I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. This Bill is of a composite character. Each section deals with a different point. The whole purpose of the Bill is to remedy certain difficulties which have appeared in the electricity supply code. Sections 2 and 3 have their origin in a recent judgment of the High Court in a case in which a former employee of the board who had been discharged from its service in the year 1933 succeeded in obtaining a judgement to the effect that his dismissal was invalid because, to put it briefly, it was held by the court that, as a person transferred from the service of a former undertaker to that of the board, he possessed, under the appropriate section of the Act of 1927, certain rights, amongst which was a condition that his dismissal following suspension, to be valid, required the consent of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. Prior to 1933 the board had applied for the consent of the Minister for Local Government to the removal from office of certain persons transferred to its service under the Act of 1927, and, as the Minister for Local Government was then advised that such a consent was not necessary, it was not sought for or obtained in the case of this official. The consequence is that the board may, as a result of the action to which I have referred and further legal proceedings, be compelled to pay to the plaintiff a large sum by way of arrears of salary since 1933.
Following that judgment, a number of other persons formerly in the service of the board, and who also possessed rights under Section 39 of the 1927 Act, have commenced proceedings against the board, claiming arrears of salary on the ground that they were not validly retired or dismissed. In those cases, and in over 30 other instances, the board is liable to be sued, on the grounds mentioned, for arrears of salary. In the majority of those cases the persons concerned were retired by the board on pension, and in two instances the persons concerned were dismissed for grave and admitted misconduct. In the case of the pensioners, the claims are, and would be, in respect of the difference between the pensions and the amount of salary on retirement, and in every case for the restoration of full employment.
I do not wish to enter into the question whether the person who received the High Court judgment to which I have referred was or was not dismissed for good reason. The judge at the hearing stated—I am quoting from the judge's statement:—
"Nobody could, on the facts, have quarrelled with the opinion of the board that the plaintiff had misconducted himself in relation to the duties of his position in the service of the board."
The Government considers, however, that it would not be desirable to invoke the Oireachtas to use its powers to nullify the judgment of the court, but it will probably be generally agreed that the existence of this judgment should not be allowed to be utilised as a basis on which to found a series of unjustifiable claims against the Electricity Supply Board.
It is, therefore, proposed to allow the judgment of the court to stand and to permit the plaintiff to recover such a sum as he may be awarded in the consequential proceedings now before the Supreme Court but, at the same time, it is proposed to prevent that judgment being used by others to recover from the board moneys to which they have no equitable title whatever. Proceedings other than those instituted against the board in this connection after the date on which this Bill was introduced—17th July, 1942—are, therefore, barred and in the case of those pending provision is made for the payment by the board of the taxed costs incurred by the plaintiffs. At the same time, I should point out that the Bill does not in any way worsen the conditions applicable to any transferred officer nor does it affect any of his rights. Any transferred officer who considers himself aggrieved by an act done in relation to him by the board has, under this Bill, a right of appeal to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health who is empowered either to annul or to confirm such act.
Another matter dealt with in the Bill is an amendment of Section 11 of the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act, 1930, which section relates to the valuation of undertakings acquired by the board. Under the section of the 1930 Act to which I referred, where an undertaking was acquired after the 3rd July, 1930, the valuation for rating purposes is stabilised at that existing on the 1st April, 1929. Deputies from County Kerry will be particularly interested in this amendment. Representations were made that this restriction operated unfairly in certain cases and it is proposed to remove it, thereby substituting the valuation existing at the time when the undertaking was acquired. That change will remove a grievance of certain local authorities. A grievance of the Killarney Urban District Council in this connection was raised here in the Dáil some time ago.
A further provision in the Bill relates to certain employees of former undertakers—the Dublin Corporation and the Dublin United Transport Company —who lost their employment when the Pigeon House and Ringsend generating stations were closed by the board. Under Section 61 and the first Schedule to the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1927, these persons were awarded compensation in the form of annual pensions based upon service up to the time when their services were dispensed with. Subsequently these men were employed by the board after the re-opening by it of the Pigeon House station. It has been found that, under the law as it stands, the years of service with the board subsequent to the reopening of the Pigeon House station cannot be reckoned to supplement on ultimate retirement the pensions they already enjoy in respect of their service up to the closing of the station at which they had been employed. It should, of course, be understood that none of the men concerned on being employed or re-employed by the board received full salary or wages in addition to the pension awarded as compensation. Instead of this the board paid, as remuneration, the difference between the pension and the full appropriate salary or wage. All of these men possessed actual or prospective pension rights with the former undertakers in whose service they had been, and if, for example, the Pigeon House station had, instead of being closed for a time and then reopened, been maintained in continuous commission, the men employed at the station would have been entitled to count their entire period of service for pension purposes when ultimately they came to retire. Owing, however, to the break in their service they are not now entitled as the law stands to count their services from the time they resumed work.
I think it will be generally agreed that it would be unfair to permit the men concerned to lose for pension purposes the period of service from the time they recommenced work. The Bill, of course, does not propose that two pensions should be paid in any case—one for former service and one for subsequent service—or that any of the persons concerned will be compelled to surrender his present pension rights. All that the Bill provides in that regard is that each of the persons concerned may choose whether he will retain his present pension rights, in which event he will not benefit under the Bill, or as an alternative, surrender those rights. If he chooses to surrender his present rights and satisfies the conditions laid down in the Bill, then Section 13 of the Electricity Supply Board (Superannuation) Act, 1942, will apply to him. In short, that will mean in practice that his period of service with the former undertaker will be aggregated with that spent in the service of the board, the pension on retirement being calculated on his total aggregate service.
