asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether he can say how many railway employees have so far been rendered redundant as the result of the operation of the Railways Act, 1924, to what grades they belong and whether compensation has been paid in accordance with the terms laid down in the Third Schedule of that Act; whether he is aware that the Great Southern Railways Company is adopting the practice of calling upon the men to retire without, in many cases, mentioning compensation at all, and in others merely asking the employee the amount of compensation he claims, and is generally placing the onus of claiming and calculating compensation on the employees; and whether he is aware that the Railway Company is bound to advise each redundant employee of the compensation to which he is entitled.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - REDUNDANT RAILWAY EMPLOYEES.
The particulars asked for in the first part of the question are not in my possession, but I understand from the Railway Company that a list is in preparation which must take some time to complete. I am informed that agreements in respect of compensation involving an annual charge of over £7,000 have already been entered into.
With regard to the last part of the question, the rights and obligations of the parties are prescribed in the Third Schedule of the Railways Act, 1924, and it would not be proper for me to express any views or suggest any opinion as to whether employees were or were not entitled to compensation, or as to what the Railway Company was or was not bound to do. Paragraph (8) of that Third Schedule provides the method of determining any disputes or questions that arise, and excludes me from any functions in such matters.
If the obligations placed upon the Company by the action of the Minister are not being carried out, would the Minister, in such a case, not consider it his duty to take the matter up with the Company and see that their obligations are carried out, and that the people who become redundant, as a result of the Minister's own action, will be safeguarded by the Company carrying out their obligations in the way which is clearly laid down in the Act?
I hardly think that that is my duty. The Dáil, as one of the Houses of the Oireachtas, passed a Railways Act, portion of the Third Schedule of which was that certain people shall be entitled to be paid compensation by the Amalgamated Company, "the amount of such compensation to be determined by the Amalgamated Company (subject to appeal as hereinafter provided) in accordance with the following rules ...." The paragraph touching on appeals is paragraph 8, and it reads: "If any existing officer or servant shall feel aggrieved by the decision of the Amalgamated Company on any matter to be determined by it under the foregoing rules, or if any dispute or question shall arise between any existing officer or servant and the Amalgamated Company on any matter arising under this schedule, such existing officer or servant may appeal to a standing arbitrator or board of arbitrators appointed by the Chief Justice ...." Such officer may appeal to a standing arbitrator. I may point out that the question of the fees for an appeal will in that case be paid by the Amalgamated Company. There is provision made for an appeal where there is any sense of grievance on the part of any existing officer.
Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the practice of the Company of intimating to a certain class of employees over a given age that they should resign, and, by resigning, employees of that class are forfeiting their rights under the Bill? I do not say that they are actually forfeiting their rights, but there is a doubt as to whether they are or are not.
I am glad that the Deputy corrected himself. It would be very wrong for anybody to state, with any appearance of authority, that men so resigning would forfeit rights which the 1924 Act gives them. I have heard that the Company has addressed a request to men to resign. I think if the Company feel they are entitled to ask a man to resign without compensation, they can do so. If that person holds he has been prejudiced in any way, he can apply, under paragraph 5 of the Third Schedule, to the Amalgamated Company to determine the amount of his compensation. If he is aggrieved further in regard to the amount, he has his remedy, as offered in paragraph 8.
If the Minister is furnished with evidence that the Company is endeavouring, by intimidatory tactics, to force men into retiring, without giving them any conditions of compensation, would he prefer that the Trades Union should take industrial action rather than that he should now intervene, as a result of being furnished with such evidence as I have referred to, and compel the Company to carry out the obligations honourably entered into?
The alternative is not between industrial action on the part of Trades Unions and my doing something. The alternative is industrial action or otherwise, the aggrieved person taking his case before the Board of Arbitrators. How is a person prejudiced in any way by appealing, wherever he thinks his rights are involved?