Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Oct 1928

Vol. 26 No. 1

PRIVATE DEPUTIES BUSINESS. WORKING OF THE RAILWAYS (EXISTING OFFICERS AND SERVANTS) ACT, 1926.

I beg to move:—

"That a Select Committee consisting of eleven Deputies to be nominated by the Committee of Selection be appointed to enquire into and report upon the working of the Railways (Existing Officers and Servants) Act, 1926, as affecting officers and servants of railway companies amalgamated or absorbed by or under the Railways Act, 1924 who lose their employment or suffer other loss or hardship and claim compensation therefor; that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and that the quorum of the Committee be five."

The Railways Act, 1924, which provided for the amalgamation in one group of the whole of the railways completely within the Free State, was enacted ostensibly in the interests of the community. Amalgamation rendered possible extensive economies in administration, in the mass purchase of materials, in the pooling of rolling-stock, and in the operation of a common policy, and thereby enabled lower rates and fares to be charged to the travelling and trading public.

If it was essential from the public point of view that fewer railwaymen should be employed, it would not be just or equitable to achieve this public gain at the expense of the men dismissed, who would lose their means of livelihood, and thereby incur great suffering and possibly starvation to their families.

The age-old principle of compensation for loss of employment in the public interest as a result of legislation was, in fact, definitely recognised in the Railways Act, 1924, and embodied in the Third Schedule to that Act. This Schedule closely followed a similar schedule in the British Railways Act, 1921. In fact, the whole Act of 1924 was a fairly exact copy of the British Act.

The same system obtained in the Act which gave effect to the amalgamation of unions whereby certain local officials were declared redundant. The ratepayers as a result of the redundancy had to meet the compensation which was given to these local officials after the coming into operation of the Amalgamation Act.

In regard to compensation, the draftsman departed slightly from the wording of the British Act, with the result that in a few cases dismissed men were enabled to claim compensation for disturbance and also secure a lump sum out of a local superannuation fund to which they had been subscribing for periods up to 50 years. This, however, applied only in four or five cases, and even if every one of them so circumstanced were dispensed with it would be of very little consequence from a financial viewpoint, as there were only 70 or 80 men all told, and in any case the Company did not stand to lose, as the additional amount was provided by the pension fund, which was jointly owned by the Company and the men.

Because of these few cases, the Government came along with the amending Act of 1926, which, instead of setting out to correct this slight anomaly, proceeded to alter in the most drastic manner the whole of the compensation provisions.

In the first place, the protection afforded by the 1924 Act, which was a continuing protection for all those five years and upwards in the service on 23rd April, 1924, was limited to seven years. In other words, three years from now the new Great Southern Railways Company can do what it pleases with employees whose pre-amalgamation rights were permanently safeguarded during the whole of their service by the Act of 1924, just as the rights of British railwaymen were similarly safeguarded under the Act of 1921. To avoid paying compensation, or even having a claim made, the Company can retain a man with 20 or 30 years' service for three years longer (until 1931), and then dispense with his services completely and pay him no compensation, or alternatively put him to a junior post and pay him half his existing salary, and he has no redress.

But the Act went very much farther than this, and for practical purposes made it practically impossible for anybody to get compensation at all, no matter when he is dismissed or in what circumstances. According to Section 4 of the Railways (Existing Officers and Servants) Act, 1926, a dismissed employee, in order to establish a claim for compensation, must prove to the satisfaction of the arbitrator that he was dismissed. The Act says:

"In consequence of changes of administration due directly to the amalgamation and absorption of companies affected by or under the Principal Act, and not shown by the amalgamated company to have been caused by decrease of traffic, reduction of renewal or maintenance work, introduction of improved methods of working... or other economic cause."

The employee is, therefore, first of all called upon to prove that his dismissal is due "directly" to amalgamation, and has to rebut the numerous contentions of the Company in a negative sense that it was not due to any or all of the various other causes mentioned.

The House will appreciate the impossibility of, say, a porter, guard, painter or fitter attempting either to prove the affirmative or disprove the negative, with his limited information, his non-access to board minutes and to official information, against the formidable array of experts which the Company can put against him. The arbitrator who has just retired—Mr. Justice Davitt—used these words in giving judgment on a very important case:

"As soon as I commenced hearing these appeals, it became evident that for an appellant to discharge or even shift this onus of proof was a matter of extreme difficulty."

I am sure it was not the Minister's intention to put the onus on the applicant and relieve the Company of all responsibility for proving or disproving the case from their point of view.

Continue the quotation from the judgment.

Yes, I will. Mr. Justice Davitt added:—

"In the majority of appeals, if I had to decide the question upon the evidence offered on behalf of the appellant only, I would have had to dismiss without calling upon the respondents. This course, however, I did not adopt, and in all cases required the respondents to submit evidence as to the reasons for the dismissal, or the event relied upon as the case might be.... While going this far in favour of the appellants——"

The Deputy is leaving out portion of the quotation.

I am quoting Mr. Justice Davitt.

The Deputy did not quote this part:—"and this attitude on my part was not seriously opposed by counsel on behalf of the respondents."

Mr. Justice Davitt said: "While going this far in favour of the appellants, I could not go the length of forcing the respondents into the position that upon them lay the onus of proving the negative that the dismissal or other event, as the case might be, was not due to amalgamation." The Minister knows perfectly well I am quoting correctly.

I do not say the Deputy means to be incorrect, but he has left out one phrase.

"This shows the insurmountable difficulty with which the applicant for compensation is confronted. He is asked to prove certain things and disprove others, although practically the whole of the information necessary to do either is in the hands of the people on the other side who are opposing his case."

To quote again from Mr. Justice Davitt:—

"Each appellant has to come and prove to my satisfaction—

(1) That his services were dispensed with.

(2) That they were dispensed with because they were unnecessary.

(3) That they were unnecessary by reason of certain changes of administration.

(4) That these changes of administration were due directly to amalgamation.

"These averments are all positive, and the information necessary to prove them would be peculiarly within the knowledge of the respondents, still I have been able to discover no principle of evidence which would relieve the appellants from the burthen of proving these averments before they can succeed."

This indicates, in the considered, impartial and unimpassioned words of a judge acting as arbitrator, the heartless farce which has been perpetrated upon hundreds of unfortunate men, in leading them to believe that if deprived of their livelihood in the public interest, they shall get some measure of compensation, when in reality, in order to get the benefit of this protection, they are asked to achieve what the Official Arbitrator indicates is impossible.

In plain fact, all the Company has to do is to reduce maintenance work for any period, no matter how short, and on the strength of this reduction of renewal and maintenance work, dismiss as many as they like, and refuse to pay compensation because the dismissal was due to reduction of renewal or maintenance work. This is not a wild statement on my part. It is the considered judgment of Mr. Justice Davitt, who deliberately states:—

"Even should I accept Mr. Duffy's argument (Counsel for the applicant), the Company would escape liability, because the dismissal of his client was caused by the reduction of renewal and maintenance work, whatever was the occasion of such reduction."

It is easy to see the farce to which this Act can be reduced, when it is quite clear that all the Company need do is to reduce maintenance work for a couple of months, during which they can dispense with the services of as many men as they wish, without paying compensation, and then take on new men at beginners' rates of wages.

As an indication of the manner in which the two Acts have operated, we find that out of the 52 cases dealt with by the first Arbitrator, Mr. Meredith, K.C., (who, as the Minister knows, resigned when he brought in the amending Act), under the 1924 Act, in 42 cases compensation was awarded, and there were 10 dismissals. Mr. Justice Davitt dealt with 166 cases, in which compensation was awarded in 35 cases, and 131 were dismissed.

Under the amending Act?

Not necessarily.

I positively state it is the case.

After the passing of the Act.

After the passing of the Act does not necessarily mean under the latest Act.

There are still 107 cases awaiting disposal, but the cases already dealt with have convinced the applicants that they have no chance of success under the present Act, and in addition there are some hundreds of cases where no appeal has yet been made to the arbitrator because the men have despaired of getting any redress until the law is amended, and do not want to incur useless legal expenses.

To show you how the Act is operating and how it is a ridiculous farce—I am not saying the Minister intended it to do that, but he is responsible for the amending Act and the original Act—I will quote one case. The Minister's Government appoints the Chief Justice, who in turn appoints the arbitrators. There is the case of Michael Donohue who was appointed on the Tralee and Dingle Railway previous to the Amalgamation Act coming into operation. He was dismissed on the 9/10/'26. His application for compensation was immediately submitted in the usual official way and through the proper channel. The hearing was before the arbitrator on the 9th January, 1928. The Company produced evidence which, in the opinion of the arbitrator, was merely hearsay evidence. According to what I am told, the arbitrator was inclined to rule in favour of the appellant, but he invited the Company to say whether they were prepared to bring evidence other than hearsay evidence and the Company undertook to do so. As a result the arbitrator adjourned the case on the 9th January, 1928, and it has not since come up for hearing. There is a man who, to-morrow, will be two years out of service. He was dismissed from the Tralee and Dingle Railway, and in the opinion of legal advisers he has a clear case. There must be some doubt because if the man had not a clear case the arbitrator would have dismissed it—would have ruled against it. He adjourned the case and the individual concerned has been two years waiting.

As an indication of the manner in which the men have lost their employment, due directly to amalgamation, and still have been unable to get any compensation, I need only cite the case of the painters in the old D. & S.E. railway works at Grand Canal Street. At the date of amalgamation there were 8 carriage painters employed in these works. The works were closed down in February or March, 1925, and the painters, with the other staff, were transferred to Inchicore. By this time every one of the 8 carriage painters have been dismissed, and not a single one of them has got a penny compensation. Three or four of the cases have been before the arbitrator and have been turned down, and the rest of them see no hope of going on with their cases as they are similar.

The point is this: The Act says directly due to amalgamation. If the 1926 Act was not passed, the old D. & S.E. Railway Company would be still presumably running as the D. & S.E. Railway. I know the Minister is a keen debater and he will probably say that as a result of a loss on goods and passenger traffic, there was every possibility that the railway would close down. If the railway carried on, as I believe it could have whether amalgamation came or not, the works would still be going at Grand Canal Street, and these men would still be in employment. Now, they are out of employment and without compensation. The closing down of the Grand Canal workshops is a direct result of amalgamation. These people in accordance with the spirit and intention of the 1924 and 1926 Acts have a right to compensation. They have been turned down. If that was the intention of the Minister, he should have made the position clear that he was asking the House to pass the compensation clauses of the 1924 Act.

Now it is obvious beyond any shadow of doubt that if no amalgamation had taken place, whilst it might be possible to effect some small economy in the number of painters employed by the old D. & S.E., the Company would have to employ at least a proportion of the 8 painters, and could not have dispensed with the lot, so that the majority of the men at least have lost their employment, as a direct result of amalgamation, and yet because of their inability, through the construction of the amending Act, to prove this fact, and because the Company need only prove that there has been a reduction of renewal or maintenance work, they lose their cases.

As an example of the manner in which temporary economies have been effected for the purpose of getting rid of commitments under the Act, it need only be pointed out that in one particular section of the shops at Inchicore, in which a number of dismissals without compensation have taken place, there were employed in 1924, before amalgamation, by the old G.S. & W. Company, 17 men. After amalgamation when the work of the whole of the amalgamated companies had to be done, the staff numbered 30, but these were eventually reduced by dismissal to 18. or one more than the number employed by one of the amalgamated companies before amalgamation.

The temporary reduction of maintenance work having resulted in the Company getting rid of its commitments and legal obligations to the old employees, they can now take on new men without any legal obligation, or take on old men as newcomers and at reduced rates of pay, and in this way the Act has become a futility.

When I tell the House that the majority of these men have periods of service ranging from 15 to 35 years, they will appreciate the terrible hardship to which they have been subjected and the cruel injustice inflicted upon them. If they had been left with their old Companies there was no reason to believe that they would have been disturbed in any way, or at the very worst only a small proportion of them would be without employment. As it is, however, 1,000 men have been dismissed out of the loco department alone, and of these only a small fraction have received compensation.

The manner in which the employees of the Grand Canal Street Works, belonging to the old D. & S.E. Company, were treated is an illustration of the monstrous injustice inflicted upon some of the men dismissed. If amalgamation had not taken place it might have fallen to the old D. & S.E. to try and effect economies in the number of staff employed. Obviously they could not dismiss all their staff, or anything like it. It was doubtful if any reduction could be made, as considerable economies had been effected before amalgamation. If they did effect economies, they would act on the principle of "Last man in, first man out." Now, what actually took place under amalgamation was this: the Grand Canal Street Works were closed, and the whole of the men transferred to the Inchicore Works. By that means many of them lost the seniority which they had enjoyed at Grand Canal Street. For instance, if the senior man at Grand Canal Street had 30 years' service, he would be junior to a man with 31 or 32 years' service taken off another line and put to work with him at Inchicore. Even on the basis of seniority, therefore, he would be liable to be dispensed with before a number of other men would go, whilst in his old employment he could not be dispensed with except through misconduct or incapacity, unless the line closed down altogether.

What happened, however, was that practically the whole of these men of all Departments from Grand Canal Street have lost their employment, irrespective of service. In many cases men outside of Inchicore with much shorter service have been retained. It is clear beyond all doubt that it was directly because of changes of administration due to amalgamation that these men lost their employment, and if amalgamation had not taken place the majority of them could not have been dispensed with. Yet because the Company can plead an economy reason, the men cannot hope to secure compensation, although theoretically the Act says they are entitled to it. To get any compensation they have to achieve the impossible. There are very large numbers of men with service ranging from 20 to 40 years who have become adapted to one particular kind of work, who are now too old to get employment elsewhere, even if trade were much better than it is, and they are now thrown on the scrap-heap without hope of any kind for the future.

It would be much better to scrap the Act altogether as far as compensation is concerned than to make a mockery of numbers of unfortunate men, leaving them to spend large sums of money in futile litigation, without any possible result except failure. The results to hand, so far, and the remarks of the official arbitrator, followed by his resignation, establish a prima facie case for a full inquiry into the working of the Act, unless the Oireachtas is to commit itself to a policy of confiscation of the most cruel and glaring kind. Suffering of this kind is accentuated by the fact that after three years' service the men are not insured against unemployment, the Company being relieved from this obligation on having given an assurance that, generally speaking, railway employment was permanent.

I myself happened to be one of a delegation, and I was at the time a member of the Executive Committee of the Railway Clerks' Association, that waited upon Lloyd George at that particular period. The representatives of the railwaymen were accompanied by the General Managers of the Irish railway companies, and the railway Managers, on the instructions of the Directors stated, in order to get exemption from the Act at that time, that railway employment could be regarded as permanent. In the case of the clerical staff, the companies bound themselves to a deputation, at which I was present, to guarantee three months' full pay during sickness in order to get exempt from the Act.

From that point of view railway employment, at that period particularly, was regarded as permanent. This makes the obligation of the State still more binding and direct to those men whom it has rendered destitute for the purpose of bringing about railway amalgamation in what we claimed to be the interests of the community in general. If the men were insured in the ordinary way, the same as other workers, they would at least be entitled to unemployment benefit on the basis of whatever contributions they had made to that particular fund.

The Act of 1924 secured a smooth passage as far as the Labour Party was concerned, although not looked upon as by any means ideal, owing to the fact that it at least recognised the universally-accepted principle of compensation for disturbance as a result of legislation. Having thus secured the passage of the Bill, the Government came along two years later and shamefully confiscated the protective provisions. It is now time that something should be done with a view to getting back to the principle of elementary justice, and it is for this purpose that this motion is being moved.

In moving the motion and giving these reasons for doing so, I am not moving it in any party spirit—in any spirit of complaint against the Minister personally. So far as I know the Minister's mind, when he was putting the original Act through the House it was never his intention to deprive the railwayman, who would lose his employment as a result of the legislation, of reasonable compensation. He now knows, or ought to know, as I have cited some cases, how the Act has been worked. He knows that the first arbitrator, Mr. Justice Meredith, resigned as a direct result of his bringing in the Amending Act of 1926. The second arbitrator, whose opinion I have quoted, has also resigned. The result is that one hundred old men who retired or were dismissed in the year 1926 are still waiting to have their cases decided by some arbitrator who may be appointed in the near future.

Does the Deputy say that the arbitrator resigned as some form of protest, or was it merely post hoc?

I am positive, from the information given to me, that the first arbitrator, Mr. Justice Meredith, tendered his resignation as a result of the original provisions of the Amending Bill of 1926, because it was proposed to make that Bill retrospective. The Minister afterwards bowed himself out on that point in the House, but Mr. Justice Meredith had resigned before the Minister gave way on the point. When that Bill was first introduced, it proposed to review the decisions of the arbitrator appointed by the Chief Justice. The arbitrator looked upon that as an insult and tendered his resignation, but the Minister, to his credit be it said, gave way on the point, and perhaps Mr. Justice Meredith might have been sorry for resigning. I have positive information that he retired as the result of the provisions of that Amending Bill as first introduced.

What about the second arbitrator?

I cannot state. I certainly do not want to repeat my statement. In regard to the second arbitrator, I believe that he had more work than he could do in the ordinary way and that he was doing this work in whatever limited spare time he had. I certainly cannot make that statement in regard to the second arbitrator—Mr. Justice Davitt. The point I make is that there are over 100 cases of men who were dismissed or who retired as the result of amalgamation waiting to be heard for the past two years, and there is now no arbitrator to hear these cases. That is an injustice to the men who were dismissed or who retired believing they were being de-graded in some way as a result of the amalgamation. It is a glaring injustice to have these cases still waiting to be heard.

The Deputy said they had been two years waiting.

I have quoted one case, the case of Michael Donohoe, who was dismissed from the Tralee and Dingle Railway on the 9/10/'26. It is now the 10/10/'28.

The hundred cases are not waiting two years.

There are 107 cases still waiting, and most of these cases were submitted in the beginning of 1926. That is my information. Of course I have no positive proof. If the Minister disputes that, let him furnish the House with his side of the case to disprove mine. I am putting forward this motion in no party spirit and with no party feeling behind it. I put it to the Minister in this way: Let the people who feel that they have a grievance, or let those who represent the people who feel they have a grievance, go before some committee to be set up—an impartial committee set up by this House. Let them be given an opportunity to put their case before the Select Committee. They will either be able to make their case or they will not. At any rate, it will be a Committee of this House, and I am prepared to accept the decision of the majority of any committee set up by the House as to whether or not there is a case for amending legislation to deal with the cases of men who were dismissed or who retired from the railway service as a result of amalgamation. It is in that spirit I move the resolution to set up a committee, and I hope the Minister will see fit to accept the motion as it stands.

I desire to second the motion, and will reserve my right to speak to it at a later stage.

Until I heard the end of Deputy Davin's speech, I did not know whether he was indicting the Government or the railway. I take it that the motion was not an indictment of the Government, because he explained he was sure the Minister was doing everything that was fair. If, by any chance, he thinks the railway has not played the game, I assure him it has. I could give the House instances of how the railway company is fighting against tremendous odds. Traffic, both passenger and other, is being filched from it by what I call unfair competition. If the railways are not carrying the goods traffic and the passengers that they used to, then fewer men are wanted in certain grades of employment. The railway company cannot be expected to compensate everyone for whom they cannot find work. I am afraid that this really only adds to the Government's task of dealing with unemployment generally. We also ought not to forget that there is a tremendous lot of capital invested in the railway undertaking. That was not put there by millionaires. It represents to a large extent the savings of the comparatively poor people in the country, who look forward to the dividends from the railway company as their means of existence. I do not know whether Deputy Davin can tell us how many men are involved in this question that he has raised. I should not think there are many. I hope he does not want to introduce legislation to make it incumbent upon the railway companies to compensate every man for whom they cannot find work.

I never suggested by any stretch of the imagination that the Company should compensate men for whom they cannot find work.

Does the Deputy mean that the country should pay for it?

I shall answer that later on.

Deputies on these benches are entirely in favour of Deputy Davin's motion. We do not think when we are passing legislation here that such legislation can be defeated by legal quibbles and by the difficulty people have for whose benefit the legislation is passed finding the means to prove to the satisfaction of a judge that their case is in accordance with the legislation. Take this statement of Judge Davitt: "These averments are all positive, and though the information necessary to prove them would be peculiarly within the knowledge of the respondents, still I have been able to discover no principle of evidence which would relieve the appellants from the burden of proving these averments before they can succeed."

Continue that statement. Why stop there?

It goes on to say: "Although this is clearly my opinion as to the effect of this section, as already stated I have not acted upon it in the hearing of these appeals so strictly as to dismiss any appeal where upon the appellant's own case he has failed to discharge the onus."

And the next sentence, please.

I will read: "I have sought all available evidence from both sides before coming to a decision as to what was the cause of any dismissal, and such evidence has not, I am satisfied, been cursorily withheld in any case." I do not think, notwithstanding that the Minister is placing his reliance on Judge Davitt's modifications of his own statement, that the onus is upon the applicants. I do not think the House should be satisfied that that good will on the part of Judge Davitt has been sufficient to protect the unfortunate men who are concerned in this. As well as that, those of us who have gone to the trouble of inquiring into the working of the Act and have met the men concerned are undoubtedly struck by the fact that there must have been the greatest difficulty in proving that their dismissals do not result from amalgamation. Take the case of a man named Michael Fahy. He worked at Avoca as a smith, where his father also worked in the service of the company for 47 years. He himself was there for 23 years. Both father and son were transferred to Dublin. Both made an appeal. I am only dealing with the son's case at the moment, because the father failed in his appeal and the company allowed him a pension of 16/- per week. He had to leave his family, a fairly large one, in Avoca, and he gets four days' work a week in Dublin. Yet when he presents his case to Judge Davitt, the judge is able to decide that although he was transferred as a result of the amalgamation and although his father, who had been for 47 years at Avoca, had also been transferred, this transfer and the hardship of being placed on four days a week were not due to amalgamation. If Judge Davitt were a Solomon, he could not possibly prove that. I think that in practice, in all these cases it surpasses the wit of any man to prove that dismissals have not been due to amalgamation. Reading the things which Judge Davitt has set down as the things which he requires proved, I think he himself has given a good case for believing that the Act was not being worked as it was intended.

It is rather unfortunate that, notwithstanding the long time this motion has been on the Order Paper, it has come on unexpectedly this evening, as a great many of us had a number of individual cases to bring forward, and, not expecting the motion to come on, we have not got them with us. At any rate, from representations made to us and from close and careful inquiries, we are satisfied that the Act has not been worked as it was intended to be worked; that some men are suffering terrible hardship, after a lifetime of service, and we think that inquiry should be made into this matter. There are a number of men from Bray district alone who were dismissed, practically all in one day:—T. Redmond, 17 years' service; T. Keenan, 21 years' service; P. Caulfield, 9 years' service; James Bryan, 12 years' service; others were dismissed after nine, twelve, five, and three years' service. None of these men has appealed, because they were not in any trade union, and they had not the means to pay for an appeal. But in practically all these cases I venture to say the intention of the Act is to protect them, and in the case of the senior men, at least, to give them compensation for the years of service which they have given. An inquiry cannot possibly do any harm. It will not cost much, and it will certainly, I think, establish what should be the principle of all legislation—confidence that any Acts passed through this House will be worked as they were intended to be worked.

Like Deputy Moore, I did not expect this motion to come on this evening. If I had known that it was coming on, I could have brought forward numerous cases of victimisation arising out of the amalgamation of the railway systems in Southern Ireland. Deputy J.X. Murphy asked Deputy Davin whether he was making an indictment of the railways or of the Government. In my view, Deputy Davin has indicated both the Great Southern Railways and the Government, and I leave the House and Deputy Murphy to apportion the blame. We know that amalgamation, while, perhaps, resulting in some economies, has had very serious reactions, notably in the cases which I have in mind among railway shopmen. At the period of the amalgamation, we had a very efficient and up-to-date workshop in Cork. We had in connection with the Cork and Bandon system a fine system of railway workshops which earned many encomiums from railway engineers and other authorities. The efficiency and quality of the workmanship had, in fact, never been questioned, but, owing to the amalgamation, the majority of the workers in these shops in Cork city were first put on short time and the next step was to discharge many of them from the railway service altogether, while those that were left were kept on short time. We find on examination that there was a gravitation of the work which could be done in those workships in Cork towards Inchicore. I do not know whether it is a wise policy to centralise everything in Dublin, but while that gravitation, or, rather, orientation, was going on we had railway shopmen in Cork put on half time where they were not put out of employment altogether. I am not at all sure that the Great Southern Railways have attempted to reap all the advantages they might have reaped had they foreseen the development of road traffic.

I think the Deputy is giving a wrong orientation to the debate.

I agree. In regard to this amalgamation scheme, there are many anomalies in connection with retiring allowances and pensions. I could quote some cases in regard to railway checkers and others. One man, about whose case I got particulars recently, had over forty years' service as a checker, and he got a pension of about nine shillings a week, while some of the higher officials got retiring allowances varying from £300 to £1,000 a year. I hope that when this Committee is set up serious attention will be given to the question of retiring allowances. If I had notice that this matter was to be discussed this evening I could have brought from Cork particulars of many cases of real hardship as the result of amalgamation. I know that this hardship is not confined to men employed in Cork and that it is pretty general. I trust, as I say, when this Committee is set up, the whole matter will be inquired into.

I hope the House will agree to accept this motion and that a Committee will be set up to inquire into the whole details and circumstances arising out of the amalgamation of the railways and the redundancy of the employees. In common with other members of this party, I looked into certain statements made by persons affected and, while I am quite prepared to say that there are two sides to every story, nevertheless from the information at my disposal I should say that if a Committee were set up it would do much good and could do no harm. Deputy Murphy pointed out that unfair competition had had an effect on the amount of employment on railways but I maintain that when the Department concerned brought about the scheme of amalgamation it should have realised that it had some responsibility not only in regard to the railways and the employees but that it had to face unfair competition. The Department, however, did nothing to stop it. Efforts were made to attract attention to the inroads which that competition was making on the railways. From what I have heard from certain representatives of the workshops, particularly those at Inchicore, I believe that an inquiry into the whole matter would do a lot of good. I believe that sympathy towards the men's cases if they are justified would bring about something to alleviate the distress which exists among hundreds of unemployed railwaymen. The Minister in reply will probably give us lost of information, figures and details to take away from what Deputy Davin put before the House but I believe that a Committee of this House, if allowed to examine some of the claims made by both sides, would be able to decide whether the Act is being interpreted in the sense in which it was put before the House. If we got that clearly brought out we would be getting nearer to facing the whole problem of transport in the country as well as being able to deal with the question of capital mentioned by Deputy Murphy. I have in my possession particulars concerning numerous individuals who, so far as I can see, were definitely dismissed owing to redundancy caused by amalgamation. I have, of course, heard only one side and, so far as I can make out, I believe that that is the case. The only way to dispel the error in people's minds, if there is an error, is to set up a Committee and to see whether we cannot bring about some understanding by which the interests both of the workers and the railways will be safeguarded.

I support the motion. I have particulars of a few cases to bring to the notice of the House and I also desire to explain the practice adopted by the railway company. Previous to amalgamation the men in the shops were on full time but about twelve months after amalgamation they were put on for about four days a week. They were then offered by the Company alternative employment in Cork or Waterford on four days a week. One man, Patrick Conachy, of Bray, with twenty-eight years' service, was offered alternative work in Waterford at four days' pay. He appealed to the directors not to ask him to go to Waterford as he had a wife and large family. If he went he would be unable to maintain his family in either Waterford or Bray. As he did not go he was dismissed and he appealed for a pension but received no acknowledgment so far.

There was the case of another employee named John Byrne who had about 22 years' service. He was being employed four days a week in Bray and he was requested to go to Kingsbridge. He was expected to maintain himself and his family in Bray or Dublin at £1 18s. 0d. a week. He refused to go and he was dismissed. Five men from Maryborough were sent there and given an extra day's work—five days a week—in place of the men who were dismissed. That is the way the railway company works. Deputy Murphy made an appeal on behalf of the shareholders. I wonder did he attend the last meeting of the Company and make an appeal there as to why the Great Southern Railway Company spent £25,000 in erecting a platform in Bray that is of no use to the visitors, the shareholders or the workers? Again we have an expenditure of £2,000 at Wicklow station in order to abolish the job of one man, a signal man, an old man who was going out on pension. After the expenditure of that £2,000 in making a single line, they found that they would have to keep a man employed to look after the crossings at the station. That £2,000 could have been devoted to some object that would have been of benefit either to the workers or the shareholders in whom Deputy Murphy is so interested and would not have gone for nothing. We have a large number of grievances but although this motion has been down for a considerable time it has been brought on to-day unexpectedly and we were not able to have full particulars. These, however, are two cases.

I have nothing to do with bringing it on to-day.

I accept the Minister's word for that. We have heard a lot about the railways and economy. Twelve months ago I asked the Minister's Department to furnish particulars of the compensation awarded to various officials from the chairman of the company down to the principal members of the staff who received from thousands of pounds to £400 and £500 a year. I have only received up to the present an acknowledgment that the matter is under consideration. The result is that either the railway company or the Minister or his Department is shielding the railway company and the directors for their gross mismanagement in giving thousands of pounds compensation to directors and other officials for whom work could have been found while they are dismissing men of 28 and 22 years' service. These men are not in receipt of a pension at the present time. I support Deputy Davin's motion and I think that the Minister or the railway company need not be afraid of having a Committee to inquire into the management and the action of the railway company up to the present.

That is not in the motion.

Not at all. That is what Deputy Briscoe wanted.

Let the Committee inquire into the working of the Act. I suggest that the railway directors are taking advantage of the Act to give compensation to themselves and to clerks while dismissing men under the pretence that there is no work. They are also availing of a section of the Act to offer alternative work miles away from the men's homes at five days a week and then they dismiss them when they refuse to accept it.

I desire to support Deputy Davin's motion. In the case of the Cavan and Leitrim Light Railway which is a section of the Great Southern Railways, the services of 7 employees have recently been dispensed with on the ground that these men had become redundant. The cause of the redundancy is that the work which was hitherto performed at the workshop in Ballinamore has been transferred to Dublin—to Inchicore or perhaps to England. The work may be done in England for all we know. These seven men, whose services have been dispensed with, have been thrown on the labour market at a time when they cannot get work. Unless something is done for them in the way of compensation or providing other work, these men and their families will have to go to the County Home, to emigrate, or to become a charge on the ratepayers. The work taken from Ballinamore workshop could be as well done in Ballinamore and at less cost than it is done in Dublin.

I have had a case submitted to me of four transfers of railway material from Ballinamore to Dublin. Each of these four transfers cost £40—that is £160 to transfer that work from Ballinamore to Dublin. That £160 was spent before any work commenced at all. If amalgamation had not taken place and if this Amalgamation Bill had not been passed in 1924, I presume these men would still be working on that line. Is it possible that the Bill passed in 1924 will deprive the working man of his work and the compensation which he should have got under the 1924 Act will be taken from him by the Bill brought in two years later? I hope that is not so. Furthermore the baronial guaranteeing area in County Leitrim contributes £4,221 a year to the upkeep of that railway for ten years, from 1924 to 1934. Altogether County Leitrim has contributed some £200,000 towards the upkeep of the railway since it was laid down. The Leitrim County Council at a meeting specially called for the purpose passed the following resolution:—

"That we the County Council of Leitrim, in special meeting assembled, hereby emphatically protest against the action of the Great Southern Railway Company in dismissing the old employees of the Cavan and Leitrim Section. After due consideration the County Council have come to the conclusion that the dismissal of those men will not effect any economy, as we are aware that the removal to Dublin workshops of materials for repairs, or the sending to the district of tradesmen from Dublin to carry out necessary repairs will cost more than by retaining those men in the service. We further point out that as Leitrim is paying a sum of over £4,000 per year towards the upkeep and maintenance of the Cavan and Leitrim section, the County Council will oppose by every means in their power any attempt by the Great Southern Railway Company to penalise the employees of this section for the benefit of the employees of the South. We also emphatically protest against the employment of outside labour and demand the withdrawal of all outside labour employed on this section since amalgamation.

"Leitrim is the poorest county in Ireland, and has no industry, and we consider that the little employment which can be given on this section of the Railway Group should be given to the people of the district. Some of these men under notice of dismissal have up to 30 years' service and have dependents to provide for. There is no other employment in the county for these men and eventually themselves and their families must become a charge on the rates."

That resolution was passed unanimously at a special meeting of the County Council. I wonder if it is necessary to dismiss these men. I believe it is the duty of the Dáil to amend the Railways (Existing Officers and Servants) Act, 1926, in so far as it affects these railway employees and place them on the same conditions as they enjoyed under the Railway Act of 1924. I hope the Dáil will pass Deputy Davin's motion and do justice to these men.

I wish to support the motion in the name of Deputy Davin. I quite realise that there are two sides to the story. Deputy J.X. Murphy put up a case for the railway shareholder and I know there is much to be said for that. I am personally aware of cases in the suburbs of Dublin of people whose sole income should be derived from railway shares. Money was invested in railways when these were considered practically gilt-edged securities. Those people are in very straitened circumstances now, but such cases as that are no excuse for doing injustice through legislation. The Minister for Industry and Commerce insisted on, I believe, two Deputies quoting one or two sentences of decisions of Justice Davitt which they had omitted, whether intentionally or not I do not know. One of them was that this course was not seriously opposed by counsel to the Railway Company. I believe something to that effect is in the course of hearing on the other side. Even that does not prove for a moment that the Act is working out as it was intended, or that under it the workmen can secure the compensation which was intended for them. I gather when the Act was first passed information had to be given by the appellant proving averments, which information is in the hands of the Company and is not available for these men. It is asking them to achieve the impossible; it seems the Act has been reduced to a farce. I wonder would the Minister tell us that the compensation clauses of the 1924 Act have worked out in practice as it was intended they would. Has he satisfied himself that their claims are getting fair attention, and that compensation is not refused in cases in which it should have been granted? I notice it was stated that of 52 cases before Justice Meredith, in 42 of these compensation was given. Then Deputy Davin proceeded to quote figures of cases before Justice Davitt, and the Minister said, "Not necessarily under the 1926 Act." Considering the great discrepancy, the great change in the percentage of cases in which compensation was given under the 1924 Act and after the passing of the 1926 Act, it seemed as if post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fair argument. Concrete cases are being given in which it seems to me there is a decided injustice. Take the case of Michael Donohue, of Tralee, and the two cases quoted by Deputy Everett. It is a grave injustice to keep a man in suspense for two years when his livelihood is at stake and that a man should be dismissed on the 9th of the 10th month, 1926, and his case not heard until January, 1928. He is still waiting for a decision. It has been further referred, and there are 107 cases waiting until some arbitrator or justice is appointed apparently. Advantage also seems to have been taken of the legislation to dismiss men and avoid compensation, and take on men at a low rate of wages.

That would be my conclusion from the case of these eight carriage painters who were dismissed and had been working in the Grand Canal Street Works. Also grave suspicion attaches to the figures given of the numbers of men in Inchicore. In one Department there were seventeen men in Inchicore, thirty after amalgamation, and subsequently reduced to eighteen, doing work that several workshops were doing up to that. That it only requires one man more, it seems to me, there is there a suspicion of the company taking advantage of legislation to reduce the number of men, nominally because there is no employment for them, but really to get out of giving compensation and to take on other men subsequently. Looking at the whole case, it seems to me there is a very good case for having this Committee to inquire into the matter. A Committee of this House is not going to do an injustice to either, but would see that the purposes are achieved for which this legislation was intended and that compensation was given to those for whom it was intended. Deputy Carey has asked should the country give them compensation. It is the duty of this Dáil to see that compensation is given to whatever men legislation meant it should be given. It should be given to them, and a Committee of eleven selected by the Selection Committee is not going to do injustice to the shareholder and will see justice done to these men. I am certain from the cases I have heard that injustice is being done.

I also desire to express my dissatisfaction at the method in which the Act is being carried out, particularly as I have some knowledge of what seems to me wholesale unnecessary dismissals at Inchicore since the amalgamation came into operation. I do not know that the adoption of the resolution will give Deputy Davin and the others who support it the information they desire, for this reason, that I think the main objection at the moment is that so many hundred cases have been awaiting decision through whatever neglect is responsible for the non-hearing of those cases. If the Minister could give any undertaking to try and urge that these cases be dealt with immediately, we might be then in a better position to know what would be the result of the test cases that have been sent to the arbitrator.

Deputy Murphy referred to the competition that the railway companies have to contend with, and it struck me he wanted to suggest that the dismissals were not as a result of amalgamation but as the result of bus competition, etc. I know for a fact that if it were only the bus competition that was given as a kind of excuse for the so-called economy there might be something in it, but I know and suggest to Deputy Murphy that he would be well advised to make inquiries into the administration of the various departments in Inchicore and compare what is being done now with what has been done hitherto, particularly with regard to the manufacture of a good deal of the rolling stock required by the railway. I know at present, and I do not intend to go into details here, but I will discuss the matter with Deputy Murphy outside and will be able to put before him some cases that I think will give him something to go on with. He will find there is no necessity whatsoever for the wholesale dismissals that have been taking place in these works. The work is there, and it can be done cheaper; it has been done. That has been proved, but whatever undercurrent is responsible for it, it is bringing about unnecessary dismissals. I know, and everyone else knows, that the bus competition is seriously affecting railways throughout the country, and a good many people who are supporting the buses should, if they wish to maintain the railways, give them some help in that respect. However, that is another question, but it is bringing about unemployment that could be avoided. I do not know whether the carrying of this motion is going to be of any advantage until at least these cases are disposed of.

I find myself somewhat in a difficulty in dealing with this motion, even at this time, but I am assuming from the very fact that Deputy Davin has brought it forward that what I thought to be an objection to the discussion at this time no longer stands as an objection. What I mean is this, that the arbitrator in giving his decision in a particular test case, the Kearns case, gave his decision not merely in that case but in several other cases. He indicated what his point of view was with regard to one of the appeals put before him. He indicated the line of action that he was going to take. He knew that his decision in that case was obviously and clearly one which the unions fighting the case did not contemplate and did not consider to be right, and in order to ease the situation he agreed to make a speaking order in that case at once to enable an appeal to be made by way of certiorari. It was understood when that decision was given, and it was given in the eighth month of 1927, that there was going to be an appeal taken. That appeal has not been taken since. I am not sure that it has been entirely called off, but if there is a possibility of its being taken, I suggest that it is a peculiar thing to have this House discussing the terms of an Act when these terms are, in fact, subject to judicial interpretation, and when the final interpretation has not yet been put upon them by reason of the fact that no appeal has been taken.

I deliberately refrained from referring to that case. I want to know from the Minister if he is in a position definitely to state to this House that no appeal has been lodged or is about to be lodged.

Then I claim I am at liberty to discuss the whole question apart from the Kearns case.

The Deputy quoted the judgment in the Kearns case. There is no use blinding your eyes to what you are doing. The only quotations given from the arbitrator were in the Kearns case. The only quotation read by Deputy Moore was from the Kearns case, and the only quotations referred to by Deputy Fahy were from the same case. What is the good of pretending not to see what is so clearly in front of one's nose?

I want to make it clear that the case is not sub judice.

It is not sub judice, I understand, but there is still time to appeal. I am going ahead on the assumption that the terms as interpreted in the Kearns case remain until the Court of Appeal has put some other interpretation upon them. Deputy Davin started out by saying that the wish of the Oireachtas, with regard to the men affected by the operation of the 1924 Railways Act, was that there should not be achieved the good of the public at the expense of the individual by reason of private hardship. That was clearly the principle that was accepted by everyone in this House. It was reiterated time again, even when the amending legislation was brought forward in 1926 and on that basis that there was going to be no private hardship for the public good the 1926 legislation was passed. How could one sum up what was the intention of the 1924 and 1926 Acts except by saying where a man lost his position or was prejudiced in his position or suffered in his emoluments by reason of the amalgamation, he should be compensated? When the 1926 Act was being passed I put it to this House that they should not stand for a policy whereby the railway users would be made to pay for people whom the railway could not employ, when the lack of employment was not due to amalgamation and that policy was disclaimed by everybody and disclaimed vehemently by the representatives of the Labour Party. It seemed at one time that the Labour Party wanted the number of men employed in 1924 should be stereotyped and that any reductions in staff would have to be compensated for either by the taxpayer or by the railway user but that policy was vehemently repudiated by the Labour Party at the time. The situation then is that we do not want to have every redundant railway employee, where the redundancy is because of something not directly due to amalgamation, compensated. We do want to give compensation in the case of dismissal or where employment was lessened or in any way affected by the amalgamation. That is the principle. In the Kearns case the arbitrator gave a judgment and, for the first four or five pages of that judgment, he referred to appeals generally, and then made the application of his mind on appeals generally to the specific case that was before him. Deputy Davin gave two quotations. Deputy Fahy said I asked for a sentence to be added. One of the quotations has not yet been given in its fullness. The other I dragged from Deputy Moore.

Not at all.

I do not think the Deputy would have given the quotation himself. I want to point out the difference that would be made in people's judgment by the quotation in full.

I hold that the first sentence of my quotation would amply justify my case.

Judge Davitt, speaking of appeals in general, said this—this is a preamble to what Judge Davitt said:

"Deciding the numerous appeals which have come before me, arising under the Third Schedule to the Railways Act of 1924, as amended by the Railways (Existing Officers and Servants) Act, 1926, has been and continues to be a matter of very considerable difficulty. I came at an early stage to the conclusion as a matter of law, that every appellant before he could succeed in his appeal would have to satisfy me that his dismissal, or the event whatever it might be, upon which he based his claim to compensation was due to amalgamation and absorption of companies effected by or under the Railways Act of 1924."

That is a good start. "As soon as I commenced hearing these appeals it became evident that for an appellant to discharge or even shift this onus of proof was a matter of extreme difficulty." That is where Deputy Davin wanted to stop, but he did continue under pressure.

All right. At any rate, the Deputy continued: "In the majority of the appeals, if I had to decide the question upon the evidence offered up on behalf of the appellant only, I would have had to dismiss them without calling upon the respondents." Then the arbitrator continues: "This course, however, I did not adopt, and in all cases required the respondents to submit evidence as to the reasons for the dismissal or the event relied on as the case might be, and this attitude upon my part was not seriously opposed by counsel upon behalf of the respondents. While going thus far in favour of the appellants. I could not go the length of forcing the respondents into the position that upon them lay the onus of proving the negative—that the dismissal or other event as the case might be was not due to amalgamation." In other words he was not putting the onus upon them directly of proving that amalgamation was the cause. Take this as the final summing up by the arbitrator of his position: "I finally came to treat the appeals in this way. I would hear all the evidence available on both sides, and after doing so would make up my mind as best I could as to what was the cause of the dismissal or other event. If the cause was amalgamation the appellant succeeded; if it was not, he failed." Could there be a better summing up of the mind of the Oireachtas in regard to compensation arising out of the Act than that last sentence? "I would hear all the evidence available on both sides, and after doing so would make up my mind as best I could as to what was the cause of the dismissal or other event."

I do not think the Minister is quoting fully from Judge Davitt. He laid down four stipulations.

The Deputy must understand that Judge Davitt could not say all he wanted to say in one sentence. Deputy Davin did not finish the quotation about positive averment. I ask the House if there could be a fairer statement of what was in the mind of the Oireachtas: "If the cause was amalgamation the appellant succeeded; if it was not, he failed"?

Was it the intention of the Minister when he forced this amending Act through the House to put the onus of proof upon the appellant instead of upon the company? That is the whole argument.

Supposing there is a difficulty about getting proof, that is another matter. If Judge Davitt is clear that evidence is not withheld from him by either side and that he gets all the facts from both sides, after hearing all the evidence he makes up his mind on this principle: "If the cause was amalgamation the appellant succeeded, if it was not he failed."

All the evidence available?

I must deal with this in sections. After all the evidence is heard, is that a sound principle? Is it the principle in the minds of the Oireachtas? Is there any other principle that ought to be in the minds of the Oireachtas when introducing legislation of this sort?

If amalgamation be the cause of the dismissal or other event the appellant succeeds, if not he fails.

Answer my question.

I cannot answer it at once. I am making my case in my own way. Judge Davitt continued that the particular course he followed was to get a number of cases argued before him. "This course had the advantage of enabling me to take a larger view of each individual case, and gave all the appellants the benefit of evidence and arguments advanced upon behalf of each particular one." In other words, he heard a number of cases and then took a specific case, having at the same time a background formed by the generality of cases. Judge Davitt also said:—"Mr. Duffy, counsel for Mr. Kearns, put certain legal arguments very fully to me. His preliminary argument was (1) That in so far as the 1926 Act renders it less easy for officers and servants of the amalgamated company to recover compensation. it should be construed strictly. With this argument I agree." That is, construed strictly as against the company. The arbitrator was in agreement on that point.

On all the evidence available.

Let us see what evidence he gets. He says that before compensation is payable "Each applicant has to come and prove to my satisfaction (1) That his services were dispensed with; (2) that they were dispensed with because they were unnecessary; (3) that they were unnecessary by reason of certain changes of administration; (4) that these changes of administration were entirely due to amalgamation. These averments are all positive, and though the information necessary to prove them would be peculiarly within the knowledge of the respondents, still I have been able to discover no principle of evidence which would relieve the appellants from the burden of proving these averments before they can succeed. Although this is clearly my opinion as to the effect of this section, as already stated, I have not acted upon it in hearing these appeals so strictly as to dismiss any appeal where upon the appellant's own case he had failed to discharge the onus. I have sought all available evidence from both sides before coming to a decision as to what was the cause of any dismissal, and such evidence has not, I am satisfied, been cursorily withheld in any case." He says that although in strict law the appellant should prove four averments, he has not acted on that but has, in fact, looked to both sides to give him the evidence and he is satisfied that evidence is not withheld.

What about the Donohue case that I have quoted?

I should answer the Deputy's points all in one sentence, apparently. What is required more than the getting of evidence? The arbitrator has not confined himself to what was the strict interpretation of the law.

He has not strictly confined himself.

I do not get that point. He said "I have not acted upon it in hearing these appeals so strictly as to dismiss any appeal where upon the appellant's own case he had failed to discharge the onus." The next sentence says: "I have sought all available evidence from both sides before coming to a decision as to what was the cause of any dismissal, and such evidence has not, I am satisfied, been cursorily withheld in any case." In other words, he has asked both sides to put their cards on the table. Then, having got all the evidence, he says his principle is "If the cause was amalgamation the appellant succeeded, if it was not he failed." Is there a better interpretation both of how evidence is to be got and the principle on which compensation is to be given? I do not think there is. Deputy Davin says there is a case upon the judgment of the arbitrator which he quoted, not fully, and there are certain cases which he then went on to give. As regards Donohue's case, as far as I could make out there was a case which appeared to be founded, and the railway company was asked to produce something other than hearsay evidence. They said they could do so, and for one or two years they failed to do it. Why was the case not brought again before the arbitrator?

The date of the hearing was 9th January, 1928. The arbitrator has not heard any other case, and he has since resigned.

Then, two years have not elapsed, and that is one of the cases which has been held over because there has not been a new arbitrator. If there is any hardship in that case it is because there is no new arbitrator and because Judge Davitt has resigned. It is not because there is a wrong principle with regard to compensation or the getting of evidence; it is simply because there is no arbitrator.

The last hearing was on 9th January, 1928. The arbitrator carried on for several months afterwards and gave certain decisions or judgments. He resigned two months ago. He did not hear any case after the 9th January.

As far as that particular case is concerned there are no grounds for an inquiry into the working of the Act save on the point: How is the arbitrator appointed, and how soon should vacancies in the post of arbitrator be filled? It is simply that there is some delay by reason of the fact that there is no arbitrator.

Two years and one day have elapsed since this man was dismissed, and he does not know whether or not he will get compensation.

That is due to the fact that there was no arbitrator for the last few months. Now, as regards the eight painters, the next case that was brought up, three or four of them failed to get compensation, and the others will not go forward. Why were the others turned down and why did they not appeal if they thought they had a case? There must be some explanation before there is a prima facie case established for an inquiry into the working of the Act. There were eight painters, three of them tried for compensation and the rest will not go forward.

They knew there was no hope under the 1926 Amending Act.

We must be told how the three failed.

It was due to that Act.

Is that what the Deputy calls a prima facie case?

Were not the Grand Canal Street works closed down as a result of the Act?

Perhaps the Deputy would like to amend the Act by allowing a Minister to replace the arbitrator? I wonder would he be as popular with the railwaymen if that was the proposal? These are the two cases that were put forward. There are other matters that the Deputy referred to. He referred to the D.& S.E. Railway and presumed that if there had been no Amalgamation Act in 1924 the D.S.E. Rly. would still be in operation and would presumably be employing as many men as before. Does the Deputy seriously believe that? Does he believe there would have been no economies forced on the D.S.E. Rly., as a separate system, if there had been no amalgamation?

I did not say as many men, but men who have since been disemployed would be employed.

Does the Deputy hold that all the men employed in 1924 should now be in employment? I do not think he does. Who is to make the distinction and who is to say whether two of the painters should be dismissed, whether six should be dismissed or the whole lot? Surely, an arbitrator set up to award compensation on certain terms. The arbitrator's principle is that if amalgamation is the cause of dismissal the man will succeed, and if it is not he will fail. Two arbitrators have resigned according to Deputy Davin, one as a protest against the Act. The Deputy amended that in answer to a question from another Deputy and said the arbitrator resigned because the 1926 proposals contained retrospective sections and he believed there was to be an inquiry into his awards. He would not tolerate that and he resigned. That is no longer in the 1926 Act and whatever reason there was then for the resignation of the first arbitrator there are no such grounds now for resignation. That matter disappeared before the 1926 Bill became an Act. The Deputy positively declined to say why Judge Davitt resigned. Judge Davitt gave his own statement that his court work occupied his time sufficiently and he had not much time to devote to any other work.

Debate adjourned at 8.35 p.m. until Friday, October 12th.
Top
Share