POST OFFICE STAFF ASSOCIATIONS (Hansard, 30 July 1953)

§ THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR)

My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to make a Statement to the House. Your Lordships may remember that I deferred any immediate decision on the Terrington Report in the hope that it might still be possible to bring the recognised and unrecognised Post Office Associations together. In one case a settlement has been reached—that of the National Guild of Motor Engineers, which has agreed with the Post Office Engineering Union to amalgamate on terms which give the motor transport staff in the Post Office more voice in their affairs. I congratulate both parties on the good sense and statesmanship the) have shown.

I will now deal with the case of the Engineering Officers (Telecommunications) Association and the Post Office Engineering Union. It is not disputed that on the basis of numbers E.O.(T.)A. was entitled to the consideration which one of my predecessors had promised. Consideration, however, is a very different thing from automatic recognition. The consideration that was promised has certainly been given in full measure. Since this matter was first raised, the situation has changed in several respects. I have had the benefit of the advice of an independent Committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Terrington. I have also had the advantage of the opinion of a man with wide experience in labour relations, Sir Richard Lloyd-Roberts, whose appointment was agreeable to both sides and who attempted conciliation between them. The advice tendered in each case was the same—that E.O.(T.)A. should not be recognised.

I will give some of the facts which have impressed me and of which your Lordships may not be fully aware. As pointed out by the Terrington Committee, out of 60,000 engineers, the grade of technical officer for which E.O.(T).A. claim recognition comprises some 14,000, but members of this grade hold sixteen 1169 out of twenty-three places on the executive of the Post Office Engineering Union. This grade also has ample representation at lower levels in the P.O.E.U. structure. Moreover, each separate section has its own separate conference, and although the national executive council has ultimate power to override the sectional bodies, this power is rarely, if ever, used. In addition, the Post Office Engineering Union, during the recent negotiations, made an offer, in my view almost unprecedented, to alter their rules so as to provide that no recommendation by a sectional committee could be overruled by the executive council without a two-thirds or even higher majority. As I have already said, the grades which E.O.(T).A. seek to represent already possess a majority of at least two-third son the executive council. All these facts lead me to the inevitable conclusion that the interests of the staff whom E.O.(T).A. claim to represent are already fully safeguarded, and that no injustice is being done or is likely to be done to that staff. While, therefore, I honour the persistence and sincerity with which they have fought their case, I am afraid that there are no valid grounds, as things are now, for acceding to their claim for recognition.

There remain two other cases with which I must deal. First, the National Association of Postal and Telegraph Officers (N.A.P.T.O.) and the Union of Post Office Workers (U.P.W.). N.A.P.T.O. claim to represent a grade numbering 21,900: only 2,600, or about 12 per cent., are in N.A.P.T.O., the rest being in U.P.W. On figures, N.A.P.T.O. do not qualify even for consideration: on merits, their case is not strong either. I should mention that U.P.W., like P.O.E.U., have shown their willingness to facilitate a friendly settlement by amending their rules. I am afraid that N.A.P.T.O. have 1170 not made their case and for this reason I am unable to grant them recognition, although I appreciate the sincerity of their aims. In the case of the National Association of Telephone Supervising Officers (N.A.T.S.O.) and the Association of Controlling Officers (A.C.O.), both Associations have agreed to the appointment of Sir Richard Lloyd-Roberts as conciliator, and I am now considering his Report.

In has, of course, for long been accepted that the departmental classes of the Post Office are not typical of the rest of the Civil Service, and I should therefore make it clear that what I have said does not apply to the Civil Service generally. In particular, nothing I have said in any way invalidates the undertakings given in 1951 to the Staff Side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council, that the findings of the Terrington Committee would not result in any change being made in the system in operation for General Service classes. I have tried to give a complete picture of the main recognition disputes in the Post Office. It would, however, in my view, be unwise to lay down any hard and fast rules for the future, and I shall continue to consider any future claims on their merits.