andKeyes asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether his attention has been directed to the case of a clerical officer in the employment of Córas Iompair Éireann who contracted tuberculosis in the course of his duties and who, according to practice, was allowed six months' leave of absence, on the expiry of which the man concerned was refused re-employment by the company, despite the fact that a medical certificate indicated the patient was clear of his trouble; whether the Minister is aware that this attitude of the company is in direct conflict with the policy of the Government as enunciated by the Minister for Health; and, if so, whether he will indicate what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the anti-social policy of the company—as indicated by the facts of this particular case—is not permitted to continue, and that the officer, the subject of this question, is immediately reinstated.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Disemployment of ex-Tuberculosis Patient.
The Railways Act, 1924, provides that the conditions of service of railway employees should be regulated by agreements made between the company and the trade unions representative of such employees. I have no statutory functions in a matter of this kind. When this case was first brought to my notice some time ago, I had inquiries made from Córas Iompair Éireann. The company informed me that the case had been sympathetically considered, but that they had been unable to arrive at any other decision than that which had been taken.
It is an exceedingly serious matter for the staff of Córas Iompair Éireann and I put it to the Minister now that his reply is exceedingly unsatisfactory. He mentions the fact that arrangements in connection with conditions of employment rest, under the Act of 1924, between the company and the trade unions. Might I, with the consent of the House, point out——
The Deputy is making a speech.
I am putting a question to the Minister.
Who says he has no responsibility.
I am putting it now to the Minister. In view of the fact that he is a member of a Cabinet which has pronounced judgment on the treatment of tuberculosis, will he not take steps to settle this matter, now that I have brought it officially to his notice—as was done by the trade union to which the man belongs—and also officially to the notice of the Government? A grievous wrong has been done to a man who contracted tuberculosis in the course of his service and is now definitely cured, as per the certificate of one of the most eminent specialists in this city; but for the last six months he has been walking the streets of the city unemployed.
The Deputy is making a speech.
May I put it to the Minister that this matter is too serious to be trifled with in the way the Minister has done here, in suggesting that he has no official responsibility? I suggest that there is Cabinet responsibility in a serious matter of this kind.
The Deputy has made a speech in the guise of a question. If the Minister has no responsibility, it is not in order to appeal to the whole Cabinet on a question to one Minister. If the Minister has no responsibility, that ends it.
On a supplementary question to the Minister, we are told that the general manager of the company refused to meet a deputation representing the trade unions.
That is a separate question.
May I, with your permission, say just this? There is no question of trifling with this case and I think it is unfair to suggest that. I have stated what the statutory position is, that I have no statutory functions in the matter. May I suggest to the Deputy and other Deputies concerned that they might take this matter up with the company again?
Would it not be the business of the Minister to see that the general manager carries out both the letter and the spirit of the 1924 Act and meets a deputation representing the trade unions?