asked the Minister for Education whether grants, by way of special bonus, have been paid to those teachers in Dublin who refused to come out on strike last March when called on to do so by the Irish National Teachers' Organisation; if so, if he will state: (a) the number of teachers to whom such grants were made, their names, and the names of the schools in which they are employed; (b) the total amount of such grants and the amount paid to each individual; (c) the particular rule or regulation of the Department's Official Code which enabled him to make such grant; (d) the particular sub-head of the Education Vote from which the payments were made; and (e) the reasons which justified the making of such grants.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Payments to Teachers.
asked the Minister for Education whether primary school teachers in Dublin who refused to take part in the recent strike were granted a sum of money in addition to their saleries; and if he will state under what Act he was empowered to grant this money.
I propose to take question No. 34 from Deputy Giles on the same subject in conjunction with this question from Deputy Norton.
It has been decided to make a special payment in respect of service rendered during the period from the 20th March to the 30th October, 1946, inclusive, by teachers of national schools which were affected by the strike. I do not know whether these teachers were or were not members of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation.
With reference to the subsidiary queries put by the Deputy, the replies are as follows:—
(a) The number of teachers receiving this special payment is 416 of whom 52 are serving in ordinary national schools and 364 in capitation convent and monastery schools. I do not propose to give the names of the teachers or the names of the schools in which they were employed.
(b) The total amount of these payments is £4,868 10s. 0d. and the amount payable to each individual teacher is £20 in the case of principal teachers and £10 in the case of other teachers.
(c) The payments in question were approved by me with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance. Rule 132 of the Rules and Regulations for National Schools provides that:—
"These rules may be altered or rescinded with the approval of the Minister for Education and, in the case of rules involving finance, with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance."
I do not consider a formal alteration of the rules and regulations to be necessary as I hope that the circumstances which gave rise to these payments will not recur.
(d) The special payments are being made from the Vote for Primary Education, sub-head C (1)—"Salaries etc. of Teachers in Ordinary and Model Schools and in Reformatory and Industrial Schools and Grants to Schools paid on a Capitation Basis."
(e) The payments are being made to the teachers concerned in respect of the extra work and/or responsibility which devolved on them in the difficult circumstances of the period in question.
With particular refer ence to (e), will the Minister say whether this grant was paid to a lady in the Central Model Schools, where one pupil or no pupil attended during the strike, and was it also paid to the principal of the Drimnagh school for extra work where no pupil attended during the strike; and will the Minister say whether, after a strike lasting approximately seven months, he thinks the best way of promoting harmony between his Department and the teachers' organisation is to pay bribes to people who worked during the strike?
It would be necessary, I think, for the Deputy to give me notice regarding individual cases. I presume that in the two cases which he mentions, the teachers have been paid the bonus in question. As well as the additional responsibility and extra work cast upon teachers who elected to serve in the schools during this period to provide for the education of children, there were also teachers who were prepared to serve; they were placed in very difficult and trying circumstances, but, had the children returned to school at any time during the period, they would have been ready and willing to continue their classes. If there is any case of a teacher who was so prepared, but who, in fact, was not teaching for any period it should be considered; I think it would be inequitable and, in fact, impossible, to distinguish between such a teacher, who was prepared to give his or her services if called upon during the period, and those who actually did give their services.
Does the Minister approve of scabbing during a strike?
The Minister said that the reason for making this payment under (e) was extra work. If that was the basis on which payment was made, why was payment made to the principal of the school at Drimnagh, where no pupil attended during the strike, and why was it paid to a lady in the Central Model Schools where only one pupil or no pupil attended during the strike? Surely, it is a waste of public money, apart from the vicious principle involved in this matter, not merely to pay a person full wages, but to pay a special bonus to a teacher who did not see a pupil in the school during the period of the strike?
If the situation is that the teacher in Drimnagh or anywhere else was at his post during the period, and held himself in readiness, in the trying circumstances with which I know that particular teacher had to contend, to provide instruction in the event of the pupils returning to school, I am not prepared to deny that he should receive the same measure of appreciation as a teacher who, in fact, did give service during the period. It would be impossible to make a distinction between those who gave service by actually teaching and those who demonstrated by their daily attendance at the schools, that they were ready and willing to give such service.
Mr. Corish
The Minister stated that payments were made to teachers in respect of extra duties and responsibilities. In the cases where teachers had not any schools at all, and where they had just as good a holiday as the kids, they did not have extra duties or responsibilities, and the Minister is taking up a funny attitude when he encourages scabs and blacklegs by the payment of a bonus simply because certain people did not take part in what was not an illegal strike.
I object to the term used by Deputy Corish with reference to these teachers. I think the thanks of the parents, and of the people of the City of Dublin generally, are due to the teachers who continued to provide the children with education. In my opinion, the expression used by the Deputy should not have been used. I want to say, with reference to the statement that these teachers are being paid for services that they did not give, that the teachers in question were at their posts and remained at their posts until they received official instructions, probably from the manager, but at any rate instructions, that they need not continue. So long as I am satisfied that they were at their posts and that they were prepared to carry out their duties any day the children returned to school, I do not see how I could make any distinction between their case and that of the others.
Does that apply to the Religious Orders?