Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 2 Nov 2005

Vol. 609 No. 1

Adjournment Debate.

Industrial Relations.

Dr. Cowley

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment, namely, the situation in An Post. The sins of An Post against its workers are gross. The Sustaining Progress agreement has not been honoured and that is unforgivable. A basic cost of living increase, which has been outstanding since 3 November 2003, is being denied to those workers. The workers received 5% this year but that payment was not back-dated. It is unacceptable that An Post workers are still owed the remainder of that money. The total amount is 12.5%.

The Minister has treated An Post workers very badly. They are public servants but they are not paid like other civil servants. The company claims it cannot afford to pay them. It wants changes in the collection and delivery service before it will pay, which is a separate issue. The company is denying just payment to post office workers and that is a cost of living issue.

An Post staff and pensioners are owed money by that semi-State company dating back to November 2003. The Communications Workers Union has exhausted all the procedures outlined in Sustaining Progress but has not been able to resolve the matter despite its best intentions. Some 90% of staff have voted in favour of industrial action, which is their democratic right and which is provided for under Sustaining Progress.

As a result of this vote, An Post staff have rejected the Labour Court recommendation. I hope for successful talks because unless that happens, there will be a strike, and nobody wants a strike, particularly the long-suffering public.

The management of An Post is the worst ever. It launched many serious and unsubstantiated allegations against the workers and argued that overtime working is required to maintain the service, yet it has increased the levels of overtime in the past two years and staff have been threatened with disciplinary action or accused of unofficial industrial action if they refuse to perform overtime. Those are low paid postal workers and it is not fair they should be expected or allowed to bear the burden of serious mismanagement and neglect by Government.

I have great sympathy for the postal workers. Rationalisation is the thin end of the wedge. The United States has decided on a policy of keeping its public service, yet we are running towards privatisation which is not in the interests of the people, particularly in rural Ireland. The public service obligation has worked well.

I know of a case of a man who sends a letter by post to his mother every day, which is delivered by the postman. This ensures his mother is being looked after. Such a service cannot be costed other than with reference to a social service. The country is all the richer for having postmen who know their locality and have a wonderful relationship with the people.

I hope the postal service will be retained but the postal staff must be respected. I hope the Minister of State will have some news to give the House tonight to show this situation is being taken seriously before regrettable action occurs.

Mr. Broughan

The failure of An Post management to fulfil one of the key objectives it was mandated with, to successfully manage change and renewal at the company in the context of market deregulation and liberalisation, has been a hallmark of its performance in recent years. The management style has been by diktat rather than by facilitating a transformation in a climate of consultation, co-operation and harmony with the workforce. The results of the failure of An Post management are an indictment of the paucity of its style of management in recent years.

Industrial relations at the company are at an all time low; they are now at a poisonous level. Workers' deep concerns about the deterioration of the postal service have not been taken on board by management. Management has long implemented a ban on recruitment of new staff members, whether in a temporary or permanent capacity, and this has had a serious effect on the universal service obligation, as was the case in the summer. Many districts around the country have not been receiving their due post on a daily basis, rather there is a delay of ten or 15 days. An incredible situation has been allowed to develop. The Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, may think that people easily agree to go out on strike but I assure him that is not the case. Over 90% of a workforce voting 90% in favour of strike action illustrates serious disharmony at the company.

Postal workers and their families have been in contact with my office to alert me to the dire circumstances that often exist in families due to the current pay and conditions at An Post, and that is not including what is being withheld from staff.

Since November 2003, An Post workers and pensioners have been denied the 8% cost of living increase to which they were entitled under Sustaining Progress partnership agreement, which all Members of this House received. Postal employees have been extremely tolerant in enduring this wage freeze for so long when all other groups covered by the Sustaining Progress agreement have received their increases.

An Post made a €7 million profit last year on the basis of a number of years of serious decline. It has built up a considerable war chest from the sale of a number of overseas companies. As the Irish Congress of Trade Unions conference held in Belfast was told, the burden of resolving the difficulties at An Post cannot be exclusively borne by An Post staff, but that seems to have been the case. The staff have been denied their Sustaining Progress increases while at the same time the management received significant bonus payments such as the €12,000 Christmas pay-out last year and the €50,000 received by the part-time chairperson, Ms Margaret McGinley.

If greater efficiencies, productivity and cost-cutting measures are being demanded of the workforce, why is the same not being expected of management, given that it has managed the company so badly?

One of the most outrageous aspects of this whole saga has been that An Post pensioners have been left for so long without receiving their agreed increases. I was informed today that 78 An Post pensioners have passed away in the interim period without ever receiving the increases they were guaranteed under Sustaining Progress. That is an astonishing figure and it a shocking indictment of the way industrial relations have deteriorated at the company.

The Minister has been extensively quoted in the media during the last week and at the Fianna Fáil ard fheis as rubbishing the concerns of postal workers and implying that they are a highly paid and over-indulged group of employees in this State, but the opposite is the case. He referred to a postman who is working for just three and a half hours a day yet being paid for seven and a half hours. The Minister has, as yet, been unable to produce any evidence that this postman, with a seemingly Stakhanovite productivity rate, actually exists.

At such a critical juncture in this dispute it would be outrageous if it were to emerge that the Minister has been acting as a mouthpiece for An Post management, with not a shred of evidence to back up his claim. We have subsequently heard from An Post workers that the new delivery arrangements will result in a significant deterioration in the service to the public. For example, no weekend collections would take place and none would be scheduled after 6 p.m.

For all these reasons postal workers are, correctly, concerned about the effect of current collection and delivery proposals on take home pay and conditions. Given that the universal postal service has been on the verge of collapse under the current management in what is classically a people business, it is clear management has signally failed to manage the company or the change and transformation processes which, as we are all aware, are necessary in this era of deregulation and electronic substitution.

The Minister must give a lead and try to ensure the looming action, which is set to take place at midnight on Thursday, does not take place. I urge the Minister of State to indicate to the House the way forward and how the matter can be resolved.

Mr. Durkan

Sadly, it is almost a year since Deputies discussed the issue of An Post in the House and on Molesworth Street. At that time, everybody agreed that the sad state of industrial relations was of deep concern to An Post workers. The increments to which my colleague, Deputy Broughan, referred were not paid on time during a period when, according to the economic experts on the Government side, the country was awash with money. For some unknown reason, An Post was able to plead inability to pay as a result of which its workers were not paid their entitlements. Worse still, An Post pensioners were given a commitment in legislation passed in 1982 that, notwithstanding the changes being introduced, they would continue to be treated as civil servants, only to find that once the company became a commercial entity, it decided it could not afford to pay them their entitlements.

The Minister's recent intervention, when he suggested he might bring forward competition legislation to speed up privatisation, was not helpful. He should have taken a more positive approach and used his influence, as I hope he is now doing, to bring about a resolution of the underlying issues which have caused the current problems in the company.

Everybody wants and is entitled to a good postal service and people should be able to expect one day delivery in the modern world. There is, however, no point blaming post office workers when this expectation is not realised. Instead, we should ask why An Post workers are discontent. Until the reasons as set out by Deputy Broughan are addressed, the Minister has no right to accuse workers at the company of sabotage or anything else.

The workforce of An Post, from postmen to postmasters, agree that improvements and modernisation are required and that the public must be given a good service. The problem is that nothing is being done to encourage them to take this route and, instead, they are being threatened that increments will be withheld, pension entitlements will not be paid and the company will be privatised if they do not knuckle under.

Is the current fixation with privatisation the answer to everything? While it appears to resolve some problems, any consideration of the privatisation of Telecom Éireann — the classic case of Eircom — raises the question as to whether consumers benefited. Does Eircom deliver better service? Are we better served now in terms of the international league on the provision of modern telephonic services? The answer to both questions is "No".

Would it not be better to modernise An Post and ensure the company has a future by providing a space for it in the modern Ireland? Instead of depriving workers of that to which they have been entitled for the past ten or 15 years, we should recognise the company's pensioners. As Deputy Broughan noted, it is a sad reflection on society that at a time when the country is allegedly awash with money, much of which has been lost and frequently not found, we refuse to recognise the existence of An Post pensioners, many of whom have passed on, by giving them what is theirs by right.

I realise the sensitivity of the negotiations and discussions taking place. As I noted, this is not a time for the Minister to use threats but one for compromise and negotiation. Ultimately, however, we must recognise that if we do not utilise the assets of the postal network, that is, its post offices, sub-post offices and the company's workers, in a manner which delivers an improved, more extensive and efficient service, the current negotiations will go nowhere.

Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Gallagher)

I apologise to Deputies Broughan, Cowley and Durkan and other Members present on behalf of the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, who is unable to come before the House. I thank the Deputies for raising these important issues and giving me an opportunity to respond on behalf of the Minister.

The Government recognises the invaluable contribution made by An Post and its staff down through the years in terms of their input to the overall business climate and the role played by rural post offices and postmen in maintaining the social fabric of rural society. The strong contribution by An Post was possible in the context of a slow moving operational environment. However, the company has not been immune to the seismic changes in the communications sector. The move to e-mail and electronic fund transfers has impacted on postal volumes and post office users. To be relevant in the new environment, therefore, the company must modernise.

The basic building block for any company is financial stability and An Post has not yet met this basic requirement. As the Minister stated previously in the House, the company has suffered significant losses in recent years, starting with €6.7 million in 2001, rising to €17.4 million in 2002 before reaching an unsustainable level of €42.9 million in 2003. Between 2001 and 2002, payroll costs alone increased by €50 million. This financial performance, if allowed to continue unchecked, would have bankrupted the company.

An Post needs to introduce modern work practices if it is to thrive in a competitive environment. The company will face more rather than less competition in coming years and it needs to be geared to address this challenge. Large international companies such as Royal Mail and the German post office are already operating in the Irish market. If An Post cannot meet consumer needs and deliver a high quality of service, these companies will be more than happy to ramp up their operations here to fill the gap.

Mr. Durkan

They will not ramp them up.

Mr. Gallagher

Time is not on the side of An Post and its workers. I will outline the lengthy background to current industrial relations at An Post and impress upon the Deputies that the current circumstances have not arisen overnight. An Post has been through one of the most intensive industrial relations processes imaginable. The process started when, following the disclosure of serious losses for 2003, the Government asked the board and management of the company to prepare a recovery strategy to return An Post to financial solvency. The plan involved changes in work practices and voluntary job losses. This strategy, in setting the way forward for the company, has assumed significant changes in work practices, tariff increases and the payment of wage increases.

The plan was presented to An Post trade unions in late 2003. The Communications Workers Union withdrew from negotiations in December 2003. In recognition of the dire financial position facing the company, An Post invoked the inability to pay clause available under Sustaining Progress. This was followed by industrial action in the Dublin Mail Centre in March 2004. The Labour Relations Commission brokered settlement proposals which involved negotiations on collection and delivery and, in the event of failure to reach agreement in the LRC, referral to the Labour Court. The LRC proposals stated that the outcome of any LRC or Labour Court negotiations should be put to the respective sides, including a ballot of members.

The two parties spent from April 2004 to November 2004 in the LRC. The proposals arising out of the LRC were put to the Communications Workers Union membership and turned down by the union. The outstanding issues were then referred to the Labour Court for resolution. On foot of union concerns that An Post management had no real experience of the postal sector, the Labour Court appointed a three-person expert group to come up with a workable proposal on collection and delivery that would be acceptable to members of the CWU. That group spent six months working on a comprehensive proposal regarding collection and delivery, which was published in July 2005.

In the early part of 2005, the An Post group of unions referred the non-payment of Sustaining Progress to the LRC, as provided for under the Sustaining Progress agreement. The LRC appointed assessors to examine the claim. The assessors' report recommended that, having regard to An Post financials, 5% should be paid to employees, backdated to 1 January this year. That recommendation was accepted by An Post management and rejected by the CWU.

The Labour Court issued a comprehensive recommendation which outlined that the acceptance of the deal on collection and delivery would trigger payment of the bulk of Sustaining Progress. The Labour Court deal would have allowed a postman to obtain a 9% pay increase this year on top of a 5% Sustaining Progress pay increase already made, giving a total increase of 14%.

The Labour Court recommendation was considered by the executive of the CWU but was not put to a ballot of members. Instead, the union decided to ballot for strike action on the non-payment of Sustaining Progress. The membership has voted for strike action and the union has given two weeks' strike notice, with action possibly to commence on 4 November. It is still not clear at this stage what type of action that will be.

On the other hand, a recent and very positive development in the payment of Sustaining Progress to An Post staff and pensioners occurred yesterday when An Post accepted the Labour Court recommendations on the claims by the other unions in An Post, the AHCPS, CPSU and PSEU, for payment of Sustaining Progress. The rejection by the CWU in September of the Labour Court recommendations issued to the An Post group of unions regarding the payment of Sustaining Progress effectively blocked payment to the AHCPS, CPSU and PSEU.

The three unions then decided to pursue separate claims for payment of Sustaining Progress on behalf of their members. The Labour Court decided yesterday that, as the members of both the AHCPS and CPSU have agreed and implemented change agreements, they are entitled to Sustaining Progress as set out in the Labour Court recommendation issued last July. The PSEU has agreed in advance to accept an imminent Labour Court decision on a programme of change for its members. The Labour Court, having examined those issues, recommended that PSEU members receive the same Sustaining Progress payments as the other two unions on acceptance of its decision by both parties.

Following acceptance by the three unions of the Labour Court recommendation, I understand that arrangements are being made by the company to proceed with the outstanding payments as soon as possible. I am particularly pleased that the increases will also be paid to all pensioners who retired from positions represented by the three unions as it is an unfortunate side effect of the dispute that payments to pensioners have also been affected.

The recent Labour Court decision clearly shows that, where unions agree and implement change agreements, outstanding payments will be made. It is a reality that change is imperative in An Post as almost 70% of costs are payroll related. To provide Deputies with an example, every 1% increase in the payroll costs the company €5 million, and the cost of Sustaining Progress alone this year is estimated at €38 million. To enable the company to pay the large wage bill, the cost-saving measures outlined in the recovery strategy must be implemented.

The Labour Court would not have tied payment of Sustaining Progress to a deal on collection and delivery if it had not recognised the imperative to begin restructuring now. There is no doubt that the decision by the CWU to take industrial action will have an impact on both personal and business customers. An Post is preparing contingency and communications plans to deal with the forthcoming industrial action which will address, in particular, the needs of social welfare recipients and provide information to customers regarding postal services.

No interest is advanced by a descent into industrial relations chaos in An Post. Unlike with the postal strike 25 years ago, alternatives to the postal service now exist. Customers who leave An Post may not return, a fact which everyone should bear in mind. As the Taoiseach and the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, have both outlined, the blueprint for the settlement of this dispute is the Labour Court recommendation. That is necessary to bring about the essential modernisation of the company, which is the best way of securing long-term sustainable jobs for An Post workers and ensuring the continuation of a high quality nationwide postal delivery and post office service. The earlier that the CWU recognises that, the better for the public, social welfare clients and its own membership.

With that in mind, both parties accepted an invitation to meet the national implementation body separately for talks aimed at resolving the dispute and averting strike action. Those talks took place this afternoon and the outcome should be known shortly. However, it is hoped that both parties availed of this opportunity to resolve their difficulties and agree a road map for the implementation of the recommendations of the Labour Court. It is important that all players realise that globalisation, liberalisation and developments in technology are changing the way that people communicate. All national postal operators, including An Post, must change very rapidly to stay competitive and commercial in the European postal market.

In light of the recent announcement by the CWU that it had rejected the Labour Court recommendation on collection and delivery and that it had balloted its members on taking industrial action which may lead to a serious disruption to postal services, the Minister announced that he was considering all options open to him, up to and including early liberalisation of the sector, to limit the disruption caused to the sector and the economy at large as a result of any prolonged period of industrial action.

The unresolved difficulties in An Post cannot remain unresolved into the future. The momentum for liberalisation already exists and if An Post does not start to restructure, it will not be in a position to meet the competitive challenges of a fully liberalised postal market. For that reason, I urge all parties to reconsider the terms of the Labour Court settlement as time is not on the side of An Post.

Criminal Prosecutions.

Ms McManus

On 22 May 2003, a young woman, Georgina Eager, was brutally murdered in Dublin. Her family was devastated by the loss of a lovely and gentle daughter and sister. Their anguish was compounded by an ordeal resulting from a decision by the Irish authorities to let the case be heard in a British court. For the first time, a person accused of such a crime committed in Ireland did not have his extradition sought by the Irish Director of Public Prosecutions to stand trial here. It was an unprecedented and, for the family, inexplicable decision.

To this day, they have received no clear explanation why the decision was made. I raised this matter by way of a parliamentary question and got no explanation either. The family was eventually advised to contact the DPP's office. When they did so, their calls were not returned. Finally, an approach was made by the family to the Garda Síochána and a letter issued from the DPP on 14 September. The DPP's explanation is in direct conflict with the statement made to the family by the British police who expressed both frustration and puzzlement with the Irish authorities for failing to seek the extradition of the accused.

In January 2005, the accused began a fitness-to-plead challenge, which was heard in London. One family member attended court, but there was no Garda or legal presence representing the Irish State at that hearing. The DPP stated in his letter that he was satisfied with the efficient way in which the murder case had been handled by the Crown Prosecution Service and so did the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell. However, how do they know to make that judgment when they received no legal advice? The DPP and the Minister would no doubt claim that the verdict proves that they were right, but that is disingenuous. If the next time a family is put in this position and the verdict goes against them, what will the Minister and DPP say?

The trial began on 8 August 2005 and the family travelled to London at its own expense and without support. It sought to have a legal representative of the Irish State present in the court, but that was denied. It sought assistance for help with the costs. That too was denied, in stark contrast to the decision by the Irish Government to send a legal representative to the inquest into the deaths of three Irish people in Gibraltar and to have diplomatic representation at the trial of the Columbia Three, together with the loan of money for bail. In the case of the Eager family, however, no support was provided. Any diplomatic presence in the court was a result of my independent representations. With the exception of help given by the Garda, it is shameful that members of an Irish family forced to depend on British justice found themselves effectively abandoned by their own State.

After intense lobbying we were informed that funds were available through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal Board. The circumstance of the trial, however, had no bearing on eligibility for this funding. Anyway the funds have run out so it will be next year before the family has a chance of getting anything.

It is bad enough for a family to have to travel abroad for a trial of this nature without consular or legal assistance from the State, but what marks this case was that the Irish authorities had an option to hear the case in Ireland and chose not to. The family have three different accounts about why that choice was made, one from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, one from the DPP and one from the British police. Is it not time that they were told the truth?

Mr. Gallagher

I thank Deputy McManus for raising this important issue and apologise for the absence of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I express my deepest sympathy to the family and friends of the late Georgina Eager on her tragic and untimely death. The facts that I have to outline, in answer to the assertions made by Deputy McManus, concerning the assistance provided by a number of State agencies are not meant to detract in any way from the loss suffered by them. Nothing could compensate for that.

Deputy McManus will be aware that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform does not have a role in providing assistance to the family of a victim of a crime in attending a trial abroad. There are, however, other supports available which were availed of by the family of Georgina Eager during the trial of Christopher Newman.

Christopher Newman was arrested in London having fled Ireland following the murder of Georgina Eager. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform had no function or role in the decision to charge him here with her murder. The role of the Minister and his Department, in so far as they had any role, was confined to the provision of mutual legal assistance to the UK authorities. In this case a request for assistance was made by the British authorities. This request, which was complied with, consisted of interviews with certain witnesses, including the victim's father, as well as the provision of other evidence. Without the provision of this assistance it is doubtful that Christopher Newman would have been found guilty of the murder of Georgina Eager.

Significant assistance was provided to the family by the Garda before and during the trial. From an early stage a Garda liaison officer was appointed and he was in regular contact with members of the family. The liaison garda also met the family each day during the trial. This was in addition to the assistance provided by the Garda with the arrangements for the attendance of witnesses at the trial, including family members who gave evidence.

The Irish Embassy in London provided all possible consular assistance to the Eager family members during the time they spent in London attending the trial. The Irish Ambassador, who met them during their stay in London, assigned a diplomatic officer to members of the Eager family on the opening day of the trial on 8 August 2005, who assured them that she would be available to provide consular assistance throughout their stay in London. She ensured that they had her direct contact details and suggested that they could contact her at any time.

This officer attended the trial for the opening and closing weeks and approximately twice a week in the intervening period. She provided information and advice to family members on a number of issues of concern to them, including compensation available towards the financial costs of attending the trial in London. This was provided on advice from the Minister's Department. She also liaised with the UK witness service victims support unit on their behalf to ensure that transport to and from the family's hotel would be provided throughout the trial. She arranged for the typing of printed statements for the family, including the victim impact statement which was presented to the judge before sentencing.

Furthermore, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform indicated that the financial burden suffered by the Eager family in attending the trial could be alleviated through the criminal injuries compensation scheme. This scheme, to which the family can apply, is administered by an independent tribunal. Its purpose is to compensate victims for expenses and losses borne as a result of personal injuries inflicted in a crime. The tribunal is entirely responsible for deciding whether compensation is payable in any particular case but if an applicant is unhappy with the initial decision of a single tribunal member, the case can then be appealed to a three-member oral hearing.

Under the scheme, the family of a person who has died as a result of a criminal injury is entitled to apply for actual loss of earnings or expenses that have arisen due to the person's death as well as for funeral expenses. Although the scheme does not cover compensation for pain and suffering, a payment can be made in respect of mental distress for the immediate family members, as defined in the Civil Liability Acts. The total amount available under this heading is just over €25,000.

I understand that, with Deputy McManus's assistance, the Eager family has applied to the tribunal for compensation. As is normal practice, the secretariat is endeavouring to assemble sufficient information so as to enable the tribunal make a properly informed determination on the case. For that reason, the secretariat is following up a number of queries with the family, again via Deputy McManus. Of necessity a certain amount of detail will be required to support the claim but the documentation sought is not particularly onerous or unusual. Expenditure incurred can generally be vouched using receipts or credit card accounts, for example, while loss of earnings are normally certified by an employer. Details of expenses met from any other sources, such as the UK authorities in this instance, will also be followed up by the secretariat.

The tribunal secretariat will offer any assistance to the family or the Deputy in clarifying the requirements so as to enable the claim to be advanced as soon as possible. As soon as the necessary detail is assembled, the case will be referred to a tribunal member for a decision. Depending on the complexity of the case and the other claims on hand, the processing time may take a number of months but I am sure that the tribunal will deal with the claim as quickly as possible in the circumstances.

I hope that what I have said will serve to put the record straight on the support provided to the family by the various State agencies.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.20 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 3 November 2005.