asked the Minister for Education if, in the case of the dismissal of the last assistant in a Dublin City school—Roll No. 14556—on July 1st, 1930, after 14 years' service, he is aware (1) that 300 names were struck off the rolls during the school year ended June 30th, 1930, bringing the average under 600, and that this percentage of elimination is abnormal; (2) if the medical certificate supplied to the Department was sufficient to justify the usual extension of employment for one or two quarters; (3) if 120 pupils from a lower school were available for admission on the day that this teacher was dismissed; (4) if the two ex-monitors of this school, whose training was completed at this time, were appointed permanently after a lapse of only 35 school days (i.e., October 1st); (5) if he will state the approximate amount saved by the Department in temporarily reducing the staff of this school during the period July 1st to October 1st, 1930, and also the approximate amount of loss of earnings consequently incurred by this teacher since July 1st, 1930 (excluding 18 months' service given in the school Roll No. 752—managed by the Minister—and ended March, 1937); (6) if he has considered the repeated representations made on behalf of this teacher for alternative employment, or for inclusion in the employment panel, and when a decision may be expected.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dublin Teacher's Services.
The grant of salary was withdrawn from the assistant teacher in question as from 30th June, 1930, as the average attendance for each of the two preceding quarters failed to reach the minimum required under the regulations for his continued recognition.
(1) My Department has no information as to the number of pupils whose names were struck off the rolls of the school during the school year ended 30th June, 1930. (2) The terms of the medical certificate furnished were not such as would warrant any concession in the matter of the average attendance required under the regulations for the continued recognition of an assistant teacher in a national school.
(3) The Department has no information as to the number of pupils available for admission to the school on the 30th June, 1930. (4) One of the remaining assistants retired on pension on 30th September, 1930. Two new assistants were appointed by the manager on the 6th October, 1930. Recognition could only be given to one of these new appointments, and that in a provisional capacity only, under Rule 83 (c) on that date, inasmuch as the average for the June quarter, 1930, was below the figure for the appointment of even a 13th assistant. Later on, when it was found that an average of 651 units was secured for December quarter, 1930, recognition was given to the second of these appointees, because the average for the preceding calendar year (1929), as well as the average for December quarter, 1930, exceeded 635 units. Both these appointments were, therefore, ratified when the average for December quarter, 1930, was available. (5). If the teacher in question had continued to give regular and efficient service as assistant teacher from 1st July, 1930, to 31st March, 1937, exclusive of the period of 18 months' temporary service, he would have received approximately £1,900. (6) Under the regulations, appointments of teachers are made by the managers. Representations have been received in the Department on behalf of the teacher concerned with a view to securing for him alternative employment, but it has not been found possible for the Department to do very much for him. The appointment of teachers rests with the local managers. He is not eligible to have his name included in the diocesan panel, as teachers who lost their positions owing to decline in average prior to January, 1931, are not eligible for inclusion in the panel.
Would the Minister say he is satisfied that this teacher has, on the whole, been unfairly treated and, recognising that fact, that he, or his Department, will use their influence to ensure that he will get employment at the first opportunity? Is the Minister prepared to answer the supplementary question?
No.