asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs why Brendan Hughes, who was employed on relief work as an auxiliary postman at Carlanstown Post Office, County Meath, was dismissed without reason given and as a consequence receives 26/- per week unemployment assistance, while the man who replaced him was in receipt of unemployment benefit amounting to £4 2s. 6d. per week.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Meath Auxilary Postman.
46.
When a temporary auxiliary postman was urgently required at Carlanstown sub-post office recently, Mr. Brendan Hughes was employed provisionally, pending recruitment through the local employment exchange in accordance with the normal practice.
When the names were subsequently received from the exchange, the claims and qualifications of all eligible candidates were considered and Mr. P. Fitzsimons was selected as the most suitable.
Does the Minister not agree that this man was unfairly treated in view of the fact that he had done this job many times before, that at present, as a consequence of his dismissal, he is in receipt of unemployment assistance, 26/- per week, that he has a wife and two children, one of whom is a cripple, that he was actually employed on this job from 14th December to 23rd January, and that he was dismissed without notice by the postmaster and someone else was taken in his place?
I am prevented from giving in the House the circumstances of the people whose names were sent forward by the labour exchange because it is not the practice to disclose such details, but it is a fact, of course, that the head postmaster did take on in an emergency Mr. Brendan Hughes.
As he often did before.
As he often did before, but he was not on the job often enough to secure the right of priority and the head postmaster when he found that the vacancy would last longer than he had thought got the names from the labour exchange on 15th December, 1960. He allowed Mr. Hughes to remain in the post because it was coming up to Christmas and because of the Christmas rush. He did not put the general Government direction into operation until 16th January. The postmaster was quite within his rights in doing that and he was quite within his rights in obeying the general direction which is applicable thereto for a long number of years. I think that the head postmaster treated Brendan Hughes fairly and kept him on as long as he possibly could. When he could not keep him on any longer, he sent for the other man who had a greater claim, according to the record from the labour exchange.
Would the Minister explain how the man appointed had a better claim, seeing that he was an unemployment benefit recipient, whereas the man who was sacked was an unemployment assistance recipient?
As I have already told the Deputy, I cannot disclose the circumstances to the House.
Will the Minister say that it was because of an approach by this man to him and the Minister's subsequent intervention that caused this man to be appointed? I would ask the Minister to confirm or deny that?
That is not a fact.