A history of postal agitation from fifty years ago till the present day

by H. G. Swift

The petition proceeded to point out that:—

“None of these provisions have been carried into effect. The scale of wages under which we are paid should, as stated in the Treasury reply, be uniform with that of the Central Telegraph Office, which is detailed in Schedule B in the copy of the papers ordered to be printed by the Honourable the House of Commons. Nor is work paid for according to its quality, as sorters of the second class are regularly required to perform duties of the highest quality, and consequently appertaining to the first class. On this point we hold that a hard and fast limitation of the classes within certain prescribed numbers is opposed to Mr. Fawcett’s recommendation, and therefore not in accordance with the letter or spirit of this reorganisation scheme sanctioned by the Lords of the Treasury; for it is clearly explained, that the paying for such work solely according to its quality is to be effected by regulating the ‘number of places’ in the class carrying any particular scale, ‘strictly in accordance with the aggregate number’ of duties appertaining to that class. The number of places in the class carrying the first-class scale should, consequently, be limited solely by the number of first-class duties.

“The recommendation to reduce the night duty to seven hours has not been carried out, as in the N.P.B. and I.B. a duty exists extending from 5 P.M. to 12.30 A.M., and in the E.C.D.O. there is in existence a duty extending from 4 P.M. until 12 midnight. We are aware that a portion of these duties comes within the hours of the ordinary evening attendance, but in the case of a midnight duty of seven hours (say from 12 midnight to 7 A.M.), a certain portion also comes within the hours of the equally ordinary morning attendance, and we therefore contend that the duties we have mentioned come within the reference of the scheme of midnight duties, and should not therefore exceed seven hours.

“We need not point out that overtime is not paid for in accordance with the recommendation of the scheme. That we are entitled to payment at this rate is certain, for although the paragraph reads, ‘for ordinary overtime work at provincial offices,’ it is expressly stated in another paragraph of the report that the sorting force in London cannot be excluded from any improvement of position which may be conceded to the telegraphists and provincial sorting clerks.

“These are the provisions which have been expressly sanctioned by the Treasury for our benefit, and which we have been elected to endeavour to have carried into effect; but we may also mention the reference in Mr. Fawcett’s report to point 3 respecting holidays, viz.:—‘I am now considering a scheme the effect of which I hope may be to give one month’s leave in the course of the year to many who now have only three weeks, and three weeks to many who now have only a fortnight, respecting which we have been instructed to inquire, if the order of the Postmaster-General in the Post-Office Circular of 30th November 1886 is the effectuation of Mr. Fawcett’s contemplated scheme, and, if so, to ascertain if the fortnight’s leave of absence enjoyed by the second class should not be extended as in the case of the first class to three weeks. We are also instructed to inquire what foundation exists for the prevalent impression, that the payment as for overtime work given for all work done on Christmas Day and Good Friday should be at the rate of pay for overtime work on Sundays, and not on week days.

“We think it the most courteous and respectful method we could adopt to bring these facts under your notice, and before taking any further steps to ask you for any information on these points which may be within your knowledge, and for guidance as to the methods we should pursue, which, while fulfilling the trust reposed in us by our brother officers, would meet with your commendation. In conclusion, we beg to press on your consideration the fact that this is a representation emanating from the entire sorting staff of the Circulation Department, who feel sure that some of the most important provisions granted to them by the Lords of the Treasury have been withheld from them since 1881, and that you will therefore be kind enough to regard this letter as a matter of urgency, and favour us with an immediate intimation of its having reached you, and a reply at your earliest convenience.”

[Signed by the Committee.]

This petition from the united classes of the London sorting force broadly covered the whole of the ground on which they based their claims to the Fawcett scheme, and the various other petitions presented to Mr. Raikes were modelled upon it. As was almost inevitable under the circumstances, and as was almost expected by the promoters themselves, another unfavourable reply to their petition was received from the Controller. It was therefore soon afterwards determined to seek for permission, this time from the Postmaster-General himself, to hold another general meeting inside the official building.

In the meantime, however, Clery, the enthusiastic and resourceful young leader of the new movement, had written and published a pamphlet, “An Exposition of the Fawcett Scheme,” which gained a ready sale among the interested and expectant men. The exposition was a clever piece of literary dissection, and a clear analysis of the much-debated question of Mr. Fawcett’s intended meaning. With rare legal acumen the text and spirit of the 1881 scheme were compared and examined, and considered at some length. The conclusion was, of course, favourable to the contention that the sorting force were still being robbed of their rightful privileges.