I gave notice that I would raise on the Motion for the Adjournment a matter which is partly one for the Minister for Local Government and partly one for the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and to my mind it is very important. It deals with the dismissal of eight employees of the Ennis Urban District Council by a Commissioner to whom the Minister for Local Government and Public Health has transferred the powers and functions of the dissolved Urban District Council, and with the failure of the Government Departments concerned to investigate the legality of that dismissal, in view of the exemption of the employees of that Council from unemployment insurance because of the permanency of their employment except through misconduct or inefficiency. A certificate of exemption was issued by the Ministry for Industry and Commerce some time ago, and it was issued on the statement of the local authority that these employees could not be dismissed except through misconduct or inefficiency. That statement is on the records in the office of the Ministry of Industry. I have endeavoured to extract by question from the Minister what provisions he made to satisfy himself that these employees were not subject to dismissal except through misconduct or inefficiency. Now it appears that he did satisfy himself before issuing the certificate of exemption. It is generally known that public bodies— here I come tilt against the Minister for Local Government—have to submit minutes of their proceedings to the Local Government Ministry.
I endeavoured also to extract from the Ministry of Local Government a statement as to whether they had a copy of the proceedings in which the reasons for exemption were outlined; that is to say, whether the Urban Council did say at a meeting that these employees were exempt from unemployment insurance because of the permanent nature of their employment, and because they could not be dismissed except through misconduct or inefficiency. The reply which I got to-day from the Minister rather surprised me. He said that the only information he had was the information contained in an answer given by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, that no copy of the proceedings of the urban council meeting was furnished to the Department and, consequently, no opportunity was given to have the statement investigated. It comes to this, that on a serious matter of this kind the Minister for Local Government has not been informed by the local authority that a number of employees, scavengers and road men, are exempt from unemployment insurance, and that no reasons were given for seeking a certificate of exemption from the Ministry of Industry and Commerce. Deputies who have experience of local administration know that the Minister for Local Government is always very anxious to safeguard local bodies so that no serious litigation may take place and that the local rates may thus be saved.
I suggest that the Minister for Local Government did not think it worth while to institute an investigation into the facts of the case and that he did not take precautions to see that the rates were protected. These eight employees and their families will now probably go on the rates, as they will have no unemployment insurance benefit. The position now is this, that either the eight employees were not in permanent employment and that the statement of the local authority was not in accordance with facts, and also that the issue of the certificate of exemption by the Minister for Industry and Commerce is not legal, or else that the employees were permanent and could not be dismissed except through misconduct or inefficiency. If that is so, how does it come about that these employees were dismissed, not because of misconduct or inefficiency? Did the Minister for Industry and Commerce satisfy himself when the certificate was being issued that there was a contract between the employees of the Council and the Council itself, stating that the employees could not be dismissed except through inefficiency or misconduct? If the Minister did not do that, on what did he base his decision to issue the certificate of exemption? You cannot have it both ways. If they cannot be dismissed, except through misconduct or inefficiency, their employment is of a permanent nature, and if there is a contract to that effect, and if the Minister based his decision to issue the certificate on that contract, then there is something wrong with their dismissal.
