asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs if Post Office workers in the Dublin District, now dismissed, suffered any loss, and, if any, to what extent, by being graded according to service regulations, and, further, if the services of such workers were not of a continuous nature, what were the reasons for grading.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dismissed Post Office Workers.
Five of the temporary engineering workmen recently discharged in the Dublin area suffered reductions varying from 11d. to 2s. 9d. a week on being graded for skilled work. This disparity was increased to 2s. 4d. and 4s. 2d. a week respectively as at the date of the termination of their employment. Six other men received equivalent or slightly enhanced wages on re-grading, but at date of discharge they were in receipt of wages varying from 1s. 2d. to 4s. 2d. a week lower than their former rate as labourers.
The reduction subsequent to re-grading in both cases was due to the fall in the cost-of-living bonus in the interval. As labourers these men's wages were based on outside labour rates and were immune from fluctuations in the cost-of-living figure. On transfer to the skilled scale they were given the highest starting pay permissible on that scale under Departmental regulations and any loss sustained by them subsequently was common to all Post Office classes paid on a basic plus bonus basis.
The temporary grading of labourers as acting unestablished skilled workmen was necessitated by the work to be done under the Telephone development scheme. Employment on skilled duties was sought after as the work was more congenial than that performed by labourers and furthermore increments on the skilled scale would ultimately have given a higher rate of remuneration than that paid to labourers. No promise of permanency or continued employment was, however, held out to the men concerned.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary amplify what he has stated? What does he mean by stating that skilled workmen would get certain increments when in fact what they got was dismissal? What was the sense of establishing men, reducing their wages while holding out hopes for increments when in fact what they got was their dismissal?
There was no promise of continuity of employment given, but if these men had not been dismissed they would have received increments.
Did not the Parliamentary Secretary read out in his answer that they were to get increments and that it was part of the consideration for grading which brought about a reduction in wages?
They did get increments until such time as they were discharged, not dismissed.
What is the sense in giving that answer to the question when what we want to find out is why did you grade men and give them a lower rate if you had no permanent work for them?
It was not a matter of a lower grade. It depended upon the cost-of-living bonus, which might be lower or which might be higher.
Did not the Parliamentary Secretary read out two distinct sets of figures?
In these particular cases it was low, but it might be higher.
We are not discussing a hypothetical question. I am trying to get a definite answer to a definite question.
We ought not to be discussing anything at this particular time.