asked the Minister for Finance whether any instruction has been issued by the Board of Works or any direction given by any responsible official of the Department to the effect that no man is to be employed who has reached the age of 65 years; and whether, if such instruction or direction has been given it applies to men with service in the employment of contractors to the Board of Works vary ing from five to 35 years; and whether, in view of the hardship such action will cause, he will consider withdrawing this instruction or direction.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Age Limit in Employment.
asked the Minister for Finance whether he will state if instructions were issued to contractors performing work for the Office of Public Works to the effect that they could not employ for the performance of such work any workman who had attained the age of 65; whether he is aware that a number of men affected by these instructions have had from ten to 35 years continuous service with their present employers, and that their employers are anxious to retain them in their service if permitted to do so; whether he is aware that the workmen concerned are not entitled to pensions or other retiring allowances of any kind, and that if dismissed from their present employment they will be deprived of earning a living for themselves in the interval before they qualify for an old age pension, and if, having regard to the interest of the men concerned and the desire of their employers, he is prepared to cancel the instructions referred to so as to permit contractors affected to continue in their employment all men who are otherwise suitable and satisfactory.
I propose taking Questions 8 and 9 together.
The answer to the first part of both questions is in the negative. The normal age of retirement of employees engaged on Government work is 65 years. The cases of all workpeople employed on Government buildings, etc., under the Board of Works, who have reached the age of 60 years, are, however, reviewed periodically to ascertain whether their capacity to discharge efficiently and without risk of accident the duties of their posts has been impaired. Workmen may be retained after the age of 65 provided their capacity is not impaired and that there are special circumstances justifying their retention. Each case is fully and sympathetically considered on its merits.
Workmen engaged through the Schedule contractors are not employees of the Commissioners of Public Works. They are paid the existing trade union rate of wages. The practice of reviewing the cases of such men when they reach the age of 60 years does not of course interfere in any way with the contractors' freedom to retain their services on other works if he so desires, and no question of pensions or gratuities from public funds arises.
Arising out of the Minister's reply, will he say if these periodical dismissals are in keeping with the distribution of labour scheme which was mooted in that Department some time ago, and, if so, are any of these men being kept on after the age of 65?
I am afraid the Deputy will have to give me notice of that question.
Is the Minister aware whether any person who has attained the age of 65 has been dismissed?
I am not in a position to answer.
In considering this matter, will the Minister bear in mind that some of these persons have been employed for upwards of 30 years, and have no other income except the wages which they receive from their present employers? In view of the fact that they do not get any pension or gratuity, will the Minister undertake to ensure, in respect of their employment on behalf of the Board of Works, that they will be treated in the same way as they were treated formerly, namely, that they will be kept on after 65 as they would be by contractors in the ordinary course?
So far as work people who are engaged to do schedule works are concerned, the contractors are quite at liberty to retain their services even after they have passed the age of 65.
Will the Board of Works do that?
I am not in a position to say.
If they are retained will the Minister offer any objection?
That would depend on whether they could efficiently discharge their duties: whether they could, as stated in the reply, perform these duties without undue risk of accident. In regard to the whole question generally, I may say that all the circumstances of these employees are considered very sympathetically.