Interim Report - REPORT_NO92, 1966

1. 209. The complaint of the Irish Telephonists' Association is contained in two communications addressed directly to the I.L.O on 7 October and 10 November 1965 respectively and in two cables addressed on 26 and 30 October 1965 to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and transmitted by him to the I.L.O. The Government of Ireland forwarded its observations on the complaint by a communication dated 20 April 1966.
2. 210. Ireland has ratified both the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations relating to the Non-Recognition of the Complaining Organisation
  211. 211 The complaining organisation alleges that the Government has refused to recognise it for the purpose of negotiation although it represents a majority of the full-time male telephonists employed in the telephone exchanges of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. In September 1963 the Male Night Telephonists Branch of the Post Office Workers' Union seceded from the union en bloc, as they considered that the union was persistently inadequate in its representation of their grade, and formed the Irish Telephonists' Association. In February 1964 the association applied formally to the Minister for Finance for recognition as a negotiating body, but this has not been granted. Consequently, the association resorted to strike action in March 1965 and again in September 1965.
  212. 212 The demand for recognition of the new association, it is alleged, arose from the fact that the Post Office Workers' Union had failed to obtain redress for the grievances of male night telephonists. Only 15 per cent of them are established staff, although many of them have long service and, it is contended, their applications to sit for examinations have been rejected and they have no scope for promotion. The complainants also criticise the hours of work, changes of duty periods without notification or consultation, and failure to pay allowances for compulsory attendance at weekends.
  213. 213 The Government states that the Post Office Workers' Union is recognised under the scheme of conciliation and arbitration for the civil service as representing about 9,000 post office employees, including 1,570 female telephonists, 290 male night telephonists and 200 male night and Sunday telephone attendants. The said scheme constitutes the negotiating machinery agreed upon between the Minister for Finance and the various civil service staff organisations for dealing with claims relating to pay and conditions of service of civil servants. Only civil service staff associations recognised by the Minister for the purposes of conciliation and arbitration are eligible to participate in the scheme. The staff associations parties to the scheme are represented by the Civil Service General Council Staff Panel and the Minister consults the panel before granting recognition to any new staff association.
  214. 214 According to the Government the breakaway Irish Telephonists' Association has as members about 170 male telephonists, other male telephonists having remained in the Post Office Workers' Union. When the Minister consulted the General Council Staff Panel regarding the association's request for recognition, the panel recommended refusal, for the reasons indicated in a letter which it addressed to the Minister on 29 January 1965.
  215. 215 The Government furnishes a copy of the panel's letter. In that letter the panel said that it considered that the interests of the male night telephonists were " ably and effectively " represented by the Post Office Workers' Union through the machinery of the scheme of conciliation and arbitration, for the civil service and expressed the view that " the granting of official recognition in such circumstances to a breakaway group such as is the Irish Telephonists' Association would be disruptive of the orderly operation of the scheme of conciliation and arbitration and could consequently be a most serious impediment to the realisation of the declared objective of the scheme ".
  216. 216 On receipt of that letter the Minister informed the association of its contents, stating that he and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs wished that matters affecting staff representation should be settled by agreement between the parties themselves, and that the Post Office Workers' Union still represented the larger proportion of telephone operating staff. He suggested that the association should try to hold talks with the other parties to resolve the difficulty and, in the meantime, deferred his decision on the application for recognition. But the association, declares the Government, called a one-night strike in March 1965, and then pressed for a decision on recognition. In May 1965 the Department of Posts and Telegraphs wrote to the association stating that, while the decision as to recognition lay with the Minister for Finance, he preferred the parties to resolve the difference between themselves rather than place him in the invidious position of having to decide between one group and another, each of which desired to have the exclusive right to represent male night telephonists. The association was urged to arrange a meeting with the Post Office Workers' Union under a mutually agreed chairman but it did not do so. In September 1965 the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs agreed to a request for an interview by the association, but then deferred it because the press carried reports of strike threats by the association and the latter failed to confirm that the reports were made without its approval. A strike was called by the association on 24 September 1965, and in the course of it various incidents took place.
  217. 217 The dispute, says the Government, was a dispute between a recognised union and a dissident union. In a statement published on 3 November 1965 the Irish Congress of Trade Unions declared that the Post Office Workers' Union and the Post Office Engineering Union had offered to join in talks with the association and that this offer should be accepted, and pointed out that the Congress itself could investigate the dispute. But, says the Government, the association did not seek the help of the Congress to settle the dispute, and also refused to accept any of the proposals put forward by the Civil Service General Council Staff Panel-representing virtually the whole civil service below the administrative ranks-for an independent assessment of the association's claim for recognition. The strike ended on 10 November 1965 and all the members of the association who presented themselves for duty have been re-engaged.
  218. 218 With regard to the alleged inadequacy of the representation of male night telephonists by the Post Office Workers' Union, the Government states that this union, since the beginning of 1964, has negotiated two wage increases for them, amounting in some cases to 29.6 per cent, and an extra night's leave per week.
  219. 219 The issue in this case is purely one of union recognition. It has not been suggested that any workers were refused the right to join the complaining organisation. While the question of recognition is in fact decided by the Minister it appears to be quite clear that he allows himself to be guided essentially by the advice of the Civil Service General Council Staff Panel side of the permanent joint negotiating machinery in which virtually all executive civil servants are represented. The Post Office Workers' Union represents post office employees in general and the very large majority of telephone operators of both sexes. One grade of such operators-male night telephonists-is now represented in part by the union and in part by the complaining organisation, and both of these organisations are, in fact, engaged in an inter-union dispute over the right of exclusive representation of the grade in question. While it would seem, at least in the latter stages of the dispute, that the Post Office Workers' Union has been ready to discuss the subject of the dispute with the association, the latter does not appear to have been willing to discuss it with the union. The existing Civil Service General Council Staff Panel, of which the Post Office Workers' Union is a member, is in fact the medium through which virtually all the civil servants' associations are benefiting from what amount in practice to union security arrangements, although sufficient flexibility appears to exist to permit of discussion as to the admission of a new association to the machinery if it is manifestly representative and does not appear likely to disrupt the existing negotiating machinery as a whole.
  220. 220 As the Committee has observed in certain earlier cases, it has taken the view, in accordance with that of the International Labour Conference itself, that the question of union security arrangements is a matter for regulation in accordance with national practice. In this connection the Committee has referred to the statement of the Committee on Industrial Relations set up by the Conference, which examined this matter inter alia when the text of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) (ratified by Ireland), was under discussion; in that statement the Conference Committee declared: " The Committee finally agreed to express in the report that the Convention could in no way be interpreted as authorising or prohibiting union security arrangements, such questions being matters for regulation in accordance with national practice." This view was accepted by the Conference when it adopted the report.
  221. 221 In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that these allegations do not call for further examination.
• Allegations relating to Arrests of Strike Pickets
  222. 222 It is alleged that on 25 September 1965, in the course of the strike called by the complaining organisation, an interim injunction was granted restraining the chairman of the association and certain named members, their servants and agents from picketing post office premises. On 8 October an interlocutory injunction was made and on 21 October the High Court made a committal order against three defendants. Two members were gaoled on 26 October for " picketing their places of employment in furtherance of a trade dispute ". They went on hunger strike and then the Government applied to the High Court for their release, which, say the complainants, was granted unconditionally. It is alleged that 20 members of the association were imprisoned for peaceful picketing at the National Parliament, as were four female telephonists who supported them, the Government invoking the provisions of section 28 (1) of the Offences against the State Act, which provides that " it shall not be lawful for any public meeting to be held in or any procession to pass along or through any public street or enclosed place which or any part of which is situated within one-half of a mile from any building in which both Houses or either House of the Oireachtas are or is sitting or about to sit ". To invoke an Act designed for political offences against citizens picketing in furtherance of a trade dispute is, in the complainant's view, an " unwarranted trespass on the freedom of labour ". The complaining organisation declares that it has a trade dispute, through its employer, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, with the Government, and that, under the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, it may " attend at or near a house where a person resides or works or carries on business or happens to be ".
  223. 223 The Government states that pickets were placed on telephone exchanges in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Shannon Airport and elsewhere. The High Court granted an interim injunction restraining members of the association from picketing post office premises pending the hearing of the proceedings instituted. It continued to picket post office premises, and proceedings were instituted for contempt of the High Court order, and two persons who refused to give an undertaking to obey the High Court were committed to prison. They went on hunger strike and were released after eight days by order of the High Court on the application of the Attorney-General. The Government emphasises that they were not imprisoned for picketing but for refusing to obey an order of the High Court; they could have appealed to the Supreme Court but did not do so. Picketing of post office premises continued but no further proceedings for contempt were taken. But some members of the association were convicted of offences such as assault, intimidation, etc.
  224. 224 With respect to the alleged picketing of the Houses of Parliament, the Government states that article 40 of the Constitution guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably without arms, subject to laws regulating meetings in the vicinity of either House of Parliament, and that section 28 of the Offences against the State Act, 1939, is based on that provision. No one, however, according to the Government, was imprisoned for picketing under that Act. Some of those arrested under the said section 28 refused to accept bail and were for that reason held in custody, generally for a day or two, pending the hearing of prosecution proceedings. They were subsequently fined by the summary court.
  225. 225 The Committee has always applied the principle that allegations relating to the right to strike are not outside its competence in so far as they affect the exercise of trade union rights. It has pointed out that the right of workers and their organisations to strike as a legitimate means of defending their occupational interests is generally recognised. The Committee has also emphasised the importance that it attaches to the principle that pickets acting in accordance with the law should not be subject to interference by the public authorities.$
  226. 226 From the evidence furnished by the Government it appears that a number of persons were arrested for assault, intimidation, etc., or for offences committed in the vicinity of Parliament. The Committee does not consider that these particular points, there fore, call for further consideration. One point, however, remains difficult to appreciate, in spite of the information furnished by the Government. The Government has not made clear its attitude to the contention of the complaining organisation that its members were in dispute with their employer, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, and that in connection with such dispute they were entitled to picket peacefully their places of employment pursuant to the Trade Disputes Act, 1906. In these circumstances it is not clear to the Committee on what grounds application was made to the High Court for an injunction restraining them from picketing their places of employment-post offices at Dublin, Limerick, Cork, Shannon Airport, etc.-or on what grounds an injunction in this respect was granted. The Committee, therefore, before submitting its recommendations on this aspect of the case to the Governing Body, requests the Government to be good enough to furnish fuller information on this particular point.