asked the Minister for Defence (1) whether subsequent to September, 1940, he received a complaint from David Kelly, Kilmallock, County Limerick, to the effect that on his discharge from the Defence Forces Mr. Kelly applied for and was refused reinstatement in his former position, and, if so, whether he will state what (if any) action was taken by the State to secure that so far as Mr. Kelly was concerned the undertaking in regard to reinstatement in employment given men who volunteered for national service will be honoured; (2) whether he is aware that previous to joining the Defence Forces in July, 1940, Mr. Kelly had been continuously in the same employment for a period of 26 years, and that there are reasonable grounds for believing that if he had not responded to the nation's appeal for volunteers he would still be in that employment, whereas now himself and his family are in a state of destitution; (3) whether he is aware that arising out of the refusal of the employer to reinstate him in his employment and of the failure of the Government to fulfil its undertakings to volunteers in that regard Mr. Kelly proceeded in the District Court by way of summons against his former employer and secured a conviction, but that the fine imposed was only 1/-; (4) whether having regard to the foregoing statements he will consider amending the Defence Forces Acts on the grounds that the law as it stands does not afford adequate protection to men who voluntarily resign from constant employment for the purpose of joining the Defence Forces during the period of the present emergency; and (5) whether he is now prepared to make alternative provision in the matter of employment for Mr. Kelly in view of his present condition.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Defence Service—Reinstatement in Civilian Employment.
(1) Mrs. O'Kelly complained on the 16th October, 1940, that her husband— ex-Private D. O'Kelly—had been refused reinstatement in his former employment. Representations were made to the employers on Mr. O'Kelly's behalf and their attention was directed to the provisions of Section 57 of the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) No. 2 Act, 1940. The solicitors to the employers replied that it was not reasonably practicable to reinstate O'Kelly owing to a change in the circumstances of the firm. It was stated further that prior to his enlistment O'Kelly had been warned as to his conduct on several occasions and that he would have been discharged had he never enlisted. The question of referring the matter to the Department of Justice as to the advisability of instituting proceedings was under consideration when a further letter was received on the 2nd January, 1941, from the employers' solicitors stating that proceedings were being taken by O'Kelly. They requested my observations and I had a letter issued stating that as the matter was to be decided in court I had no observations to offer.
(2) I had no information as to tho length of O'Kelly's service with his former employers.
(3) I have ascertained that, in addition to the fine of 1/- imposed in this case, the former employer was also ordered to pay O'Kelly two weeks' wages amounting to £3 15s. 0d.
(4) It is not proposed to amend the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) No. 2 Act, 1940, as it is felt that the Act, as it stands, provides adequate safeguards and penalties. A fine not exceeding £50 may be imposed for an offence under the Act and, in addition, the employer may be ordered to pay the former employee six months' remuneration. I cannot interfere with the decisions of the courts in cases brought under the section.
(5) It is regretted that it is not practicable to provide O'Kelly with employment.
Is it a fact that the Minister was unaware of the service that man had given in his former employment? It was stated in public court that he had given 26 years' continuous service in that employment, and there was no question of his services being dispensed with if it had not been for his joining the Forces. He was let go from the Army because it appeared to be unlikely that he would become an efficient soldier. There were various employments in the gift of this garage proprietor into which he could have been usefully fitted. Is the Minister aware that it was possible for the Justice to award 1/- and two weeks' wages against the employer? Does the Minister still suggest that the regulations which made that possible are a satisfactory safeguard when inviting men from normal employment into the Forces? What further steps does the Minister propose to take in regard to this man who has ten children, who had given 26 years unbroken service, and who is now made destitute because of his joining the Forces in 1940?
I must presume that the judge who investigated this case had all the facts before him, and that on the facts which were there he decided the case. The facts as stated by the Deputy are not the facts as stated to me.
It was only because of the complete failure to get any satisfaction from the Department of the Minister that action was taken in the courts. I have that statement made here by the man's solicitor in full detail. Having failed to get any satisfaction whatever from the Department of Defence they had to go into court and they got very scant satisfaction there. I wonder if the Minister, even at this late stage, would get the Department to bestir themselves and try to get some justice for this man and his family.
The section under which the judge acted was a section which was approved by this House. It provides certain safeguards for employers, and I must presume again that the judge had all the facts before him when he decided this case. It is not correct to say that the Department of Defence was not taking action. The Department of Defence was investigating the whole matter when we were informed that O'Kelly was taking the case to court himself.
May I ask the Minister, since he has adequate safeguards for the employer, to try to insert some protection for the employee?
It is inserted already. If the Deputy will read the Act, he will see.
Is that all we can do under the Act for this man who has been 26 years in continuous employment with that firm? Is that all that can be done for him?
Under the section in the Act.
Notwithstanding all the Emergency Powers Order can be used for?
In that particular case.
Or any other case where they are required to be used?
They will be dealt with, I presume, on their merits.