To-day, Sir, I put a question to the Minister for Education in the following terms:—
"To ask the Minister for Education if he will state why he has served notice upon Mrs. Margaret McDonnell, formerly Miss Margaret Gillan, professor of science and kindred subjects in Tourmakeady Preparatory College, terminating her appointment, and why he has refused to furnish her with any reasons for taking this course."
The reply was:—
"The action taken in the case of Mrs. Margaret McDonnell determining her employment by notice terminating on the 31st July, 1937, was in accordance with the usual practice in such cases. I am advised that it was not necessary to assign cause."
I put a further question to the Minister and the Minister stated something to the effect that he understood that it was in the mind of Mrs. McDonnell to bring legal proceedings with reference to his action. I do not really know upon what authority the Minister made that statement or how he knows what is passing in the mind of Mrs. McDonnell. But the question which I raise here is not a question which has anything to do with the legality or illegality of the Minister's action. I am not questioning the legality of the Minister's action. What I am questioning is the unjust use by the Minister of the power which the Minister possesses. This lady in question was professor in the Irish college at Tourmakeady. She is a lady with a very brilliant university career. She is a Master of Science. She would probably have done very much better had she continued her research work, but, considering her abilities, she rather in a way wasted herself and took this post, at a not enormously high pay— if my memory is correct it was something like £360 — as professor in Tourmakeady Preparatory College. There is no question that the lady has performed her duties as professor splendidly. There is no question, and cannot be a question, that the girls taught by that lady have proved themselves excellent scholars and have done extremely well in their examinations.
On the 26th January a letter was written from the National Education Office. It was written to this lady, whose teaching has been perfect and against whom not one single word or suggestion or whisper or murmur can be made in the discharge of her duties. This is the letter:
"Dear Madam, — I have to inform you that the Department have decided, with the approval of the manager of the college, to advertise your position as professor in Colaiste Muire in the newspapers at once, and I have to inform you that you must resign from your position in the college as soon as the new teacher is appointed and ready to take up the work."
That is a translation, as the letter was in Irish. I have read the English translation, and, if the Minister objects to the accuracy of it, he can indicate his objection. The translation has been furnished to me by the lady, who is an accomplished Irish speaker. She naturally wrote and asked for an explanation, and she got the following letter, dated 15th April:
"Referring to the letter written to you on the 26th January, and to your letter of the 28th January, about your having to give up your position in Colaiste Muire, Tourmakeady, on getting married, I have to inform you that the Minister for Education, with the approval of the manager, has decided to dismiss you from the position on the 31st July, 1937, and I have to give you herewith three months' notice that your services in Colaiste Muire, Tourmakeady, will end on 31st July, 1937, i.e., three months from 30th April, 1937."
She asked for reasons for receiving this notice, and she received the following letter on the 10th May:
"Referring to your letter of 29th April, I have to inform you that, in the absence of any other specific conditions being mentioned when you accepted the position as teacher in a preparatory college, it is legal to terminate your services in that position by giving you three months' notice and without stating any cause for same."
That is the position as it stands. The Minister has directed the dismissal of this lady without any cause, and has definitely refused to assign any cause for dismissing her. To my mind, that is a very improper proceeding. I will use no stronger word than improper, though I might feel inclined to do so. It is a most improper procedure, of course, and I am willing, because I am raising no points of law, to assume for the purpose of discussion here that this lady held at will and was subject to three months' notice. I presume she did. Every civil servant in the State holds at will. The Minister, in terminating the employment of a public servant who has done her work admirably, and in refusing to give any reason for that, is acting in a most arbitrary, high-handed and extraordinary manner, and is laying down an extremely bad precedent, not merely for his own Department, but for the whole Civil Service.
Though she had mentioned nothing about getting married in her letter to the National Education Office, there is in a letter of the 15th April this statement: "...about your having to give up your position in Colaiste Muire, Tourmakeady, on getting married." She had undoubtedly got married earlier. Now, if the reason of her dismissal, the reason which the Minister shirks giving, the reason he has refused to give, is the fact that she got married, that is no justification, or shadow of a justification, for this dismissal. This lady took the appointment to this post when her attainments were sufficient to justify her in looking for even a more important post. There was not one word or suggestion at the time that she took this post that she would have to leave it if she got married. I presume that, knowing that, is the reason why the Minister has refused to give any explanation to her as to why he is taking this high-handed action — because he could not stand over the dismissal on the grounds that she had got married, that not being a term of her original employment.
It is within your knowledge, Sir, and it was within the knowledge of everybody in this country, that female teachers in national schools are allowed to teach after they have got married; married women can keep on their posts in the national schools. There is one exception to that. A teacher who has come in after 1934— the year is not desperately material— must resign on marriage. But the very spirit of that regulation is against the action taken by the Minister here, because it is admitted by the Minister and his Department that it is unjust to female teachers in national schools to dismiss them upon marriage when that was not originally part of their contract. The spirit of that most certainly applies here and, if simple natural justice dictated to the Minister that he should bring in a regulation to the effect that forced resignation or dismissal upon marriage should only apply to persons who, at the date of their appointment, knew of such a regulation — if he applied that to national teachers, it especially should apply in this case.
I am not going to use, though I might feel very much inclined to use, strong words about the Minister's action. It may be explicable; I hope it is explicable, but on the facts before me it appears to be nothing short of tyrannical. I will hear the Minister's reply with pleasure, his explanation if he has one.
