CAB129-37 — Page 740

"

8. By adopting the course I should expect to retain the goodwill and co-operation of the existing recognised unions—a factor of paramount importance in the present critical position of the country-in the field of productivity, the treatment of wage claims, and negotiations generally. Nevertheless, I do not underrate the difficulty involved in following this course or the strength of the criticism I should have to meet from the Parliamentary Opposition. Not only would they criticise my statement of policy as taking away the existing safeguard for minority rights; they would also accuse me of a breach of faith towards the new associations, particularly towards the Engineering Officers' (Telecommunications) Association,

Association, whose claim so far as numbers are concerned would have already been virtually sub- stantiated before the change was made. The question of minority rights is dealt with in paragraph 6. I could also put forward a reasoned defence against the accusation of breach of faith. In the first place, I could point to the qualifica- tion attached to the Listowel formula that it was "subject to the prevailing circumstances on any occasion being similar to those obtaining to-day," and could stress that the circumstances have, in fact, materially changed. Secondly, I could emphasise the reference to this aspect of the matter in the correspondence between the Post Office and the Engineering Officers' (Telecommunications) Association. I could point out that—

1

!

(a) nearly four weeks after publication of the Listowel formula in the Post (the journal of the Union of Post Office Workers) and some ten days after its publication in another Post Office association journal, the Engineering Officers' (Telecommunications) Association wrote to the Post Office asking for "information regarding the rules and regulations concerning the granting of

recognition," thus clearly indicating that, if they were relying on the Listowel formula, they did not regard the 40 per cent. criterion as justifying automatic recognition; in reply the Post Office wrote on 17th February, 1947, that no precise rules concerning the grant of recognition are laid down, but that, as a result of a recent review of the general arrange- ments

the Postmaster General will not be prepared to consider requests for recognition from an association unless it can show that it has in membership at least 40 per cent.

❞ and (b) in a letter dated 27th August, 1949, in which I offered to reconsider their claim in the light of membership figures at the end of 1949, I made it clear that this was proposed on the assumption that in the meantime there is no change in regard to the principle on which the grade is used as a basis for considering claims by staff associations to official recognition"; this specific proviso was inserted in the second letter because at that time I had received notice that the Union of Post Office Workers desired to renew their demand for a change of policy.

"

Thirdly, and more generally, I could insist on the principle that, whatever numerical or other conditions are laid down as a pre-requisite to the consideration of any claim for recognition, the decision whether or not to recognise must always rest upon the Minister's discretion. In this connection, I should point out that under the Listowel formula, apart altogether from the possibility of a change of policy, 40 per cent. membership merely gave entitlement to "consideration." Critics may seek to refute my argument by reference to the Treasury pamphlet en "Staff Relations in the Civil Service. (Appendix D-see particularly the second sentence.) The answer which I should make is that this pamphlet only purports to give an outline of present policy; it does not, of course, abrogate the power of Ministers to make changes after proper consultation when due cause is shown.

Conclusion

9. Of the three courses available I favour the third. Serious difficulties attach to all three, but the third course seems to me to be the one most fitted to the over-riding national needs of the present time. It offers, as I have explained, room for charges of bad faith, but I consider that they can be resisted. If my colleagues agreg that the defence which I have outlined in paragraphfs would justify this course at the bar of public opinion, I would propose to follow it.

37995

B 2

371