Vol. 419 No. 10
13 Mr. Byrne asked the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications if she will outline her views on the performance of the management of An Post in regard to industrial relations in the company, and if she will make a statement on the matter.
My objective is to ensure that An Post are in a position to provide an efficient, cost-effective postal service in an industrial relations environment free from disruption of services.
The conduct of industrial relations by An Post is a matter of day-to-day operations by the company. They do not have to secure my approval for the way in which they deal with particular issues as they arise in this area.
While An Post may not require the Minister's observations the Minister certainly makes her observations and support of management very public. Would the Minister agree that the policy of An Post management is one of clear conflict and confrontation; that, for example, the decision of management to refuse to pay wages to working staff was, to say the least, provocative, which when coupled with the two rounds of massed suspensions and the decision of An Post management to unilaterally implement the recommendations of the special tribunal established under the Labour Relations Commission, without concluding negotiations with the Communications Workers' Union, indicate quite clearly that the management of An Post are determined to destroy the trade union movement representing male and female employees of which there are approximately 6,000? Furthermore, would the Minister not agree that her position, in supporting management, has been an unacceptable slap in the face to industrial relations here? I would appeal to the Minister finally to stay off-side in this dispute, perhaps allowing the likes of Deputy Callely — who can bring children back to school — handle delicate issues like these because I believe she is merely adding fuel to the flames?
I said from the beginning of this dispute that I am on the side of the national interest and the taxpayer. The Government have made it clear to An Post management that they will not be prepared to provide a subsidy for An Post to become viable and break even in 1992. The Government asked the Labour Relations Commission to bring together both sides in the dispute to discuss their difficulties. We set up a tribunal and recommendations were made by them and the Labour Relations Commission. These recommendations were accepted by the management of An Post but were not accepted by the trade union.
I have no wish to be painted as being in a hardline corner in relation to a dispute in any organisation which comes under the aegis of my Department, but one must be realistic. I spoke earlier about the implications of the Green Paper on postal services published by the commission. I am as anxious as anyone in this House to see this dispute resolved and to see both sides sitting down together not just talking but negotiating. We have had 41 meetings with both sides but unfortunately very little has been achieved. The Labour Relations Commission machinery is available and will remain available and every encouragement is being given to both sides to go to the Labour Relations Commission. That is the only way in which this dispute can be resolved. I believe in dealing with the realities and the reality in this case is that An Post are losing money. If this trend is not corrected at this stage An Post will not be in existence by the beginning of 1995.
Would the Minister accept that there is a common perception — it is certainly the perception on this side of the House as a result of what she said here — that she is on one side in this dispute? That is a bad thing for her to do. Does she agree that the Government bear considerable responsibility for the present dispute given that 16 months ago the An Post viability plan outlined the position in the company? The Minister's predecessor described the position in An Post as a crisis which required immediate attention. However, the Government have done nothing to resolve those problems since then. This dispute is a direct result of inaction by the Government during that time. This has led to a deterioration in An Post——
Brevity please, Deputy.
Finally, I wish to ask the Minister if she watched the "Today Tonight" programme on television last night on which representatives of the two main contenders in this dispute were interviewed? These representatives were on their best behaviour, as we all tend to be when we are on television. If she listend to what they said, would she not agree that the actual difference between both sides is quite small and that if a real effort was made to bring these people together and an unbiased person kept at the table this dispute could be settled and much unnecessary hardship avoided?
As I said initially, I am on the side of the national interest and the taxpayer. That is the side I have to be on: as Minister I have no choice in this. I have spoken separately to the Communications Workers' Union and the Communications Managers' Union over the past ten days. I have outlined my views in relation to the dispute to both unions, where I stand and where I think the future lies in terms of this dispute. I believe the resolution of this dispute lies very firmly in the offer of the Labour Relations Commission being taken up. As the Deputy is aware, the dispute was moved forward this week when the Labour Relations Commission sought an elaboration of the tribunal's recommendations. It is perceived that there is a difference between the way management view the tribunal's proposals and the way the trade union view them. It is important for both sides to sit down at the table together once that elaboration has been got. At the end of the day it is not I, Deputy Currie or anyone in this House who will resolve the dispute; it can only be resolved by both sides sitting down together. I agree with the Deputy that if the kind of cordial relations which were displayed on the national airwaves last night were displayed at the negotiating table there would be a great possibility of progress being made.
The Minister is not helping the process.
Order.
Would the Minister agree that this dispute is indicative of what is happening generally in the public service, that is, we are turning the public service into a part-time workshop by hiring temporary workers who have no pension rights, no social welfare rights and no other rights? This practice is beginning to sweep through the public service. Does the Minister agree that she should indicate to An Post that that type of policy is not in the best interests of taxpayers who are, after all, the people working in An Post.
The policy of recruiting part-time and temporary staff, the issue causing most pain in this dispute, is already being operated by An Post throughout the provinces. Therefore, it is not true to say they are introducing a new and different practice in Dublin which has not been in operation already. As I said before — I cannot reiterate this point often enough — the solution to this dispute lies at the negotiating table of the Labour Relations Commission. I again appeal to both sides, as I have done on every public occasion afforded to me, to sit down at that table and to negotiate a resolution to the dispute. I believe that this can be done and the dispute can be resolved.
I put it to the Minister that the practice of casual employment in An Post, and in any other sector, must be a matter of central concern to the Government in view of the proposals contained in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and other job creation programmes which have been bandied about so often by them. Has the Minister, on behalf of the Government and in pursuit of the aims and objectives set out in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, made representations to An Post about the increased use and reliance on casual employment as means of job creation? Would she not agree that it would be more in keeping with the aims set out in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress if the management of An Post were asked to have more regard to the creation of permanent rather than part-time and poorly paid jobs?
This goes back to my answer to the previous supplementary. An Post are not introducing anything new in their proposals to employ part-time and temporary staff. Part-time and temporary staff are employed by An Post in my province and all other provinces.
What about Government policy?
The best way of dealing with this dispute is for both sides to sit down in a reasonable manner around the negotiating table of the Labour Relations Commission.
I am not talking about the dispute; I am talking about Government policy.
If both sides were prepared to do that and really negotiate then I believe this dispute could be resolved.
In the event of this dispute continuing for the next two weeks, may I ask the Minister the plans she has put in place to ensure voters receive their voting cards before the referendum on 18 June?
That matter is being considered in the context of the committee set up by the Government to deal with all operational matters in relation to the European Union Treaty referendum on 18 June.
A final question from Deputy Byrne.
I rise to find out if the Minister has a soul or heart. Does she have anything more to offer the 6,000 workers and their families other than merely saying they should sit down at the negotiating table, given that her stated views support the position of An Post? Will she add her voice to the fears being expressed about the practice of casual employment given that these post office workers were fully fledged civil servants, had a particular status in society and had certain rights which are now about to be thrown out the door? Can the Minister give these workers any encouragement other than saying they should sit down around the negotiating table?
I should not like to speculate as to whether or not I have a soul but I hope anyone who knows me would appreciate that I have a heart.
The Minister has both.
Thank you, Deputy. I have said several times that I have no wish to be painted as being in a hardline corner. I have said repeatedly — I said it to the Communications Workers' Union in Tralee and the Communications Managers' Union in Galway at the weekend — that I am on the side of the national interest and the taxpayer in this dispute.
And the workers can go to hell.
It is unfair for people to say that something new is being done in this instance that it not being done anywhere else.
Why does the Minister find it so hard to refer to the workers and their rights?
The facts are that temporary and part-time workers are employed by An Post in all provinces. What I am saying is that I am not the one who is going to be able to resolve this dispute. All I can do is assist in making available the machinery which already exists for a resolution of disputes and encourage both parties to go to the table to negotiate.
Whatever about the Minister's heart, spirit and kindness, I hope she has the patience to endure one other question.
We have to listen to the Minister, and that also requires a little patience.
The Deputy has the option in his feet.
I was expecting that answer from you. We have heard it repetitiously in the House. Arising from the Minister's reply is she telling us that another task force has been set up by the Government to deal with the delivery of voting cards to people throughout the country?
May I take it then that the Fianna Fáil organisation will deliver them?
No, I merely outlined to the Deputy the arrangements put in place by every Government at a time of referendum, that is that there is always an operational committee who look at the day to day operation, whether of delivery of information or whatever. That was done with the Single European Act, also before we joined the Community in 1972 and in each of the various referenda that have been held. The position will be no different in this case.
There was not a postal strike then.
We are now moving on——
I thought you were giving me the option of speaking.
The Chair does not give options. Question have finished; we are six minutes over the time.
I thought you were going to give me an option.
I do not give options.
I will remember that in future.
