asked the Minister for Defence if he is aware that the following ex-members of the Railway Protection, Repair and Maintenance Corps (Class 1), namely:—Edward Farrell, James Brennan, Patrick O'Neill, Patrick Murphy, and Thomas Nolan, all of Inchicore, Dublin, claim that, before attesting, they agreed to work on the trade union conditions of milesmen, namely, 8/4 per day, this agreement being made by the Commanding Officer and an official of the N.U.R.; that their discharges show them to have been paid at a daily rate; and if, in view of these circumstances, he will reconsider their applications for arrears of pay in respect of Sunday work.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - APPLICATION FOR ARREARS OF PAY.
I am aware of the claim of the men referred to by the Deputy. As indicated in my reply to Deputy Doyle on the 25th February last, their agreement provided for a weekly rate of pay. In arriving at this weekly rate, account was taken of Sunday duty and of overtime rates and, on the other side, of the value of rations and accommodation supplied as well as clothing.
On discharge such members of the Corps as were entitled to a gratuity received a payment calculated on the basis of four weeks' pay and, in addition, 28 days' ration allowance. As far as pay was concerned, there was no question of awarding the gratuity on the basis of a daily rate.
Under these circumstances their applications for arrears of pay in respect of Sunday work, where performed, cannot be considered.
Is the Minister aware that the discharge papers of these men show they were entitled to so many days' service and so many days' pay? Their papers distinctly state they were employed on a daily rate.
The discharge paper that was then in existence was found to contain an error and it was scrapped. The result was that these men, some of them, did get paid at the daily rate of 8/4, but when it was found they were paid in error the money was recovered from them in all cases, and it was paid back by any of them who got it.
Does that mean that when an error is not against the men it is not corrected, but when it is against the men it is corrected?
No.
Is the Minister aware there was a misstatement in his reply to Deputy Doyle on the 25th February when he mentioned that payment was not discontinued? The fact that the Minister has admitted they were paid at a daily rate, that an error was found, and the matter was then corrected proves that payment was discontinued. They were paid for seven days during the first two weeks. The Minister's answer to Deputy Doyle was that payment was not discontinued. You have now stated it was discontinued.
These men were taken on as soldiers, and no soldier is paid for six days; he is paid for seven days each week. If the contention is that these men were not soldiers, then the case might be different; but they were soldiers, and there is no doubt about the situation.
Is the Minister not aware that when these men were engaged they were told they were being engaged on the usual trade union terms?
Will the Minister consult Colonel Russell, who made the agreement with an official of the N.U.R.? Colonel Russell is now in Cork and he has not been consulted on the matter.
Colonel Russell was in charge of the Corps when the change was made. If a mistake had been made in the first instance it was, not, apparently, noticed, because the men continued to be paid on a daily rate. The men have actually paid back any money they were not entitled to.
It was stopped from their pay?
If it was not recovered from them probably we would hear more about it in some other way.
Does the Minister mean that it was stopped from their pay or they voluntarily surrendered it?
The error was found out and the money was recovered from them.
The men claim that in the third week it was deducted and they were informed, when they objected to the deduction, that they would get the Sunday pay in a lump sum on the termination of their service.
I am not aware of anything of that sort.
That is their claim.