Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 26 Mar 1969

Vol. 66 No. 10

Dismissal of Trade Union Member: Motion.

Mr. McQuillan

I move:

"That Seanad Éireann urges the Government to review the situation wherein a member of a properly constituted Trade Union which holds a negotiating licence is dismissed for participating in activities which are lawful under existing Trade Union legislation."

This motion has been on the Order Paper for some considerable time. Circumstances have somewhat altered since it was drafted. The principle behind it has not changed. The particular event which took place is something about which I felt very strongly at the time and if anything my feeling that a grave injustice was done by the dismissal of this trade unionist has been reinforced. I was personally involved in a big way politically because the Party to which I belonged at the time and myself parted company as a result of this motion. I can say I am personally involved and perhaps at times one may be too close to a subject to have an unbiased view. I hope in the comments I have to make, to be as fair as possible all round. I hope Members of the House will agree with me that an injustice was done at the particular time.

The particular official to whom I refer in this motion was a supervisor in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. I do not propose to mention his name in the course of my contribution. He was dismissed by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs because he took strike action on the directive of the executive of his properly constituted trade union. The union I refer to is the Post Office Officials' Association. That union was established in 1966. I will not bore the House with the details of its objectives but I will briefly point out that its main objective was to promote the welfare of four related grades in the post office—telephonist, clerical grade and two management or supervisory grades, the supervisors and postmasters.

It is the first union of its kind that we know of to promote the merging of management and staff in the same association within the Civil Service. Involved in its constitution was what I considered a very admirable principle. One of its objectives was to encourage the promotion and the expansion of new services to the community within the Post Office. That may sound a new role so far as trade unions are concerned. That departs altogether from the role of looking after salaries and conditions of the members of the union.

The union declared that one of its objectives was the improvement and expansion of services to the community. Also, one of the major objectives was to obtain for its members access to the Labour Court. I will deal with that later because of the importance of recent events in which the Minister played a big part. Another objective was the obtaining of civil rights for Post Office workers. When I deal with civil rights I will be brief because there is another motion to deal with that. In the British Post Office, a supervisor, which is a high rank in the GPO in London, can stand as a Member of Parliament for the Labour or Conservative Party or any other Party. In Ireland, the humblest postman or cleaner in the Post Office has not the right to belong to a political Party.

One of the objectives of the Association was to establish equal conditions as between England and Ireland. In the North at the moment there is a great hullabaloo about civil rights. In the Post Office in the Six Counties there is no trouble so far as civil rights are concerned because all employees under supervisors have full entitlement to take full part in politics.

It is not the same down here and we hope in our Association to have that remedied. I want to come to what is a serious criticism in many people's minds of the Post Office Officials' Association. A charge has been made against it by prominent trade union people and by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs that the Association or union is fragmenting the trade union movement and that there are too many trade unions in the country without forming fresh ones. I accept, when you discuss it in general terms, that it would appear there is an excess of unions within the State and that a system of rationalisation is due. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions have on a number of occasions expressed their anxiety to bring about a rationalisation so far as trade unions are concerned and to bring about a reduction in the number of trade unions. That is something with which the Post Office Officials' Association is in full agreement. The Association is not fragmenting the trade union movement in any sense. It is carrying out the wish of Congress by merging a number of existing unions.

At the present time you have a postmasters' association and a controlling officers' association. I do not want to be critical of those associations but they are small and to a great extent they are house associations. If this new association received the recommendation from the Minister which it deserves, in a very short space of time both of those small house trade unions would disappear and be merged in this larger union.

There are four grades catered for by the Post Office Officials' Association. Three other unions cater for those four grades and the objective of this new Association was that one union in future would cater for the four grades instead of three unions which is the position at the moment. Because it sought to bring about that merging of existing unions and at the same time to bring management into the same association, the wrath of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs descended on it.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Is that merger formed under the auspices of Congress?

Mr. McQuillan

No, but Congress has expressed itself throught the Secretary, Ruadhrí Roberts, on a number of occasions that they did not altogether dispute it. Ruadhrí Roberts, speaking on the question of trade unions on the 27th March, 1967, had this to say:

Congress has refused—and would continue to do so—to use itself as an instrument to bludgeon or force workers into unions or groups they might not want to join.

Congress has refused an offer from the Government to state which union should exist and which should not. The right to form associations and to act together was a worker's right.

That is the statement by the present Secretary of Congress—that the members of the Post Office Officials' Association were doing nothing contrary to what Mr. Roberts had stated on 27th March as reported in the Irish Times. That was at a time when the first discussions were taking place on the 1966 Industrial Relations Bill and the Trade Union Bill, both Bills which have since been discussed on Second Reading in the Dáil recently. On that occasion the Irish Independent in 1966 wrote a leading article from which I will quote a short extract because it is very pertinent even though we have had a lot of trouble lately with a major dispute, particularly the maintenance dispute, and I would not like to comment on that but to quote regarding the other issues involved in this particular Motion. Speaking on the Industrial Relations Bill, 1966, the Irish Independent leading article had this to say:

The Government's inclination revealed by the Taoiseach to give Congress a veto on the formation of new unions will take a lot of justifying. We can readily admit the dangers inherent in breakaways and in the proliferation of unions catering for the same kind of workers within a single industry. It would surely be a denial of basic right, however, to proceed in the way Mr. Lemass seems to favour. Objections arise on two scores. In the first place Congress consists of established unions. Workers dissatisfied perhaps on good ground with the body in which they found themselves could under the Taoiseach's plan be shackled to those with whom they disagreed. Secondly, while the constitutional right to form a union is subject to the regulation and control of the Legislature, the possibility of an outright prohibition against exercising that right might seem to go far beyond the qualifications laid down by the Constitution.

And the article ended on this note: "Justice can never yield to expediency however pressing the need."

I want to submit to the House that it was a question of expediency that directed the efforts of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and others in their attitude and conduct towards this association culminating in the dismissal of an excellent official from his post as a supervisor. The period to which I have referred was 1966, and at the present time all that we hear talk about is the workers' right to participate in management. This association was preaching that four years ago at its foundation, and the belief is now stronger than ever that the association's views at the time were correct, because we have the Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party now both approving of some kind of worker participation. Where better to set an example than where the Government has the opportunity to test how it can work? The Post Office is the greatest business concern in the State under Civil Service control. We should never look upon the Post Office as in the same light as the Department of Defence, the Department of Justice or any of the other Government Departments.

The Post Office is and should be a business concern, a go-getter out to get new business. Post Office workers are public relations people. They face the general public, they discuss across counters, they talk across the telephone and they are a buffer between the general public and the Government and State Departments, so that they should never in personnal relations be put on the same basis as an overseer sitting in a cubby-hole in a completely departmental institution.

An Cathaoirleach

Perhaps we can now come to the terms of the motion.

Mr. McQuillan

I am leading up to what happened and to the foundation of this association which culminated in the dismissal of——

An Cathaoirleach

That may be, but the Chair feels that the Senator is moving very far outside the terms of the motion.

Mr. McQuillan

I certainly do not want to cross swords with the Chair on this matter, but I do submit that the background of the dismissal is of vital importance and that to deal purely with the motion without giving reasons and what led up to the dismissal would be very unfair. I do not propose to go much further into the point which I was referring to and I would ask your forbearance for a moment or two on that. From its foundation, to this association to which this dismissed official belonged, and incidentally of which he was an executive member, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and his Department showed great animosity. Within three months of the association beginning to grow, a senior official—again I will not name anybody but the Minister can verify it— attended in Bray at the annual conference of the postmasters in April and specifically told the postmasters "You are not to join this new association." There was an arrogant interference on the part of bureaucracy, telling men "You are not to join this new association." There was an infringement of the rights of the individual.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Who told the official to tell the postmasters not to join?

Mr. McQuillan

That is something that the Minister might perhaps be in a position to find out.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

It is a very good question.

Mr. McQuillan

There can be no denying that it occurred. I am not in a position to say that the then Minister took the Secretary or Assistant Secretary of the Department by the back of the neck and said "Get out to Bray and frighten the living daylights out of the postmasters". If that happened or not I do not know, but whether it did or not something to that effect must have happened, because a very senior official did take time off to go to Bray and warn the men I referred to not to join the association. At the same time special leave was given for weeks to other officials to go to every post office in the country and persuade, if possible, the Post Office workers not to join the association. That cannot be contradicted either.

Further, the chief officers in the Survey Branch—and this I think is of vital importance—were despatched by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs after the conference in Bray to visit every post office in the country, and they went even to Clifden, which is a small post office. Two high officials of the Department went there and to every other post office and told the postmaster "We are advising you not to join the association, and we are instructing you that no facilities whatever are to be given to any members of it to hold meetings, and you are to do your utmost to see that nobody joins it". A number of our members asked the Survey chiefs: "Will you give us that in writing, or is that an instruction issued in writing?". The answer of the Survey officers was a shrug of the shoulders and a smile saying "We have not got our instructions in writing. We were despatched to do this by word of mouth".

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Ah! Now it is beginning to make light.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Maybe for Senator Ó Maoláin, but I am still in the dark.

Mr. McQuillan

We will have here produced the sworn statement of the postmasters from the various offices on this particular matter—sworn statements, affidavits, to that effect can be made available within three days to the Minister if Senator Ó Maoláin has any doubts about the accuracy of that. Let us be clear that whether you agree or disagree with what I am saying here, what I have to say here is strictly accurate.

In spite of the opposition and intimidation by the Minister and the Department, the numbers of the Association continue to grow and the next step taken by the Association was to apply for registration as a trade union. Having fulfilled all the requirements in that regard, the Association then took the next step which, in my opinion, was the most important one, and that was to apply to the Minister for Labour for a proper negotiating licence.

At that stage there was a belief among members of the organisation that the existing conciliation and arbitration scheme was completely unsuited, in the circumstances, to deal with their major grievances. One of the fundamental aims of the organisation was to attain access to the Labour Court and to get that it was felt that an industrial negotiating licence was the proper weapon to hold.

In October of 1967 the Minister for Labour granted a negotiating licence to the Association and, armed with that licence and a membership of 1,200—a substantial membership which comprised more than one-third of those who finally became members of the Association—the executive sought a discussion with the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs received the executive of the Association and a discussion took place which proved fruitless. The attitude of the Minister and his advisers was that the negotiating licence might as well have been the piece of paper brought back from Munich. There was no regard or respect for the licence which had been issued by the Minister for Labour.

Instead, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, at that meeting and subsequently through his officials—I have built up a file of correspondence in this connection with which I shall not bore the House—suggested that the Association apply to become members of the conciliation and arbitration scheme that operates within the Post Office. There are two arguments put forward by the Association, one of which is that, in so far as they are concerned, they disagree completely with the existing conciliation and arbitration scheme and they take up the Minister on his invitation to apply for membership.

This is interesting because while the Minister for Labour was inviting the Association to apply for membership, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs met the secretaries and officials of existing staff associations in the Post Office and at that meeting, of which I have an absolutely accurate record, Deputy Childers guaranteed the other Association that there would be no recognition given to this Association if they applied for membership of the C and A. On the one hand, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was telling them to apply for admission to the conciliation and arbitration scheme and, while he was saying that, his assurance was in writing at a meeting of the secretaries and officials of the existing house association that there would be no recognition for this Association as long as the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs considered that they did not deserve it. I do not know what one would call that except trickery, if you like.

That is only part of the story so far as Deputy Childers is concerned. He gave another promise on that occasion in November, and I quote from what took place at the meeting, as put by one of the officials:

At this meeting the Minister guaranteed full Departmental support to those union leaders in their efforts to smash us. Of course Minister Childers warned them to be careful "not to appear to be in the pocket of their employer." At the close of the meeting "it was mutually agreed that the Staff Association would give voice, jointly and individually, to opposition of the POOA getting any form of negotiation licence."

The full support of the Department would be made available in any step taken to destroy the Post Office Association. That was in November, 1967, at a time when Deputy Childers was inviting the Association to apply for membership of the C and A. I do not wish to bore the House with the preparations made in every way for the recognition of the negotiating licence issued by Deputy Hillery. In the following February of 1968 a two-day token strike was directed by the executive to take place and the result of this was to achieve recognition for the negotiating licence. The guarantee was the full weight of the Department to destroy the Association and when the two-day strike was over the Minister's repressive measures were speedily put into effect.

There are people who will disagree and who will say that strike action cannot be the way to deal with those things. The members of the Post Office Officials' Association were anything but anxious to take strike action, but like all other people in trade unions, the frustration within them built up to such an extent that there was no other way in which they could achieve what they were entitled to, except to take action. The action they took in staging a two-day token strike was the one way by which they would cause the least possible inconvenience to the public and at the same time bring home the injustice of the way in which the Association were being treated.

At the time, The Kerryman, on 10th February, 1967, had an interesting article on the conditions of the members, under the heading “Strike Over a Licence”. I quote the first sentence from that article:

Dr. Patrick J. Hillery, Minister for Labour, should have been out with the pickets of the Post Office Officials' Association last Monday and Tuesday in support of their "official dispute" with Mr. Erskine Childers in his capacity as Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.

That is a fair summing up of the position.

However, the results of that two-day strike led to the dismissal of a member of the executive of the Association as part of the campaign of victimisation and intimidation to frighten the daylights out of the members and to destroy the Association once and for all. In fact five postmasters and supervisors were selected at the time for the victimisation but, if I might put it this way, the guillotine finally fell on one member. I believe, rightly or wrongly, that the Government were perturbed about the decision they took in this instance. I feel the attitude of the Government when this man was reinstated proves that individual members of the Government were disturbed by the fact that a trade unionist was dismissed. I believe the Government felt it was the wrong way to have dealt with the individual and as soon as they possibly could the Government righted the situation. I accept that.

I also feel that the attitude of the Government at the time was: "Let us wipe the slate clean and try and improve relations all round". That was the attitude and the feeling, I believe, of the Government. Members of the Government Party with whom I discussed this confirmed that view to me. The strange thing is that in spite of that apparent feeling of goodwill on the part of the Government, the feeling that the matter is over and done with, the Department of Posts and Telegraphs mights as well never have heard that the Government wanted the matter finished, because they pursued and still pursue this campaign of victimisation against all members of the Association who took part in that two-day strike action. Dealing with that dismissal and the other victimisation, to me it was a matter of absolute amazement to find that the Department so brashly published what they knew to be falsehoods with regard to the events which were taking place.

There is no question about it that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs are prepared to write anything or deny anything if they think it will get them out of trouble for the time being. I am saying that because I have the evidence here which goes to prove that the Department have not been giving the facts. In fact they have been distorting the position. At the time this man was dismissed some of his colleagues were threatened with demotion and others from that day to this have not received the promotion to which they were entitled. Young telephonists were refused permission to sit for examinations to become clerks in the Post Office and to become clerical officers in the Civil Service. Junior postmen and learners who are not members of this Association but who respected pickets were refused permission to sit for examinations to become clerks in the Post Office. Senior clerks who were entitled to promotion as supervisors are still awaiting the opportunity of getting promotion. I can give the Minister instances in the provincial offices where at the present time the Department have virtually gone out to find if they can get outsiders to come in and take promotion over the heads of men who have been acting in a supervisory capacity during the last six months. I have a list of the actual cases where the Department have said:

In reference to your candidature for the forthcoming confined competition for appointment as clerical officer, I am directed to inform you that because of your participation in strike action last month the necessary certificate as to satisfactory conduct cannot be given. Accordingly, you cannot be admitted to the competition.

That refers to Miss X, a telephonist. That is only one of the many.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The Senator has been quoting out of documents, phrase books and secret minutes during the last half hour. We have no proof whatever of the authenticity of this. If he is to continue in this way he will have to make those copies available.

Mr. McQuillan

I am prepared to make them available to the House.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Will copies be put in the Library?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair would like to have this matter resolved, as a point of order has been raised. It is customary when a document is quoted in extenso in support of arguments that if requested, the Senator concerned will make available copies of this in the Library. Is this the request that is now being made?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

It is much more serious than that. Charges such as young postal officials being denied the right to sit for examinations have been made. Victimisation and intimidation were also referred to.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Let us be clear on this. We are concerned with the matter of direct quotation from documents. We are not concerned with charges which may be made other than through quotations from documents.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

These are direct quotations.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

In regard to the direct quotations, I take it that the request is that they be made available. I should like to say also that when these documents are deposited, provision can be made to protect the identity of the people concerned.

Mr. McQuillan

On the basis that provision will be made to protect the identity of the individuals, I will make the documents which I have here in my hand available immediately I have finished speaking.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Have the Library got facilities to copy them?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Yes.

Mr. McQuillan

In pursuit of that, on 25th April, 1968, the Department of Posts and Telegraphs replied to statements which I had made and this is what the Department related to the Irish Times quotation:

The statement issuing from Senator McQuillan like most others emanating from the Association bears very little relation to reality.

It goes on to state:

There was no question of victimisation with regard to the people to whom I have referred.

I will quote exactly what is stated here:

The statement that some junior postmen were not admitted to the examination because they had supported the strike was not correct.

I will quote from the actual document.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Perhaps before the Senator further quotes it might convenience Senators who wish afterwards to refer to documents in the Library if when the Senator quotes documents he were to mark them A, B, C, D. They could afterwards be identified.

Mr. McQuillan

I am referring to document B.

Mr. Rooney

Call it No. 2.

Mr. McQuillan

I will come to that later. I will call this document B which refers to junior postmen and I quote:

In reference to your candidature for the forthcoming confined competition for appointment as Post Office clerk, I am directed to inform you that because of your participation in strike action last month the necessary certificate as to satisfactory conduct cannot be given. Accordingly, you cannot be admitted to the competition.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Could I ask in regard to the document which Senator McQuillan referred to immediately before that one if there was some official statement denying this?

Mr. McQuillan

Yes. A spokesman for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs commented on the further statement by Senator McQuillan, Secretary of the POOA that the Department were, and I quote as follows:

The statement, like most others emanating from the association, bears very little relation to reality.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is the Senator now quoting from a newspaper?

Mr. McQuillan

Yes, the Irish Times, 25th April, 1968.

Mr. McHugh

On a point of order, was this man a member of a trade union?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

That is not a point of order.

Mr. McQuillan

Are you referring to the man I am talking about?

Mr. McHugh

Yes.

Mr. McQuillan

Yes, he was a member of a trade union.

Mr. McHugh

That is all I wanted to know.

Mr. McQuillan

What I want to refer to here is the crime committed by many of these officials, some of whom had 10, 12 and even 15 years service, who had the highest character references. Because of the instructions of an official trade union with a negotiating licence they came out on a two-day strike and they were treated as criminals. One man was dismissed; another was threatened with dismissal or demotion and many were debarred, and are still debarred, from promotion in the service. Not only that, but increments and pay were stopped for the two-day period which the strike lasted. Nobody minded the stoppage of two days pay but the altering of the date of increment on service records is another matter.

A young man of 23 who took two days strike action is going to have his increment postponed by two days each year during the next 20 years. The Association felt that even if there were only a 25 to 30 per cent chance of success they would stand the cost of taking a legal action in the High Court, but eminent counsel who have been briefed on this have regretfully notified us that our case is a moral one and that legally the Government can do "any God damn thing they like".

One thing I should like to do is to get into the High Court—we are not afraid of it—and bring in Deputy Childers and the hidden bureaucrats behind him and find out why they refused to recognise a negotiating licence given by the Minister for Labour and why they have carried out intimidation and victimisation of members and for them to state publicly that they are not doing it and why that situation still obtains in the Post Office.

The man responsible for this is Deputy Childers, Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, and he has sought to destroy this Association which is an official trade union. The extraordinary thing is that the men involved in the Post Office are doing what is right under trade union law; yet, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs treats unofficial strikers with kid gloves. I am referring now to the Day Workers Association members in the ESB who were locked up. Deputy Childers is their boss and he provides tea and taxis for the unofficial strikers in the ESB but dismissal and intimidation for official strikers in the Post Office.

I admire the broad vision of the Minister for Labour in extricating his colleague, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, who is also Minister for Transport and Power, from the difficult position in which he found himself. It was the Minister for Labour who saved him. We have discovered that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs are the worst Department as far as personnel relations are concerned. For instance, Deputy Flanagan, Minister for Health, within the last six weeks came out and met a deputation of nurses who had marched down to the Custom House and on their way placed pickets on the headquarters of two well-known trade unions even though their march was unofficial. He discussed their grievances and guaranteed that as far as he was concerned he would expedite the necessary machinery in order that their case might be brought to a satisfactory conclusion. That is the civilised way of dealing with people, but that is not done in the Post Office. The question of human beings does not arise there—they are just ushers.

I should like to show Members of this House the rule book for the Post Office which dates back to Victorian times. Senators may know that at the present time Victorian coins are very valuable, and I hope in a few years time copies of the Post Office rule book will be as valuable because they will be so scarce. I hope the present Minister for Labour will take the necessary steps to bring about a complete change of mentality in that Department.

I want to come now to what I am sure many Senators will agree is the kernel of this particular motion and that is the question of the objects of the Association which led to protest strike action and to access to the existing conciliation and arbitration machinery. In this regard a change has taken place. Since this motion was tabled, the present Minister has stated, on the industrial relations legislation before the Dáil, that he is anxious to make the Labour Court available to Civil Service organisations. He is on record in a number of contributions in the Dáil recently as stating his disappointment at the lack of interest shown by Civil Service staff associations in his offer to give them access to the Labour Court.

Perhaps I can help the Minister with a few quotations from permanent members of the Civil Service Staff Association when they spoke about how disappointing C and A is. When they talk about C and A they are all in favour of it, but when they go elsewhere they are all against it. Mr. Nally, who was the Chairman of the Civil Service General Staff Panel, had this to say on 1st July last with reference to the C and A machinery:

The Civil Service was fed up with waiting months and even years to have even their minor claims disposed of. The belief was growing that without industrial action their situation never would improve the position. Possessing the ability to resort to industrial action was much like the ability of a nation to resort to a nuclear deterrent. They might never use it; they might never wish to use it, but unless they had the capacity to employ it they would carry little weight wherever their voice was raised.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It would be helpful if the Senator would give the source of the quotation.

Mr. McQuillan

This quotation is from a statement made by Mr. Harry Nally, who is the Chairman of the Civil Service Staff Panel and it was reported in the Irish Independent on 1st July, 1968.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Now that the source has been established, the Chair would like to express its doubts as to the relevance of the detailed argument concerning conciliation and arbitration outside the Post Office service.

Mr. McQuillan

This man would never have been dismissed were it not for the conciliation and arbitration machinery.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am afraid the connection has not been made absolutely clear.

Mr. McQuillan

I am endeavouring to establish it with the greatest possible speed. That was the view of conciliation and arbitration by a very prominent member of the Civil Service. I gather at the moment that that service group are objecting even now to taking advantage of the offer made by the Minister for Labour to go to the Labour Court. In 1963, this is what Mr. Quinlan, who was the Deputy Secretary of the Post Office Workers' Union, had to say: "The Post Office Workers' Union claims must at present be channelled through the conciliation and arbitration machinery which deals with the claims of 30,000 civil servants. This procedure has resulted in a delay which has left the Post Office frustrated and seething with discontent". This was reported in the press on the 28th September, 1963. Let us be clear on it. There has been no report on the C and A machinery since then.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Did he join your association?

Mr. McQuillan

No, he has not joined the association. He is Deputy Secretary of the Post Office Workers' Union. I do not want to delay the House on this aspect of it but the Minister himself has declared that he is in favour of access to the Labour Court for Civil Service associations. The unfortunate man who was dismissed was in favour, in that he accepted the directive of his association to take strike action in the hope that access to the Labour Court would be made available. Why should not the Minister now go the full way and say that as far as this man was concerned he was on the right track and that the action taken at the time was not merited?

It would go a long way to restoring good feelings among personnel in the Post Office if the Government accepted it was a wrong dismissal at the time and that rather than have further recourse to industrial action in the Post Office that the Minister will in the very near future take the necessary steps to ease the situation for members of this association. I do not think I will say much more for the present time because at the conclusion, if the Minister has any point that he feels I have not elaborated on, I will be only too glad to deal with it.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

You have not done badly.

Mr. McQuillan

The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs refuses to recognise a negotiating licence issued by the Minister for Labour. The Post Office Officials' Association is the possessor of such a licence. If we are to believe what we read, the Minister himself lays great stress on the importance of a negotiating licence. From his recent contribution on the Industrial Relations Bill in the Dáil it is evident that he will make it very difficult for any organisation to obtain a licence. I will quote the provision which must be complied with from column 1334 of the Dáil Debates of 19th February, 1969:

To get a licence in future, a newly formed union must have not fewer than 500 members. It must maintain a minimum deposit of £5,000 with the High Court and it must maintain both these provisions for at least 18 months before it will be entitled to the negotiating licence.

That is tightening it up. Let me point out that the Association to which this dismissed man belonged fulfilled all those requirements three years ago and is still without a recommendation from a colleague of the Minister here. In this House I had to draw attention in another debate to what I call the strange lack of co-operation which apparently obtains within the Government.

At the time Deputy Hillery in the Dáil last month was persuading the Civil Service Association to come to the Labour Court and to grow up and not to be afraid of change, Deputy Childers got up and attacked the Post Office Officials' Association and said they will not come into the conciliation and arbitration scheme. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, as a member of the Cabinet, must approve of Dr. Hillery's attitude in persuading the C and A people to come to the Labour Court. Would the Minister for Labour have a chat with the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs?

Mr. McDonald rose.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is the Senator seconding the motion? It is necessary for the motion to be seconded. However, a Senator may second the motion and reserve his right to speak later in the debate.

Mr. McDonald

I should like to second this motion because I feel there must be something wrong when, as the mover of the motion told the House, one Department of State refuse to recognise a licence sold by another Department of State. This is a grave matter of principle. It is one we should all view with concern. The present Government over the past few years have displayed a completely arrogant attitude towards all recognised groups and associations who found it necessary to press claims for their rights— I recall farmers and teachers and indeed a quite formidable list. I have no connection with the association or the union involved in this motion but I have seen pickets whose personnel were drawn from the four corners of Ireland picketing the office of the Parliamentary Secretary in charge of Posts and Telegraphs in his Abbeyleix office during the winter months. When people are prepared to travel in inclement weather from places like Sligo, Wexford, Kerry and Louth and spend the day walking up and down outside the Parliamentary Secretary's office surely they must have a strong and genuine grievance?

If this motion helps to clear the air in this regard I feel it will have been most worthwhile. There has been too much confusion in the Government's industrial relations during the past few years. It is time it was brought to an end. I should like to support the Minister in the House here for the concern he has expressed. I hope he will come up with a solution to this and to many of the problems besetting the country in this field at the present time.

Mr. Murphy

I join with Senator McQuillan in appealing that if a worker is dismissed for taking action, whether it was right, advisable or otherwise, he should not be dismissed and should, if possible and after consultation with the recognised unions in the Post Office, be reinstated in his employment. Having said that I appeal to the Seanad to approach this whole subject objectively.

Senator McQuillan, in proposing the motion, made the point that he was personally involved in the matter. He is General Secretary of the Post Office Officials' Association and quite understandably would feel strongly about this matter, but he did undertake to try to be as fair and as objective in his approach to the matter as possible. I appeal to the Seanad, as I said, to try to be objective in this matter because it is a subject of somewhat wider importance than one might have supposed from Senator McQuillan's speech. I hope that Senator McQuillan will not resent my mentioning the point which I must make that this is a breakaway organisation.

Mr. McQuillan

They have it off by heart.

Mr. Murphy

I knew it would irritate him. It is hard to tell any organisation or any trade union that they are a breakaway, acting against the interests of the workers as a whole, but it is necessary to say this. This is a breakaway organisation set up by people who are in disagreement with the existing trade unions. God knows, we all know that in any human organisation there are many occasions for disagreement and for complaint, and it is very hard in rather bitter industrial life to avoid disagreement and quarrels; but—and this has not been referred to—there is an organisation within the trade union movement itself for dealing with complaints and disagreements within the movement. There is provision that any group of individuals in a trade union who are dissatisfied with the service that they have got from their trade union or who feel that their viewpoint has not been provided for adequately, who feel ignored, can take their complaint to a jury of trade union people who are not of the trade union against which they are complaining.

In other words, they can complain above the head of their existing executive, general secretary et cetera, to a jury of trade union people and have their complaint investigated. If it is found to be established, that body, that jury, can make recommendations to the union concerned as to how the complaint should be rectified, how these people should be treated, and if the trade union then fail to take the recommended action there can be no objection to the aggrieved individuals transferring to another trade union. Any trade union taking them cannot be charged with bad trade union practice in those circumstances.

It is no harm to make this point because we all acknowledge, those of us who are involved in the trade union movement, that there are complaints from members. Some of them are well-founded. A few of them are well-founded, but there always are complaints, and it is right and proper that there should be some machinery available for those people to exercise their grievances, have them investigated by impartial people within the movement and have them dealth with there. One of the purposes is to provide machinery for dealing with legitimate complaints, but the other is the very important purpose of discouraging breakaway splintering of the trade union movement.

We have here people who sincerely believe that the conciliation and arbitration machinery is not adequate, who have a complaint about that but who instead of exercising that complaint democratically within their own trade union have decided to form a splinter group, to break away and form another organisation further splintering the trade union movement, further weakening the strength of the workers. I think that that is to be condemned. I, of course, cannot claim to be impartial in this either because I am a member of the executive of the Congress who have set up this machinery and who feel strongly, like Senator McQuillan, that there is need to rationalise the trade union movement in this country in the interest of the workers themselves and in the interests of the economic advance of this country.

I should like Senators who are not involved too much in this to try to deal objectively with the position. I feel that it is a disaster that you can have workers who are so ill-advised as to set up breakaway organisations with all the bitterness that is entailed between themselves and their fellow-workers for many years afterwards. The Post Office Officials' Union was founded, I think Senator McQuillan told us, in 1966 but I think that it is the inheritor of another breakaway organisation before that time. There was another breakaway organisation, the Post Office Clerical Association, I think, or something like that.

Mr. McQuillan

Do not think. Be sure. This is a new association.

Mr. Murphy

The new Post Office Officials' Association or Union took over from there.

Mr. McQuillan

That is not true.

Mr. Murphy

If it is not true then I am wrong.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

It is true that it is a continuing problem.

Mr. Murphy

It is a continuing problem within any organisation where there are big numbers of workers employed as in the Post Office. There are always strains between workers, between one group thinking that somebody else is getting too much differential and so on, but the trade union themselves are governed by their own members and their constitution is as set down by the members of the trade union themselves. They have annual conferences to determine policy, they have an executive democratically elected by the workers themselves, and furthermore, as I said, they have provision within the Congress of appealing over and above the head of their own executive if they feel they are being discriminated against or not being adequately treated. I think that all of us from all Parties should lend our support to that sort of situation rather than for the establishment of breakaway organisations with, as I said, all the bitterness that is entailed and all the long term damage to the workers' interests.

Senator McQuillan tried to say that the present conciliation and arbitration machinery is inadequate and that there were complaints against it. There are always complaints against it but I think that the establishment of the C and A within the Government service was regarded as a great victory by the staff associations and the associations have said down through the years that they wish the C and A to continue.

I am not here to boast or to talk about the C and A. The point I want to make is that the C and A is there because the unions representing the employees concerned want it. If they do not want it at any time, it will cease to operate. Apparently, there is a minority of employees in the Post Office who say they do not want it and they are entitled to their view but the way of expressing that view but the way it should be put forward is within the existing organisations in the Post Office, within the legitimate trade unions and not by breaking away and setting up another splinter organisation, thereby weakening the trade union movement.

We talk a lot and we in Congress must plead guilty to this, about the rights of workers who form their own associations and their own trade unions. That is all very well but if the end result is that the employment of workers is in peril, if their economic advancement is hindered, it is not a good thing. It is now becoming recognised as a legitimate trade union practice of agreeing to a closed shop with employers.

Recently, in Northern Ireland I agreed with two concerns that the people covered by the agreement, as a condition of employment, would have to be members of a trade union and remain members of a trade union. It is recognised by both sides as a legitimate condition of employment and something which is good for all concerned—good for the union and good for the interest of the workers and something which will avoid the disaster caused by people lapsing from their trade unions.

Possibly, that is something that will develop in this part of the country. In fact, it has already been established in some parts but it does not exist within the Post Office. If it did, the people concerned would know that when they entered into this employment it was a condition of their employment to be members of a union just as it is a condition of employment for them to appear on duty clean and properly dressed.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Would the Senator like to suggest how he would reconcile this with the recommendations of the Constitution with regard to freedom of association?

Mr. Murphy

There is freedom of association there but I am not a lawyer.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Murphy on the motion. Senator FitzGerald will have an opportunity to make his argument.

Mr. Murphy

I suggest that there is nothing against the Constitution in an employee taking employment under the conditions laid down by the employer and one of these conditions would be that the employee would be a member of a trade union. There is nothing unconstitutional about that but, as I say, I am not a lawyer.

The point I wanted to make about breakaway organisations is that there are provisions within the trade union movement for dealing with people who have a grievance against their trade unions and if the people concerned believe that they have been neglected in any way by the unions, the proper way to deal with it is to bring this complaint to Congress and not to splinter further the trade union movement by setting up another organisation.

Senator McQuillan attempted to plead that this new organisation was acting in conformity with trade union policy by proceeding to rationalise the trade union movement within the Post Office by amalgamating the four existing organisations—the telegraphists, the clerical staffs, the postmasters and the supervisors. There is, I think, already an association representing the postmasters and maybe the same association, or a different one, representing the supervisors. Telegraphists and the clerical staff are represented, I think, by the Post Office Workers' Union.

If this was an amalgamation, the Post Office Workers' Union and the unions representing the postmasters and supervisors would disappear. They would all be merged into this new organisation. That, however, is not true. The fact is that this is a splinter organisation which, instead of dealing with grievances through Congress, set up a new and different organisation.

With regard to the licence issued by the Minister for Labour, Senators generally may not be aware that the law as it exists compels the Minister to issue a licence to anybody who complies with the regulations—if they represent a certain number and if they make the necessary deposit. However, the issuing of a negotiating licence does not, unfortunately, compel any employer to negotiate with the holder of the licence. In fact, it would not have been necessary for this new organisation to secure any negotiating licence whatever.

Mr. McQuillan

Yes.

Mr. Murphy

I do not think so.

Mr. McQuillan

I do not want to interrupt the Senator but is he aware of the fact that a negotiating licence is absolutely essential for an official trade union to have if it wishes to picket? There is no protection for picket for any Post Office union or Civil Service association and no Post Office union or Civil Service association has the right to strike because none of their unions has a negotiating licence.

Mr. Murphy

I should like to argue that. Whether they need to get a negotiating licence to take strike action is rather beside the point here. The point I was making is that the issuing of a negotiating licence is compulsory on the Minister concerned once conditions are applied. The holding of a negotiating licence does not put the Association in any special position with the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs who is the employer of those people in the Post Office. I do not know that the debate here will help in rectifying the deplorable position in the Post Office where you have a splinter organisation which cannot be of any assistance to the workers in the Post Office. I appeal to the workers concerned in the Post Office to see if they can overcome their differences, to recognise that it is in their own best interests and in the interests of the trade union movement as a whole that instead of setting up and maintaining a breakaway organisation they should go into the established unions in the Post Office; and, if they have any complaint against those unions, that they would then ventilate their complaint through the established machinery of the trade unions.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

The problem we are debating here is a thorny one, one which one might almost say is a dangerous one to get involved in and it would be easy to opt out and avoid saying anything which could antagonise matters. We are not sent to this House to do that. We are sent here to make our contributions, such as they can be, on matters of public concern. Therefore, with some trepidation I rise to speak on this subject.

First of all, we have the provisions of the Constitution which I think we have to bear in mind. Some people may feel that the Constitution needs to be amended in this respect and this is a legitimate view. Anybody is entitled to propose amendments to it though the Irish people have a way of dealing with them when they are put to them.

The Constitution, until it is amended, is the basic law of this State and we are bound by it. If we do not like something in it we can annual it. If we do not like anything in it we have one course open to us—to initiate legislation through the Houses of the Oireachtas and then through the process of a referendum, we can change it. The Constitution on this point is very explicit. It states, and I quote from Article 40, section 6:

The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality.

It sets out various rights, of which No. iii is:

The right of the citizens to form associations and unions.

It then goes on to state:

Laws, however, may be enacted for the regulation and control in the public interest of the exercise of the foregoing right.

There are a number of points I want to make about that. First of all, the guarantee is very explicit. It is formal. It does not admit of qualification other than the qualifications specifically incorporated in it, "subject to public order and morality". Public order to me, and I am open to correction on this, refers to the maintenance of order as against disorder. It does not mean running the country in a convenient or tidy way. It means running the country in such a way as to ensure that there is order, that people can go about their business without the threat of violence in the streets. Morality also has a limited meaning. It says in this Article of the Constitution:

Laws, however, may be enacted for the regulation and control in the public interest of the exercise of the foregoing right.

If the right is totally guaranteed it is also clear that special laws can be enacted only with a view to ensuring that public order may be maintained and preserved in the exercise of this right or, alternatively, with a view to further exercising this right—with a view to making it more effective, not less effective. I do not think it could be read in any other way. I also recall that the courts have ruled on this matter and ruled that a picket cannot be used to enforce a closed shop. They have done so on their reading of this Article of the Constitution as conferring not a general right, as some of the more declaratory clauses do, by granting an absolute right and guarantee that it will be maintained.

Senator Murphy made the point that he could not see anything against the Constitution in people being told when they enter an organisation that if they enter it they would have to accept membership of a particular association or union. First of all, to introduce that would create problems with regard to existing members. I am not clear if he meant the existing members as well. Of course, they would be a diminishing factor and in 20 or 30 years they would all have gone. They would either have retired or died and you would then be in the position that you would have all new members in the particular union or association. You would then have a closed shop. I do not know if that was what he meant. I had a feeling what he meant was the closed shop would involve existing employees. This Article does not say that the citizens shall have the right to belong to associations and unions. It says they shall have the right to form associations and unions.

It seems you cannot do this in connection with your employment until you are employed. You could say to people: "We will tell you when you join the company you must belong to this association". That constitutional right can only be exercised by people in employment and it is their right to form such unions and associations afresh. Senator Murphy suggests an evasion, which is an absolute evasion, because it runs directly contrary to the Constitutions which gives people the right to form associations and unions. There is not any doubt about this. The Constitution is explicit and the courts have ruled in such a way which satisfies their legal position in this country quite apart from Britain or Northern Ireland, to which the Senator referred.

This gives to us in a form which can only be taken away by the people, a basic right which many people in many countries do not have. Many people do not have this right because they live in countries which are tyrannies. Many people do not have this right because they live in countries which are democratic, which think themselves to be liberal, but deny the right to form associations or unions and deny people the right to belong to unions or associations.

This basic right is one which is guaranteed effectively in very few countries and we are one. I doubt whether the Irish people if it was put to them by any group, whether such be the formidable alliance of the Fianna Fáil and the Labour Parties, would give up this right which they have at the present time through the medium of the Constitution, as interpreted by the courts. I recognise that this creates formidable problems. It creates problems for the organisation of our industrial life and there has been no time in the history of this State when the need to organise our industrial life in an orderly manner has been as important as at the present time. I realise there is a conflict between the human rights guananteed in this Constitution and enforced by the courts.

There is a need to organise our industrial affairs in an orderly manner. That conflict will not be readily resolved. It can be resolved by goodwill and commonsense, but goodwill and commonsense are not always present. It could be resolved by changing the Constitution and that course may be tried, but people would need to feel that the Constitution of the country was in a very bad way before this would be done. We are going to have to face a long haul in this matter. We should not try to use our ingenuity in trying to get around the Constitution or in trying to undermine it, but use the clauses of the Constitution in a manner that, while preserving the rights of the individual as far as possible, an orderly system of negotiation is secured. What we must not do is to seek to undermine the Constitution or ignore it, and if any attempt were made it would be challenged as in the case of the Educational Company of Ireland and I am sure the courts would uphold the Constitution.

Some people may regret that the Constitution is so explicit. One can sympathise with them because of the problems it creates but the Constitution is there and we must legislate and act within its framework. If Senator McQuillan's account is correct, and I have no reason to doubt it—the quotations he referred to may be verified when they are placed in the Library —it does not seem to me that the Government, in what they have done, have acted in the spirit of the Constitution and I am not sure they have acted within the letter of the Constitution.

It appears we face a situation where certain human rights have been interfered with. The Government have introduced legislation, which the Parliament of this country has passed, which carries out in what seems to me a reasonable way the requirements of the Constitution. They have laid down certain conditions for freedom of a negotiating licence but I do not think it has been tested in the courts. It is possible the courts may find this in conflict with the Constitution but I rather doubt it because the provisions are not unduly restrictive. They are designed to ensure that this right is available to people in reasonable conditions while, at the same time, they try to achieve some kind of order.

There is a balance here to be maintained between the guarantee of a right and the legislation with which to ensure its effective exercise. That balance has probably been used adequately in the existing legislation. As far as I am aware that legislation has not been tested in the courts. Under that legislation provision is made for granting negotiating licences in order to give effect to the provisions of the Constitution. The purpose of this legislation is to give effect to the last sentence of Article 40 (6) (3). That being the case, it does seem to me that any Government agency other than the Minister is entitled in these circumstances to attempt to undermine the exercising of this right guaranteed by the Constitution and implemented by legislation. Whether we like the Constitution or the legislation is irrelevant once it is there.

If, as has been stated, it is the case that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has sought to intimidate or punish people for exercising what are their rights as members of an association or union formed under the provisions of the Constitution and in accordance with the legislation, it seems he has acted improperly. Of course, we have only heard one side of the case today. I hope that the Minister can show that the picture drawn by Senator McQuillan is in some respects distorted or inaccurate to a degree which removes the foundation of this case.

Anything I say at the moment necessarily must be conditional to that extent. However, I think it is proper to speak conditionally at this point in the debate and on the basis that Senator McQuillan has read to us copies of letters which he says were addressed by the Minister, or the Minister's officials, to particular members of the Department. It appears to me improbable that Senator McQuillan would invent those letters. He is putting them in the Library, and on that basis we can form a preliminary judgement, subject to what the Minister may have to say. On that basis there is a strong case for feeling that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has acted improperly in this respect. I think we should be very concerned about this. It is a serious situation if the Minister acts in a manner which runs contrary certainly to the spirit of the Constitution but also, I think, to the letter of the Constitution and to the provision of the law in regard to negotiation licences. I hope the Minister here present will be able to reply in reasonable detail to what Senator McQuillan has said.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

How could he in regard to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs?

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

That is precisely my point. I was about to say I think we are in some difficulty here because we have two issues at stake. First in regard to the negotiation licence, and secondly, the Constitution and the legislation in regard to negotiation licences in relation to which the present Minister is the appropriate Minister. He is the person we would wish to hear on this. We also have the problem about what actually happened in the Post Office and indeed the viewpoint of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs on his internal affairs which does not appear to coincide with the viewpoint of the Minister for Labour. We may have some difficulty here in that the procedure of this House does not permit us to hear two Ministers on one motion. I am not saying this just to be frivolous.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Before the Senator continues on this line, while it is not the custom to rule on hypothetical questions, the present occupant of the Chair would like to indicate that he would anticipate no difficulty in allowing two Ministers to speak, provided, of course, there was no undue repetition.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I have misdirected myself. In that case I would suggest that if Senator Ó Maoláin feels the present Minister may not have all the information available to him, I would express the hope it would be possible at some stage in the debate, even at the expense of an adjournment —provided that it was not for the same length of time it took to come on the Order of Business—it would be useful to hear the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. This is subject to the Minister here not being able to reply in detail to the allegations made, because they are serious and cannot be brushed off.

If the Minister present, in his role as personnel officer for the Government, is not in a position to answer them fully on behalf of his colleague, I think we ought to hear the principal concerned. It would be unfair to condemn the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs without giving him the opportunity of putting forward his own case unless he has delegated his functions to the Minister for Labour and given him the facts necessary to enable him to do this.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

May I point out that it is not a question of inability or of not having information available to him. References to the question of the terms of that motion are properly interpreted as being in the campus of the Minister for Labour, but the whole trend of the debate and the slant which Senator McQuillan has given it has been a direct personal attack on the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in relation to the case of alleged victimisation. If there had been any indication given me that this was going to be the line of this debate I should not have bothered my head to get the Minister for Labour here. I have no intention of asking the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to reply at this stage. I am rather puzzled——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair has been in a difficulty in regard to this motion because in fact there are several elements in it. There is reference in the motion to a properly-constituted trade union. There is refer-legislation. These matters are all properly the concern of the Minister for Labour. On the other hand, there is also a reference in the motion to a particular dismissal. There is also a reference in the motion to the reason for this dismissal being participation in particular activities. Accordingly, the Chair has allowed the circumstances of this dismissal and the nature of the activities which led to this dismissal to be discussed and has also, perhaps with some indulgence, allowed analogous cases to be discussed. It is by allowing these matters to be discussed that a number of matters have been brought forward which might properly be the concern more of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs than of the Minister for Labour. We have here a problem which the Seanad does encounter from time to time—that the motion may well involve matters of personal responsibility of more than one Minister.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I thank the Chair very much for that guidance because I was puzzled by Senator Ó Maoláin's intervention.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

There is nothing to be puzzled about. It is quite clear.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

When I read the motion and found that it referred to somebody dismissed for activities of one kind or another I assumed the debate would take the form of referring to that dismissal and to the reasons for it. I cannot envisage it in any other form. I am amazed by the unaccustomed naïveté of Senator Ó Maoláin in thinking that it could be dealt with by one Minister.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

It deals with more than the Post Office.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Senator Ó Maoláin has been correct. If he has to choose between two Ministers he has chosen the most appropriate of the two for the motion, taken generally, but there is a problem that the motion taken in detail as well as generally has involved criticism of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs for certain actions taken. It is fair that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs should be given an opportunity of replying to these matters here unless he has chosen to delegate to the Minister for Labour the function of doing so and has given the Minister for Labour all the information to enable him to do so. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is a most conscientious Minister and one who, in carrying out his duties, always goes to great trouble to do so properly and fully. It is not usual for him to be in a position of doing something like this. Some others might.

A Senator

That is not fair. It is a pity that you said that. You spoiled a very good speech with that.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Some Ministers are better than others. I am particularly concerned that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, for whom I have great respect, if allegations are made against him, should be given an opportunity of answering them.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The Senator does not think that the Minister has one of those pick-up earphones in his car so that he can listen to what Senator McQuillan is saying about him?

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

No. The function of the Leader of the House is to communicate with Ministers in matters of this kind.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Which I did.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Perhaps he would do so in the tea interval.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Certainly not.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

If it were necessary to enable the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to reply to the allegations made and if he is not able to do that, then I would be prepared for the debate to be adjourned to an early date to enable him to do so.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Two bites of the cherry? No, one mouthful is enough.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

We are getting one bite at two cherries.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

We got one bite at three cherries there.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

This, in fact, completes the points I wanted to make but I want to make one final point. It is a kind of declaration of interest. I did some work for the organisation that Senator McQuillan represents some time ago. This work was completed a year or 18 months ago. I assisted with the preparation of a claim. I want to put that on the record in case there should be a question of the capacity in which I speak. I am speaking entirely in my own capacity. I am not in any way connected with Senator McQuillan's organisation except that I have done some work for them in the past. I am now speaking entirely independently in this matter and expressing my own views.

Mr. Rooney

On a point of order, was the decision that the Minister for Labour should answer this motion or would it be in order for the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to intervene in the course of the debate? Is there anything to prevent the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs participating in this debate?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

There has been an indication, so far as the present occupant of the Chair sees it, that there will be no objection to more than one Minister intervening in the debate to make a relevant contribution.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

There has been an air of unreality about this debate from Senator McQuillan, from Senator Murphy and Senator Garret FitzGerald. About four or five years ago, if I remember rightly, Senator Murphy was President of Congress when it held its annual meeting in the City Hall, Cork. At the same time there was a newspaper strike. There was only one newspaper in circulation in the 26 Counties which contained southern news and that was the Cork Examiner. I remember reading in the Cork Examiner reports of the Congress sessions in the City Hall at which Senator Murphy presided and in which, for a couple of days, the theme was rationalisation of the trade union movement. Loud and long applause greeted the work of the energetic committee. It worked on this business of co-ordinating efforts to bring small unions into line and to abolish or amalgamate smaller unions and to strengthen the movement by reducing the number of unions to a reasonable proportion.

There was also some talk of unofficial strikes. I remember at that time we had a meeting of the Seanad and I spoke to the Seanad about the new religion which had just then begun to become a menace to the public generally. That was the new religion of picketing. I am not talking about legitimate trade union picketing but about the indiscriminatory crazy use of pickets such as has been demonstrated in this country in the past three or four years and in recent months particularly so. I thought that this new religion of picketing which was spreading indicated a serious flaw in the whole set-up of the trade union movement and the Congress, and I addressed these remarks particularly to this menace, not alone to the misuse of picketing but to the situation which developed at that time as a result of one breakaway union, the first and largest of the breakway unions, which Senator Murphy referred to, and which caused a tremendous amount of public disorder and discomfort at that time. Congress apparently went on its merry way and did not do anything very effective, with the results that we have seen in recent weeks.

Now I am firmly of the opinion that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has probably a better trade union mentality and a better appreciation of the need for proper trade union organisation than the working committee of Congress which was appointed to rationalise the unions, because a lot of the venom in the speech of Senator McQuillan was directed at the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs because he possibly was attempting to do the work which the Congress should have been doing in the Post Office. He was attempting to rationalise the situation in regard to the postal workers which Congress had failed to do. When it was revealed, as Senator McQuillan said, that there are three unions operating there apart from his own association then it is certainly a very poor commentary on the efforts of the organised trade union movement to think that such a situation would arise as would lead to the position which Senator McQuillan described here in the course of his address.

It is all right talking about the Constitution as Senator Garret FitzGerald did, and about the right and the guarantee of free association. Nobody denies that, but there is no doubt that if the trade union movement as such is really to continue to be of any value to the workers and to be any asset to the country as a whole and to be a progressive and useful force in the future to guard against anarchy and to ensure that progressively rising standards apply to the workers, then it has got to sit up and take notice of the weaknesses which have arisen as a result of its own incapacity and of the selfishness of many of the unions and their unwillingness to delegate some of their authority and give away some of their powers for the common good.

This is an example we have had here of where one association in a job in which there already were well-established unions was able to disrupt the complete harmony of the working force which exists in that particular job, is able to attract to itself quite a substantial number of people. Here again free association comes in, but there is no doubt in the world that if the members of the trade union movement had been as effective in the Post Office as they have been in other jobs neither that particular development would have occurred nor the development which put the transport situation in this country in such a parlous state since 1965.

I commend to Senator Murphy, as representing or at least as being the spokesman of the Labour Party and of Congress, that these are things in which we all—not alone members of the Labour Party and members of the Congress—we all, every citizen of this country, have a vital interest, because it is our future that is at stake as well as the future of the Labour Party and of the Congress, and we are anxious for somebody to take strong determined action to rectify the weaknesses which have appeared, one of which is the system of breakaway unions and associations which has led to the deterioration in the strength of the working class movement in this country. If this debate on this motion has done nothing else but allow us to state that fact publicly and to defend the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs for trying to do what the trade union movement should have been doing then it was worth while getting the Minister to come here for this debate.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

In the absence of any other speaker I would call on Senator McQuillan to reply, but it is within a few minutes of the normal adjournment time.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

The Minister.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

He did not offer.

Minister for Labour (Dr. Hillery)

I do not mind. The terms of the motion did suggest that the principles involved would be for discussion by me if any Minister did have to speak to the House. I might say that in his capacity as an employer the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has had allegations in detail made against him here which I am unable to answer because I was not present at the alleged meetings nor have I at hand any of the supposed documents which would substantiate what Senator McQuillan was saying. I would say that whatever an employer's decision in this field will be they are obeying the law, or whatever the trade unions do they are free to do it, while we have the Constitution and laws made in the name of public order. There is a large element of freedom in the behaviour of employers and trade unions. From time to time one or other side is heard to scream but it is usually when they are losing. If things are going well for them they will preserve the peace as best they can. The only thing I will say to Senator McQuillan is that, if the law has been broken, then the courts are there to test this. I do not think that this was far from his mind when he took legal advice on the behaviour of the Minister, but the advice obviously is that the Minister did not break any law. So I presume that the purpose of what he said today was to try to punish the Minister in another way.

The Minister in this capacity could be any other employer brought into this House by name and condemned for not attaining a standard of behaviour prescribed for him by the particular trade union with which he is in dispute at the time. Senator McQuillan has very effectively, by not going to the courts, acknowledged that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs did not break the law.

After that I would go back to the basic principles with which we are dealing. Senator Garret FitzGerald did us all a favour by going back to the Constitution, Article 40 of which gives this right of free association and the right to form unions. As he said, there is also the question of promoting laws to regulate this right in the public interest on the question of public order or morality, and this is the question with which we are concerned. We have had experience of laws attempting to bring order into this field.

In this context I am not sure, but from time to time there have been attempts made so to regulate the freedom of the Constitution as to bring order into our employer-trade union negotiations, and the main one that comes to my mind is the 1941 Act. In that Act an attempt was made to bring order into the freedom given by the Constitution by creating the need to comply with certain minimum requirements to have a negotiating licence. Though the Constitution would give the right to form a union, the law would regulate whether a negotiating licence would be granted.

The Seanad must be aware that the 1941 Act envisaged that in any particular industry where a union could prove to the tribunal that it was catering for the majority of workers of a particular type, they could get from that tribunal the right to negotiate for all workers of that type in that industry. The purpose of that Act was to regulate the freedom given in the Constitution in such a way as to cut out the multiplicity of unions and the disadvantages that arise in having a multiplicity of unions.

From the point of view of Congress, the multiplicity means that there is poaching. There is militancy to prove that when there is a multiplicity of unions the result is a leakage of balloting as well as other difficulties in the way of ordinary behaviour. From the point of view of the community, the difficulty in making comprehensive agreements because of the multiplicity of unions is aggravated. It is difficult enough to get a comprehensive agreement but when there is a multiplicity of unions it is almost impossible.

That Act of 1941 set out to regulate the freedom of the Constitution by law so that we would not have this multiplicity of unions at the negotiation table. However, that was held to be unconstitutional by the courts and instead of being able to regulate by law the negotiation by a majority union, we had to turn back and try another way and this was to set about bringing about the amalgamation of unions and Congress undertook to do this but with very little success.

If we could have a situation whereby the unions would amalgamate and come fewer in number to the negotiation table we could attain more as regards this freedom allowed by the Constitution. I speak about this problem of multiplicity of unions in two interests. First of all, we should try to limit the formation of new unions and for that reason I made the proposal—I think I was Minister for Industry and Commerce at that time—that where the Minister for Labour or the Congress of Trade Unions held that one should have this right of saying "no, you cannot have a discretion as to who should get a negotiating licence". I thought it would be very desirable. I am sure the House is aware that Congress did not want this right of responsibility and they told me so. The best I could do was to limit the formation of splinter groups hoping to keep the situation as it was in the 1941 Act but, at the same time, making it a little more difficult for breakway groups to form.

The House will have an opportunity of discussing my proposals. They have already been put to the Dáil and have had a Second Reading. One of the proposals is to have a higher deposit— a deposit in the region of £5,000— but this would vary considerably. Another proposal is to have a minimum number in the union and to have that union in existence for at least 18 months before it could be recognised for a negotiating licence. In other words, there would be some sort of permanent association there and not just a breakway group established, perhaps, because of some temporary dissatisfaction with their own union or as a result of some negotiations carried out by their unions.

I have been talking about limiting the number of new unions but I do not know if the Seanad is aware that we have about 100 unions in a population of fewer than three million people. In Germany, for example, which has a population of 50 million people, there are only 16 unions. This comparison shows just how crazy we are in having this large number of unions because of this freedom under the Constitution to form a union.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

On a point of order, I should like to ask the Leader of the House if he would invite the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to contribute to this debate and to let us know whether the Minister can do so this evening?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I answered that question before. I shall not make a yo-yo out of Ministers.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs should be given the opportunity or replying to the debate.

Dr. Hillery

I would be able to reply on the case but I would not be able to reply to the personal accusations made against the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. However, I do not know whether he wishes to come here himself.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

He must be given the opportunity to answer the accusations. Perhaps the Leader of the House will communicate with him and ask him to come. If the Leader of the House does not do it, I shall see him myself.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

If the Senator wishes to do that he may but I will strongly advise the Minister not to attend.

Business suspended at 6.10 p.m. until 7.30 p.m.

Dr. Hillery

Before we adjourned, I was dealing with the attempts which have been made to bring order into trade union-employer relationships in the context of the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution: and the 1941 Act, which has been quoted here, makes one such attempt but the second part of the Act was deemed to be unconstitutional. It sets out to have a majority union negotiating in any particular industry and would overcome the difficulties brought on by a multiplicity of unions. That is water under the bridge because it was deemed to be unconstitutional.

The next attempt was, as I said, by the Congress of Trade Unions to bring about an amalgamation merger or linking of unions in such a way as to have negotiation reduced to a reasonably successful operation. This has not been attained with any speedy success and we still have 100 unions. There is not much prospect of the work of Congress in bringing about an amalgamation being speeded up in any way. I do not know whether it is for want of trying. I do not think it is or if the task is almost impossible. The present Bill, which already has had a Second Reading in the Dáil, and will be here soon, again attempts to overcome the disadvantages of existing multiplicity by arranging for the possibility of a group negotiating licence which would again mean some sacrifice on the part of some unions to give up some of their rights so that we would bring order into our affairs.

I contend, and I think time will tell for everybody concerned, that order in these affairs will be to the advantage of the worker rather than to the advantages of the employer and, certainly, it will be to the advantage of the whole community. It is against this background of the freedom given by the Constitution, the attempts made by law or by the Congress of Trade Unions and again by law now, in which co-operation is sought of individual trade unions to overcome the disadvantages of having too many unions in any one industry, that we listened to Senator McQuillan's objections to his union or association which was granted a negotiating licence but was not recognised by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. Senator McQuillan believes that adding a fourth to the three existing unions in that sphere of activity would reduce the number of unions. He has not convinced the Congress of Trade Unions on this; he has not convinced the other unions operating in that field, and he has certainly not convinced the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs or the Government.

Mr. McQuillan

It is 1,200 in the Post Office.

Dr. Hillery

I do not contend that the number is not big, but I do say he has not convinced anybody that having this extra body will bring about the amalgamation of the existing unions. The Senator has a point, that it seems inconsistent that a negotiating licence issued by the Minister for Labour to a union is not recognised by the employer, in this case the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.

All I can do is to explain again to the Seanad that as long as certain minimum conditions are fulfilled by the union, the negotiating licence is issued automatically. The Minister for Labour has no say, he can use no discretion whatever, in the issuing of a licence. He cannot say in any case, "I will not issue a licence". If the minimum conditions—and they are very small inditions—an deed—are fulfilled, the licence is issued and this is the cause of the inconsistency. It would appear in this instance, in view of all our attempts to bring order to this field, that the Government's attitude would be not to have another union if possible. However, the law as it stands means that this new union, having formed itself under its rights under the Constitution, is entitled—having fulfilled the minimum conditions—to a negotiating licence. The issue of a negotiating licence by the Minister for Labour does not represent the attitude of the Minister for Labour nor does it represent any attitude of approval by the Government of the coming into being of a particular trade union; it means that the body has fulfilled certain minimum requirements and has got the licence automatically.

As I have said, the really essential and useful part of the Act from the point of view of order, which was tested in the courts and found to be unconstitutional is the part that would reduce the number of people negotiating on behalf of a particular type of work. Section 6 (1) of the Trade Union Act, 1941, states:

It shall not be lawful for any body of persons, not being an excepted body, to carry on negotiations for the fixing of wages or other conditions of employment unless such body is the holder of a negotiation licence.

However, it excludes from this requirement a number of what are called "excepted bodies", and one of the excepted bodies listed in the Act is a Civil Service staff association recognised by the Minister for Finance. It was obviously the intention of the 1941 Act that Civil Service staff associations should carry on their normal activities without any obligation to possess a negotiating licence. Any one of the existing associations could have applied for and received a negotiating licence if they fulfilled the minimum requirements which I spoke of. The point made by the Senator about being given a negotiating licence is met by the point I now make—that he did not need a negotiating licence.

Mr. McQuillan

Under conciliation and arbitration you do not, but if you go outside the C and A the negotiating licence is necessary.

Dr. Hillery

Bodies of civil servants and others who have conciliation and arbitration machinery are not entitled to go outside that to negotiate their conditions of employment. I agree that we have had a good deal of leap-frogging and contradictory awards due to the fact that the arbitration aspect of this different machinery in different places has been represented by different persons.

One of the things I attempted to do two or three years ago was to put into the place of the individual arbitrator in each of these schemes the Labour Court, which would have a clear view of the whole wage structure. There is logic in linking the awards made from one group to another. I had this proposed to the people who have conciliation and arbitration machinery and I am very disappointed that they did not want the Labour Court—that they seemed to prefer their own individual scheme in which they agreed to the arbitrator and they felt they could do better that way. As a modification which would still bring the Labour Court experience into the situation with its special knowledge, I have now proposed in legislation which will be put before the House that on each arbitration council two members of the Labour Court would sit, one representing the employer and the other representing the trade union. In that way the Labour Court will be brought into the picture of conciliation and arbitration. I have not lost hope that some day—and it may be before legislation is law—this body will agree to have the Labour Court as arbitrator. At the moment it is not possible to do that while conciliation and arbitration is there. They will either have to agree to the change or negotiate the change, and I prefer these things to be done by negotiation.

The case which is the subject of the motion is the case of the dismissal of a member of the Post Office Officials' Association as a result of a strike organised by that body. I think the House has already been told that the man who was dismissed was subsequently reappointed by the Government——

Mr. Murphy

We had not.

Dr. Hillery

He was reappointed by the Government.

Mr. McQuillan

I mentioned it. The Senator was probably not here.

Mr. Murphy

I was here.

Mr. McQuillan

Then you were probably asleep.

Dr. Hillery

——provided he would not take strike action again. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was unable to restore him to duty in the post office because there were some doubts about his being able to exercise fair and acceptable supervision. Senators will agree that "acceptable supervision" is the important term in this context, when dealing with workers.

Mr. McQuillan

I do not want to interrupt the Minister, but the majority of the staff in the particular office were members of the same organisation as the dismissed man. Therefore, the question of supervision was not the issue involved in that case.

Dr. Hillery

If the Senator would accept majority rule we would all have our job done.

Mr. McQuillan

If you want majority rule——

Dr. Hillery

Majority rule generally. Fairness and acceptability were doubted even by a minority. He was assigned temporarily to another Department. I understand his conditions of work are not less congenial than what he had been doing in the Post Office before that. The officer who was dismissed was one of seven supervising officers who had taken part in a previous strike organised by the Association in November, 1967. At the time, each one of them was told if he again took part in strike action he would be dismissed. The Post Office has a disciplinary code which leaves it open to people who have a warning of dismissal to appeal against that warning. Without making any appeal, five of these seven officers took part in another strike in February and the question of their dismissal arose. After that strike all but one of them gave an undertaking not to take part in strike action again. The exception was the man who is the subject of this motion. He was dismissed.

I spoke at the beginning of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs as the employer but this decision was taken by the Government. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was not at any time acting on his own. Decisions have been made with the full knowledge, I might say, of the Government. A statement was issued by the Association at that time to the effect that the man chose to be dismissed in order to enable the Association to take legal action to show that the Government had acted wrongly in so dismissing him. This would be the proper approach if the Minister or the Government, in their capacity as employer, were felt to have broken the law. No legal action was taken. I assume the advice the Association got was that the Government had not broken the law.

Mr. McQuillan

The Government were above the law.

Dr. Hillery

No. The officer subsequently applied for re-employment and gave an undertaking that he would not go on strike again. If he had given that undertaking earlier he would not have been dismissed. We all say that a man following lawful trade union activity should be protected but you must also accept that the running of the Post Office must be done in such a way—or indeed the running of any business—that a service of high standard will be given to the public. The participation of supervising officers in two strikes would create a very serious inter-staff relation problem in the Post Office. I am told that the majority of the staff in the grade supervised by these people did not go on strike. By going on strike those in a supervisory capacity would create serious inter-staff relationship problems. There is a serious doubt in the mind of the Government as to whether these supervisors who took part in strike have the capacity in the eyes of the workers with whom they work to exercise fair and acceptable supervision. This is a point which would be taken by most trade unions.

Mr. McQuillan

In spite of the fact that all these supervisors and the majority of the staff were members of the same Association?

Dr. Hillery

I am speaking from information given to me by the Post Office and I am told the majority of the people supervised by these people concerned did not go on strike.

Mr. McQuillan

Would the Minister make an independent inquiry into this himself? There are two groups concerned. The Post Office has given one version and the Post Office Officers' Association the other. We are prepared to abide by the Minister as an independent investigator. Is he prepared to do it on that basis?

Dr. Hillery

If the trade unions generally and the employers generally would accept my decision I would go there. I am always told to keep out of it by the one that is winning at any time. If I get anything near a consensus that would accept my decision every time I will do that.

Mr. McQuillan

It is very ambitious to expect them to accept your decision every time.

Dr. Hillery

The trade unions will accept my decisions when they cannot win by force and the employers will accept my decision when they cannot win by force. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs dealt with this case every time through the Government and the decision was that participation in these strikes was incompatible with the position of supervisor. This was especially so in the case of people who took action for the second time despite a warning received that they would suffer dismissal. The fact that a particular action is claimed to be lawful under trade union legislation could not altogether over-ride any other consideration which would have to be taken into account in running the Post Office or any other business. Any actions quite lawful in themselves could make an official unsuitable for retention as a supervisor.

The reason I am here is because the negotiating licence was issued by the Minister for Labour. This was issued without any decision on my part. The fact that we have negotiating licences is part of an Act passed through the Oireachtas in 1941 and the essential part of that Act was to link the possession of a negotiating licence with the limitation of the number of fragmented groups at the negotiating table. The useful part of the Act was deemed to be unconstitutional and we are left with an inevitable lack of it. The automatic granting of negotiating licences is sometimes interpreted as inconsistent action by the Government. All it means is that the Act is there entitling people to have a negotiating licence under certain circumstances. I suggested to the trade union movement this might be a power given to the Minister. They would not have it. All I could do was try then to put a limitation on increasing numbers by making the conditions for the automatic issuing of licences a little more difficult.

To try to reduce the already existing numbers to a reasonable size which would make negotiating orderly, I have proposals in the Dáil for group negotiating licences. I think that this discussion may have done some good in the line of public education by showing the limits to the power of the State and the power of the Trade Union Congress and of workers generally to bring order into the field of negotiating. I do not think that I need stress any more that it was not a decision of the Government to issue a licence, and that anything done by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was done with the knowledge and usually with the decision of the Government.

Mr. McQuillan

I do not propose to take very long to conclude my remarks on the motion, but I should like to thank the Senators who contributed and to say that the Minister approached this in a reasonable fashion in so far as his own position is involved. There is no question about it the Minister for Labour is under a distinct handicap in discussing the misdeeds of his colleague and I appreciate his position in that regard. I certainly could not expect him to come in here and confess that Deputy Childers had made a hames of the position in the Post Office and embarrassed the Cabinet. Naturally if Deputy Childers behaves like this within the Cabinet the rest of his colleagues will have to stand over Deputy Childers as Minister.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Did the Senator not hear what the Minister has just said?

Mr. McQuillan

I listened very carefully to the Minister.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Did the Senator not hear the Minister state that it was done with Government knowledge and was a Government decision? Therefore, why allege that Deputy Childers made a hames of it?

An Cathaoirleach

The Chair suggests that a Minister should be referred to as a Minister. That is essential.

Mr. McQuillan

I did not want to be derogatory. There are two Ministers involved in the motion and I was just referring to Deputy Childers because I was trying to make sure that I could not be taken as criticising the Minister for Labour.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

It is because he is not here that you attack him.

Mr. McQuillan

That is not my fault, and he has a deputy who is Assistant Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and he is not here either. They evidently like to work through a third party and let the Minister for Labour say what the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs told him. In any dispute, and where there is a dispute of this nature, an outsider is the person to come in as a neutral or fair judge. I always understood that when the Department of Labour was set up the Minister for Labour was to be a fair judge not alone in industrial disputes throughout the country but in the same capacity within the Government service where bad relations obtained in a Department.

After all the Government is big business, and in every big business the Minister is now exhorting the directors that the most important man in the big business is the personnel officer, to keep his finger on the pulse of the workers, to see that every possible effort is made to treat them as human beings in an industry. If that is the Government's intention in private industry why is it not applied in a Government concern, the biggest industry directly under the Government's thumb, the Department of Posts and Telegraphs? In this there is a definite history of, shall we say, grievance down through the years. The Minister now can only say that his colleague told him this and told him that. Let me put it this way. One of the most arrogant bureaucracies in this State today is that which controls the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. It operates under the Victorian era system. It still operates a rule book, under which civilised men and women have to work, which it is ashamed to produce. Every possible thing is thought of, from the action to be taken if a dog bites a postman, and the only thing they left out is what will happen if the unfortunate postman goes mad and bites the dog.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Would the Senator get one of these rule books and put it into the Library?

Mr. McQuillan

I will gladly do that, and I will make a present of a copy of it to the Senator, and there is no man who will deal with it quicker when he sees the outmoded type of discipline that book seeks to embody. It is a disgrace. The Minister for Labour should call for a copy of that book. Some of those excellent conciliation officers and personnel officers should read it. It is a sobering thought to think that in 1968 the Department of Posts and Telegraphs still persists in looking at human beings as they were in the time of Dickens.

Professor Dooge

Or Trollope.

Mr. McQuillan

The Minister has said that I have not convinced him, nor has the association to which I refer convinced him or convinced Congress, that the creation of this new union will in turn reduce the number of existing unions, and that until he is so convinced that it can happen he is not prepared to even take a sympathetic view of what the association is trying to do. Let us clear it this way. Congress—I do not want to be critical of Congress—has stated for years that its major objective is to rationalise the trade unions and decrease the number of trade unions. They admit that their efforts in that regard have been fruitless practically for years past. The Minister himself has stated that he does not want to do this by legislation. If a new union like this is formed which can by persuasion be responsible for the elimination of two other existing small unions, merging together four groups which are at present catered for under three unions, surely that is worth while considering. It is a new concept in industrial relations.

I did not make this clear, because Senator Ó Maoláin took me up on it in his contribution when he said that there are three unions catering for these people and there is no point in having a fourth. It is clear that he misunderstood my explanation, and I am responsible for that. At the moment you have four clerical grades in the post office. These four grades are in three different associations. This new association is bringing those four groups into one association by persuasion, and our belief is that once it gets over the opposition of the Minister and the opposition of the Congress—and when I say the Minister I mean both Ministers—the people who are still left in the small house associations will come in completely into this association, and thereby in a matter of twelve months the other associations would wither away completely—a painless form of extinction.

There is another achievement when this is done, and that is that management and staff are then in the new association. In many of the major provincial offices throughout the country the postmaster, the supervising staff and the clerical staff are all members of this association and the relations between them are excellent. There is no question of this outmoded rule book being heard about the staff communicating on pieces of paper—"Please explain this, that and the other." They can all sit down at the one table as members of the one association. But the Department and the existing union officials do not want any change.

Listening to Senator Murphy here I felt sorry to think that they wanted to keep things as they are, with no change whatever, and no new suggestions, the attitude "We are too long in the field and we know this all before." I am not speaking as one who has been in the trade union movement for years, but I became involved in it, and I am sure that our lines of approach in this are ones that Congress could with advantage study because it is a painless form of elimination of small ineffective unions. I do not want to be critical, and I will not be critical, of individuals in those associations, but one of the reasons why our members want one union for all is that the existing Post Office associations are in fact house associations. Their executives, shall we say, officers or officials, are all civil servants, some of them part-time, seconded on a part-time basis to do a job as trade union officials.

The other officials are seconded on a full-time basis but in the words of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs last year in Dáil Éireann, they are subject to the same discipline as if they were on the same full-time service as Post Office employees.

Though I am not criticising those men in their personal capacity, they start with a tremendous disadvantage and if they have to face the boss at a negotiation table those officials are still subject to the boss and all they have got is special leave, if you like, seconded away from him for the time being. That is the position.

Another very important point that the Minister should bear in mind is that the other House unionists cannot criticise Government policy in their capacity as trade unionists. A true trade unionist should have independence in that regard and not be bound by what the Minister describes as the discipline which involves civil servants.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The Senator did not include the Postal Workers' Union in that.

Mr. McQuillan

The executive of the Post Office Workers' Union can be disciplined by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs for taking part in a political discussion.

Mr. Murphy

Does the Senator know what the executive officers said on the Criminal Justice Bill?

Mr. McQuillan

No, I do not and I am not interested in what they said on that Bill. What I am interested in is that these people have been held to ransom during the past 12 months for making public political statements. The statement by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in the Dáil was that the Secretary of the Post Office Workers' Union and the Assistant Secretaries are subject to the same discipline as full-time civil servants and that they cannot participate in politics. That statement is on the records of the House. There is something wrong when we have a situation like that. I should like to point out to Senator Murphy that it is significant that while the house unions within the Post Office are associated and affiliated to the Labour Party, no member of the Post Office Workers' Union is a member or has been a member of the administrative council of the Labour Party.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Has the Senator ever heard of the late Deputy William Norton?

Mr. McQuillan

He was not a civil servant at the time he held the office. He was in an entirely different capacity to the present holder or the last holder of the office. Let it be clearly understood that when a commission was set up some years ago which sat from 1933 to 1935, the Civil Service chiefs were actually embarrassed that a non-civil servant could become secretary of the Civil Service Organisation. In order to get over that, it was suggested that the outsider should be brought into the Service and seconded. That was the solution put forward at a special inquiry. In other words the attitude was to take him in and pluck him. If one has a wild goose, one brings him in and clips his wings so that he cannot get over the fence. That is what the higher civil servants wished to do with people like Deputy Norton.

Those who are responsible for the organisation of trade unions should not be under any pressure from the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. They should be completely out of the Civil Service and in so far as their pensions and so on are concerned these should be paid by the Association but not by the Department.

Mr. Murphy

That is a matter for their unions.

Mr. McQuillan

The members of this Association believe that they cannot get the best possible results for their trade unionists under those circumstances and the members of the Association are entitled to that view.

Mr. Murphy

That union was set up before Senator McQuillan came in contact with them.

Mr. McQuillan

I beg the Senator's pardon. I am afraid that Senator Murphy is taking his information from the wrong sources.

Mr. Murphy

Might I ask the Senator then, if he founded it?

Mr. McQuillan

The organisation was founded in January, 1966 and I was made the first general organising secretary in that particular month—the time of its foundation. There has been a feeling lately in the Government Party that there should be no pressure on trade unionists to subscribe to political funds.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Hear, hear.

Mr. McQuillan

I have heard criticism of Liberty Hall by Members of this House on the grounds that workers are more or less forced to subscribe to the political fund of the Labour Party. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, instead of criticising Liberty Hall should, at the present time, examine the position in the Post Office where he is the official collector for a political fund. Each month, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs collects the political levy for the Labour Party in his capacity as Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. During the past 12 months he succeeded in bringing in a fortune by the collection of union dues which entail that no member can resign from the union which the Minister favours unless a month's notice is given to the Minister. The Minister is doing a job which is not true trade unionism. When the Minister has to get a month's notice of a worker's withdrawal from membership of a union, there is something radically wrong.

Senator Murphy was absolutely inaccurate in his information regarding the foundation of the association to which this dismissed man belonged. Again, he is still more inaccurate when he talks about picketing. I am surprised that a man who is President of Congress for so long and who is a professional trade unionist would be so uninformed as to what picketing means and of where the rights of picket obtain.

Mr. Murphy

I do not remember using the word "picket".

Mr. McQuillan

The position in so far as the existence of trade unions within the Post Office is concerned is that the only legal recognition they have is from the Minister for Finance. They have no recognition from the Minister for Labour. Now people may criticise the value of a negotiating licence but under the law no union, in the Civil Service or out of it, has the right to place pickets unless they hold a negotiating licence.

The Minister, I am sure, will confirm that the law states this specifically, the protection that is afforded to trade unions can only be given because of a negotiating licence. Therefore, at the present time the existing unions in the Post Office have not the right to take industrial action. I am not suggesting that industrial action is the be-all and end-all but the Minister himself is on record as saying: "Take away the worker's right to strike and you take away his dignity". If you are talking about rights in the Civil Service the men and women there have not got full civil rights. They need never exercise those rights but it should be their legal right to do so.

Mr. Murphy

They freely subscribe to the conciliation and arbitration machinery and they accept the decisions of the arbitrator.

Mr. McQuillan

They gave up the right, just the same as they gave up the right during the last 40 years, to participate in politics. Civil rights have been at issue during the last 40 years in the Post Office and they are still awaiting the right to participate in politics. The line of approach by Senator Murphy is very interesting because his advice is: "Do not change. We want no change". This man pretends to act as a spokesman for the Party of which I had the privilege to belong when I hoped their socialist aims were serious. If that is the line of the Labour Party, Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael need never worry about a takeover by Labour in this country. I am afraid there is a worse practice being disclosed. What Senator Murphy has in mind is not socialism but dictatorship by trade unionists and that would be disastrous.

Mr. Murphy

Who is the potential dictator?

Mr. McQuillan

You will never reach that stage at any rate.

Mr. Murphy

Thank God I have no such ambition.

Mr. McQuillan

He said in his statement that he saw in any industry the situation that an incoming worker should be bound to join the existing association and forever more he would be part and parcel of that association —that if he wanted to change from it it would mean he would lose his position. That is the new form of industrial democracy which Senator Murphy proposes on behalf of the Labour Party. I can tell him there is nothing democratic, there is nothing justifiable about that and nothing as bad as allowing bureaucracy within the trade union to become equally as arrogant as the bureaucracy in the Government of Fianna Fáil. I know I am not making friends by that statement. The Minister pointed out that he had to issue the negotiating licence.

Dr. Hillery

I am just giving facts. If I had the decision to make I would not have given it to them.

Mr. McQuillan

I did not convince the Minister that what we were trying to do was rational.

Dr. Hillery

I hate people trying to say that I did not say it was my fault.

Mr. McQuillan

So, in fact, it was an attempt at goodwill.

Dr. Hillery

You get something through if you provoke.

Mr. McQuillan

May I call the Minister's attention to the fact that when a negotiating licence for the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union was flouted by the EI Shannon group the Minister deplored the fact that this union's negotiating licence was not recognised. When a house association in the Hospitals Trust refused to recognise the negotiating licence of the Workers' Union of Ireland, the Minister deplored the fact in the Dáil, ably abetted by the leader of the Labour Party, and he said that this licence should be recognised. They were both lawful unions and they were both entitled to move in and to negotiate for the workers. Even though the Minister deplored the non-recognition of that right, I do not think it would have the same recognition from his colleague, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. We have the extraordinary position that the Minister for Labour exhorts industry outside to have respect for negotiating licences and to negotiate under its terms, yet inside the Government we have the situation that his own colleague, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, is following the bad example set by the private industrialists and by Hospitals Trust outside.

There is one major point I want to raise here. I referred to it in my opening remarks. The Minister has again, and rightly so, appealed to the Post Office workers, and the Civil Service generally, who are part of the conciliation and arbitration machinery, to cut out the nonsense and take the first tender, delicate step towards moving into the Labour Court. He has suggested they should do so. He has not given the reason why they will not do it.

Would he not agree that the attitude of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs plays a big part in persuading the Post Office unions to stay as they are? Is it not a fact that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has gone on record that the C and A, as it is, is right? If he is taking that line and the Minister for Labour says: "I am offering the Labour Court and I think I know better because of the advice given to me by my skilled negotiators" surely there is a rift in the Cabinet? Surely there is something wrong if one Minister responsible for labour relations and looking after workers' interests takes this line in the Cabinet that a certain line of action should be taken, why should the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs leave that meeting and propound a different point of view altogether? It is time they got him in and examined him on that.

A major point which I think is overlooked by this House, by members of the Labour Party in it and by members of the Labour Party in the other House, is that the nine per cent rise which was given last year was given first to the lower echelons of the Civil Service. I want to say now, because of the existing conciliation and arbitration machinery, the 1/- to the Post Office worker must, in turn, be given right up to the Secretary of the Department—I will not name him— and to every Secretary of every Department. This is the leapfrogging the Minister is talking about. I maintain the present conciliation and arbitration machinery is responsible for that.

When the Quinn Tribunal was set up some years ago it was to examine the pay, the structure and the type of work done by clerical workers in the State service. One of the first comments made by the Quinn Tribunal was that the 1964 increase given to the Post Office clerk was responsible for starting the leap-frogging which took place afterwards in the rest of the Civil Service. I think that is very important. At that stage the Post Office clerk was the lowest paid clerical worker in the State. Even the Taoiseach at the time stated the Post Office worker was entitled to a substantial rise in his pay.

He did not get as much as he was entitled to, but the increase which he got had in turn to be passed on to all the higher clerical elements. What I am getting at is that the time has come, if the Government are serious, to alter the system of conciliation and arbitration and set up within the Post Office itself, as the biggest employer of all, conciliation and arbitration machinery for the Post Office, perhaps with access to the Labour Court. As long as the Post Office worker is at the bottom rung of the conciliation and arbitration machine you will have leap-frogging and the high expenditure of pay claims, whether it is 4 per cent, 7 per cent or 10 per cent.

Mr. Murphy

You will get 9 per cent of the postmasters and supervisors class.

Mr. McQuillan

Not at all. I am talking about the higher echelons. I want the Post Office hived off, just as the ESB are to get their own conciliation machinery.

Mr. Murphy

Who said there was a separate ESB tribunal?

Mr. McQuillan

I think the Minister will deal with that. If the Senator reads the terms of the new Bill which is before the other House he would be enlightened about what is in store for the ESB. I think we are entitled to make the suggestion that similar autonomy in personnel relations be granted in the Post Office. Why should business concerning the Post Office in its industrial relations be applied to the Civil Service as a whole? Without anything derogatory being said towards the people in the Department of Justice or the backroom boys in the Department of Finance, when the Post Office worker is called upon to do increased work—as an example I mention the introduction of the Giro service—and in consequence is awarded an increase in pay, why must this increase be automatically passed on to the higher civil servants in Finance, Industry and Commerce or any other Department? This is the point I want to get across to Senator Murphy. I am sure he will agree with me when he thinks it over later on. You can reverse the argument and say by reason of the fact that the Post Office worker is on the bottom rung, although the Government might like to give a bigger increase they cannot do so because everybody else will have to get it as well, so from all angles it would suit the people in whom I am interested, and for whom Senator Murphy professes a deep interest, not to have them used as a stepping stone for the higher echelons.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair is a little concerned as to the relevance of the remarks.

Mr. McQuillan

The Minister dealt with the point about leap-frogging and I am giving him a suggestion which might improve the position for the workers and, at the same time, give the Government an opportunity to hold existing salaries. I do not know if the Minister will appreciate my suggestion.

Dr. Hillery

I do.

Mr. Murphy

We have one trade union leader in support of restraint at any rate.

Mr. McQuillan

I would ask the Minister to have a little more confidence in himself and, in his capacity as Minister, to deal with what is taking place in the Post Office. Because we are a small country, the impression is created that our problems in the trade union field are vast. They are blown up much more than they should be for a very simple reason and that is the human touch. The Minister himself is the best example I know of what I am trying to convey here. He is sitting back from events and analysing them as a surgeon would before he makes an incision. The surgeon puts an injection in and cools the body so that there is no feeling. The Minister is trying to do something like that to human beings before he operates on them in his Industrial Relations Bill and his Trade Union Bill. I would say to the Minister that if he meets with a rebuff for intervening, it is much better to meet with that rebuff because two days later he will be successful in another field. The Minister will not lose any dignity or respect because of his intervention. I would refer to the position across the water where Mrs. Barbara Castle, in her capacity as Minister for Labour, has no hesitation in calling in people and having a discussion with them.

Dr. Hillery

I am meeting the Congress tomorrow.

Mr. Murphy

Mrs. Castle has the good looks.

Mr. McQuillan

I presume that good looks are not what decides policy in Britain. The Minister has his share of them. I would suggest to the Minister that the way to approach the whole problem is not from a distance. I have always believed there is nothing to beat talking across a table and discussing a difficulty with people rather than by pen and paper, quoting this regulation and that regulation, quoting a Papal encyclical on TV and so on.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

And that Minister's speech or the other Minister's speech?

Mr. McQuillan

If the Minister present wishes, he has a wonderful opportunity available, if he takes it, in this particular arena where there is complete disorganisation. I believe the workers will have more respect for him for doing this than they have for the pseudo leaders at the present time. I suggest to the Minister that at this stage instead of accepting in toto the statements and answers made by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to the charges which this Association has made against it, the Minister should, in his capacity as personnel officer, say: “I am going to intervene, or I am going to ask my officers to intervene and see if something possibly can be done inside the Post Office”. Under the law the Minister's Department has the right to intervene in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and the only reason they do not is because they fear it would embarrass his colleague in the other Department. That is the only reason that prevents the Minister for Labour from utilising his skilled personnel to improve labour relations and workers' conditions in the Post Office.

I want to measure my words very carefully, but I suggest to the Minister at this stage that it would be advisable for him to intervene. Every effort that can be made is being made in the Post Office to create a feeling of mutual respect, to get over this bitterness to which Senator Murphy referred, which undoubtedly exists when there is a question of disputes between unions.

Mr. Murphy

Fragmentation of unions.

Mr. McQuillan

That is something to be deplored, but what I think is worse is where you have a Minister exploit that situation and go out of his way to make a division between workers and then sit back and create more mischief and that is what the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has done. I would say to the Minister: "You have the power to intervene, you have a duty where there are two cases stated and where there is a doubt in your mind to come in as an independent investigator and see that justice is done".

Finally, I would ask the Minister to use his position to put forward to the Government something that might help in the immediate future to ease the tension which is now growing very rapidly and that is to set up a commission—something on the same lines as the Quinn Tribunal in the clerical grades—to examine the working conditions and pay in the Post Office.

I believe that if the Government would agree to it it would ease much of the tension and clarify the air for the general public, for the Members of this House and for the community as a whole. This is not too much to ask of the Minister. My feeling is that I have a regard for the Minister. He wants to do what is right and I hope that he will take my comments in a constructive way. I do not want to see any further bitterness in the Post Office or in the Civil Service. Anything that I can do at this stage to ease that position, so far as my personal position is concerned, I will do it.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Does the Senator accept majority rule?

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

The Seanad adjourned at 8.50 p.m.sine die.