Post Office Engineering Union (Hansard, 30 January 1962)

§ 13. Mr. Jeger
asked the Postmaster-General what meetings have taken place with representatives of the Post Office Engineering Union on his initiative in the last twelve months for discussion of the dispute which has led to working to rule.

§ 14. Mr. Fitch
asked the Postmaster-General what meetings have taken place with representatives of the Post Office Engineering Union on his initiative in the last twelve months for discussion of the dispute which has led to working to rule.

§ The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins)
I have twice met the union executive at its request during the last year to discuss this dispute—in June and October, 1961. In addition, there have been several meetings between the union and my officials. We are always very ready to meet the union when it seems likely to serve a good purpose.

§ Mr. Jeger
Does the Minister realise that in the Answer he has just read out he has evaded the key words of the Question, namely, "on his initiative"? He has explained to the House that the meetings that have been held have taken place on the initiative of the union and not himself. Is this not deplorable in view of the fact that he has had such a long time during which he could consider the differences existing between himself and the Post Office workers? Is not this another example of the complacency that has got him into all this trouble?

§ Mr. Bevins
No, Sir. There has been no complacency on my part. I frequently have informal meetings, at my request, with the leaders of the two main Post Office unions, and when the engineering union has asked to see me to discuss the dispute in which it is now involved I have at once readily agreed to see it.

§ Mrs. Castle
In view of the statement which the right hon. Gentleman made in the debate last night, can he say when he next hopes to see the union on this matter?

§ Mr. Bevins
The intervention that I made last night referred to the Union of Post Office Workers and not the union that is the subject of this Question.

§ 17. Sir L. Plummer
asked the Postmaster-General at what date the Post Office Engineering Union submitted to the Post Office the pay claim which led to Civil Service Arbitration Award 408; at what date the union first indicated a desire to proceed to arbitration; at what date the Post Office accepted the principle of arbitration; at what date the terms of reference were formally signed; and at what date the Post Office first indicated to the union that the award of the Tribunal would not be implemented.

§ Mr. Bevins
The claim was tabled on 8th November, 1960. The union formally expressed to me its wish to proceed to arbitration on 6th July, 1961, though I had suggested it to the union in May last year. The Post Office has at all times accepted the principle of arbitration. Terms of reference were signed on 21st July, 1961. On 11th August, 1961, I told the union that, if the Tribunal's 872 award were to exceed the 5½ per cent. increase which I had already offered, but which had been refused, I should implement the 5½ per cent. as from 1st January, 1961, but that the excess would be withheld until some future date to be decided by the Government.

§ Sir L. Plummer
Does not the Postmaster-General recognise that the reply he has given clearly shows that the Post Office accepted the idea of arbitration and signed the terms of reference before the pay pause came into effect? Is this really the way to conduct negotiations? Is this in accordance with the traditional standards of honour between two negotiating bodies? Surely the Minister has done a great disservice to the Post Office Engineering Union by treating it in this way.

§ Mr. Bevins
No, Sir. At his meeting with the National Staff Side on 10th August my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear that in all proceedings before the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal during the period of the pause, whether or not terms of reference had already been agreed, the operative date of any award would not be arbitral. To have implemented that award in full—and I should emphasise that the award was not made by the Tribunal until the middle of October—would clearly have been in conflict with Government policy.

§ Mr. W. R. Williams
Is the Minister aware that many of us are sorely distressed by the attitude he has taken up in this case? It is quite obvious that the terms of reference were agreed on 21st July, that everything was ready to go on with the case, and that it was not until 25th July that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his declaration in this House. Surely there must be some honour left in the Post Office. It was honourable throughout the period when was connected with it. Are we becoming less honourable now than we used to be in the old days?

§ Mr. Bevins
The position is that I made an initial offer to the union of 4½ per cent., which I later increased to an offer of 5½ per cent. Although that offer has been rejected by the union, I nevertheless feel that the Government ought to honour that 5½ per cent. award, as 873 a pre-pause commitment. For the rest, any excess payment would clearly have been inconsistent with Government policy.