asked the Minister for Social Welfare how many temporary clerks were recently laid off in his Department, and if he will state what principle operated in determining the order in which the officers were laid off.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Disemployment of Temporary Clerks.
Mr. A. Byrne
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware thatseven male clerks and one female clerk, members of the staffs at Dublin employment exchanges have received a week's notice terminating their employment, and if, in view of the depressed state of the employment market, he will have the notices withdrawn and suitable continuous employment provided for them.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware that at least two persons employed as temporary clerks in employment exchanges in Dublin and Dún Laoghaire have been informed that their services will no longer be required after next week and that these persons both served in the Army during the emergency and, in the circumstances, if he will be prepared to retain them in employment; and also, if he is aware that persons employed in a similar capacity have been transferred to another section of the Department; and, if so, if he will state on what basis the persons selected for retention have been chosen.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 20. 21 and 22 together.
Owing to the normal reduction in the volume of work during the summer and autumn months, there is redundancy of staff in employment exchanges and other local offices of the Department in Dublin and throughout the country. It is accordingly necessary to reduce staff by discharging temporary clerks who are employed to meet such seasonal fluctuations in staffing requirements.
The total number of temporary clerks to whom notices of termination of appointment have been issued so far is 79 but it has since been decided to retain the services of 13 of these. The order in which temporary clerks were selected for discharge was approved after full consideration of all the relevant factors. I regret that it is not possible to withdraw the remaining notices or to provide alternative continuous employment for the clerks who are being discharged.
A few temporary clerks in Dublin employment exchanges who were not due for discharge have been transferred to another section of the Department and this has enabled the retention in the exchanges of an equal number of clerks whose discharge would otherwise be necessary.
I asked the Parliamentary Secretary if he would indicate the principle which operated in determining the order in which officers were laid off and the Parliamentary Secretary has not replied to that portion of the question.
The order in which temporary clerks in the office are discharged is decided each year by the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary, as the case may be. Up to 1948, the order was based on domestic circumstances, but in that year the Minister decided that seniority of service should be the governing consideration. This seniority rule applied until the current year when the Parliamentary Secretary directed that domestic circumstances only should be considered and that Old I.R.A. service and service in the Army during the emergency should be taken into account only if domestic circumstances were equal. Recently there has been a modification to permit the retention of temporary clerks who qualified in the confined competitive examination for posts as clerical officers held in 1950.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in 1948, at the request of the organisation then representing the temporary clerks concerned, I instituted the principle of last in first out as the method of determining the termination or retention of service? That is a well-established principle which, as everybody knows, operates generally in other Government Departments and in private industry. Does the Parliamentary Secretary not realise that the reversion to what is known as domestic circumstances is capable of considerable manipulation and that the well-established principle of last in first out is a far better method of determining the question of retention and dismissal in these cases?
I do not agree. I made this decision. The people who made representations to the former Minister only represent a small section of the total number of clerks employed in a temporary capacity in the Department.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that another Government Department which controls this Department suggested to the staff organisation that last in first out is the sensible method of procedure in these cases? Will the Parliamentary Secretary say on what grounds he departed from that method?
The rule was there until it was changed by the Deputy in 1948.
Family responsibilities do not count with the Deputy.
This has been done so that you can put in your pals.