HC Deb 26 June 1919 vol 117 cc338-9
99. Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON

asked the Postmaster-General whether a recent Treasury Circular granted a period of leave to all temporary Post Office employés; whether he has refused this privilege to caretaker operators on the ground that they are neither permanent employés of the Post Office nor the temporary staff within the meaning of the Treasury; and whether he will give the reasons which led him to deprive this section of his staff of this relaxation?

Mr. PEASE

Under the Treasury Circular to which the hon. Member refers, additional leave during 1919 may be granted on certain conditions to those employés who are entitled under existing regulations to a period of ordinary leave with pay. Caretaker operators are not ordinarily granted annual leave at the expense of the Post Office, and the concession in question does not, therefore, apply to them.

100. Mr. RICHARDSON

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the conditions of caretaker operators both as regards pay and length of attendance; whether he is aware that these operators have to give an attendance from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. on week-days, with a continuous period of thirty-nine hours' duty from Saturday night to Monday morning; and whether he will state his reasons for refusing to admit the right of the Postal and Telegraph Clerks' Association to represent its caretaker-operator members?

Mr. PEASE

I am aware that caretaker operators, who are stationed at small telephone exchanges, are usually responsible for attention to telephone calls made during the periods named. Their conditions of service were reviewed by a Select Parliamentary Committee which reported in 1913, and are in accordance with the recommendations of that Committee. Recognition of the Postal and Telegraph Clerks' Association as representing caretaker operators was refused in 1917, as not more than thirty members of the class, which numbers about 1,000, were members of the association. A further request for recognition has recently been received and is under consideration.

Lieut.-Commander DAWES

Did the right hon. Gentleman say the Holt Committee recommended a continuous thirty-nine hours?

Mr. PEASE

No, I did not say that.