied that (a) sufficient money is being paid to the sub-postmaster to pay the staff a fair wage; and (b) if not, if he will increase the amount; or (c) have the office taken over and run by the State.
15.
asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs the action he has taken to settle the postal and telephone dispute in Enfield, County Meath.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 14 and 15 together.
The dispute is between the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union, representing the assistants at Enfield sub-post office, and the postmaster who employs the assistants. I understand that discussions have taken place between both parties, under the chairmanship of an officer of the conciliation service of the Labour Court, but that a basis for settling the dispute has not yet been found. I would urge both parties to redouble their efforts to find a solution to the dispute which, regrettably, is causing great inconvenience and hardship to residents in the Enfield area who have been deprived of telephone and mail services.
In regard to the amount of money which the Department pay the postmaster, the position is that postmasters are paid for the post office services they provide in accordance with rates of remuneration which are settled nationally under the postmasters' conciliation and arbitration scheme. The present rates of remuneration were agreed following negotiations with the Postmasters' Union and take account of the various costs involved in the running of sub-post offices. Any question of increasing the rates of remuneration would be a matter for consideration under the conciliation and arbitration scheme. My understanding is that the main issue in dispute at present is the union's claim for reinstatement of an assistant who was dismissed by the postmaster.
It is not proposed to replace the suboffice in Enfield by an office run by staff employed by the Department.
Is the Minister aware that this dispute is now over five months old? The information he has now given is very similar to that given to me by the Minister responsible in June of this year in this House. Is he aware that, over a whole wide area, a number of smaller sub-post offices are ineffective as well as the post office in Enfield? No post or telephone calls are going in or out. Calls to industrialists and social welfare payments have been stopped over the past number of months. Does the Minister consider that putting his head in the sand ostrich-like is the way to settle this dispute?
The Deputy is making a nice long speech.
A very good one.
If the Minister were here I would propose to raise the matter on the adjournment, and I will propose to arrange it on Tuesday next le cúnamh Dé. The reply given is absolutely ludicrous. Does the Minister consider the amount of money being given to the sub-post master is sufficient to pay the staff for running the office? That is the kernal of the trouble. Reinstatement or anything like that is a side issue. If the sub-post master is not getting the amount of money required to run the post office he should get more, and if he is getting enough money the State should do something about it and not allow this to hang on for six, seven or eight months.
As I indicated in the reply, the rates of remuneration for these services are agreed following negotiations conducted through recognised procedures. If I understand the import of the Deputy's remarks, he is saying that every time a problem or difficulty occurs one should throw out the existing procedures.
Every time a whole area is tied up in knots for five or six months the Government of the day should do something about it and not just hide. People are getting sick and tired of the Minister keeping his head down and letting things blow over.
In questions of this nature, if the procedures are followed the mechanisms are there.
They are not working.
If they are not working it does not necessarily follow that it is the Minister who is putting his head in the sand.
So it does not matter about the people of Enfield?
I did not say that. On the contrary, on a number of occasions the Minister has urged the parties to come together and resolve this dispute. He is aware of the difficulties being caused to the residents of the area. The dispute did not originate with the Minister.
He should be trying to settle it.
Would the Minister agree that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has ultimate responsibility for settling this dispute in that this service operates as a statutory monopoly created by the law and the Minister is responsible for that law? Furthermore, would he agree that the people of Enfield and the surrounding areas have a constitutional right to a postal service and the Government are bound by the Constitution to vindicate that right?
I do not think it appropriate to enter into discussions on constitutional rights. If there is any question in that area, I would suggest the courts would be a more appropriate place for interpreting or identifying the nature of those rights.
Regardless of the provisions of the Constitution, in view of the fact that this service operates by virtue of a statutory monopoly, would the Minister not agree that the Minister who operates that monopoly has a special responsibility to settle a dispute in that monopoly?
I would hope the Deputy is not serious in that remark. If he thinks it through, he will realise what he is saying. Every monopoly is vulnerable to an interruption in its service. If you are to respond to such interruptions by saying the monopolist must automatically rectify the situation, you are creating a second monopoly technically, you are creating a monopoly on the supply side. I do not see that the wellbeing of the community is furthered by promoting double monopolies.
I want to ask a non-contentious supplementary. Perhaps the Minister would ask his colleague to look at this as a special case because Enfield is not an ordinary sub-post office.
That is special pleading. Question No. 16. We must make some progress.
I shall certainly draw the Minister's attention to the Deputy's remarks.
In view of the fact that a number of sub-post offices are being dealt with through Enfield and the fact that it is as big as any of the big towns in the midlands.
