Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked (1) whether, while National Telephone Company operators with five years' company service on being taken over by the Post Office will be entitled to the full period of annual leave in 1912, the ex-corporation (Glasgow) operators, who have already completed five years' Post Office service apart from previous company and corpora- 1906 tion service, will not receive the full period of leave until 1913; and (2), what is the reason for giving to the staff of the Glasgow Corporation Telephone Department, on transfer to the Post Office, conditions, worse in many respects than those already promised to the staff of the National Telephone Company?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELAlthough in some respects the staff of the Glasgow Corporation Telephone Department will have been less favourably treated than the staff of the National Telephone Company on transfer to the Post Office, the conditions of transfer, taken as a whole, are more favourable to the former staff than to the latter.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Postmaster-General why the transfer conditions comprised in the Memorandum of 1905, relative to the staff of the National Telephone Company, were not applied to the staff of the Glasgow Corporation telephone department on its transfer to the Post Office, in view of the fact that the memorandum was issued previous to the transfer of the corporation undertaking; and whether he is aware that it produces discontent in the public service that such discrimination should be made on the transfer of different staffs engaged on exactly similar work?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe memorandum to which the hon. Member refers was drafted to give effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee of this House which sat in 1905 to consider the provisions of the agreement of 2nd February, 1905, between the Postmaster-General and the National Telephone Company. The case of the Glasgow Corporation staff did not come within the purview of the Select Committee's report or of the Memorandum. The Glasgow Corporation staff have benefited by comparison with the National Telephone Company's staff in that, after a comparatively short period of employment under the Corporation; they were taken into the service of the State more than five years' earlier.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTDoes not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the memorandum of 1905 represented the policy of his Department towards the staff of any company or service which could be taken over, and was there any reason for not extending it to the Glasgow Corporation?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The Memorandum had relation solely to the National Telephone Company's staff, which in many respects is different from the Glasgow Corporation staff. For instance, none of the Glasgow Corporation men were pensionable, while the men of the National Telephone Company's staff to a considerable degree have pension rights. There is a large accumulated pension fund which will be handed over to the Postmaster-General, in return for which certain benefits will be granted.