asked the Minister for Agriculture whether agricultural workers employed by his Department are regarded as coming within the scope of (a) the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936, (b) the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1939, (c) the Agricultural Workers (Holidays) Act, 1950 and (d) the Agricultural Workers (Weekly Half-Holidays) Act, 1952.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Agricultural Workers in Departmental Employment.
I am advised that agricultural workers employed by my Department do not come within the scope of the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936, or the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1939. Whilst in the absence of express provision such workers do not legally come within the scope of the Agricultural Workers (Holidays) Act, 1950, or the Agricultural Workers (Weekly Half-Holidays) Act, 1952, they are, of course, allowed any of the benefits provided for in these enactments.
asked the Minister for Agriculture whether agricultural workers employed by his Department are regarded as civil servants, and, if so, when it is proposed to apply the recent Civil Service awards to them.
These workers are not regarded as civil servants within the generally accepted meaning of the words. The recent revision of Civil Service pay did not apply to categories of workers such as agricultural workers employed by my Department whose pay is related to that of workers in comparable employment outside the Civil Service. The agricultural workers employed by my Department were granted increases last September and they are, of course, in fact paid wages higher than the rates of wages current in the districts in which my Department's farms are situated.
Will the Minister say why, if these workers are not regarded as civil servants, it has been considered necessary by the Department to have them sign forms of secrecy and all the other forms which are signed by civil servants generally?
I think that is a separate question but if the Deputy likes to repeat it I shall get the information for him.
Will the Minister not agree that it is rather ridiculous to apply Civil Service conditions to a group of workers and refuse to apply the Civil Service arbitration award?
In actual fact, these workers are getting more than the current rate of wages applicable to similar workers entitled to avail of the Agricultural Wages Board.
Surely the Minister will agree that there is no appeal at the present time against an order of the Agricultural Wages Board; and will the Minister not agree that there should be some way by which agricultural workers employed on his farms should have their wages regulated to other than the minimum rate?
At present, it is 5/- a week above the minimum agricultural rate.
Does the Minister consider that adequate?
That is a separate matter.