asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs why three temporary labourers (names supplied) employed by his Department in Arklow were dismissed on the 10th March 1961; and (a) what notice was given to the men, (b) what holiday pay was given to them, (c) what hours were required to be worked by them (1) before noon and (2) in the afternoon, (d) what rest intervals were allowed to them, and (e) what information was supplied by his Department to the Department of Social Welfare regarding these dismissals.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dismissal of Post Office Temporary Labourers.
82.
The services of the three temporary labourers were dispensed with because they refused to work one and a half hours' overtime each day.
The men were given three days' notice and each was given five days' pay in lieu of holidays.
The normal working day was 8.30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday to Friday with meal interval from 12.30 to 1 p.m. The hours for Saturdays were 8.30 to 12.30 p.m. Early in March, 1961, it was decided to commence work at 8 a.m. and finish at 6 p.m. Monday to Friday resulting in 1½ hours' overtime daily on those days.
The manager of the local employment exchange was advised that the services of the three men had been dispensed with because they had refused to work overtime.
Would the Minister say whether they may be compelled to work overtime?
There were other men employed on this operation, according to the information with which I am supplied from the Department, and there was no objection by them to working the one and a half hours' overtime. The Holidays (Employees) Act and the Conditions of Employment Act enter into this matter also and I am giving the House all the information it is possible for me to give in relation to this matter.
It has always been accepted that a worker should not be required to work overtime, to work outside his normal hours, and the fact that three or four workers say they will work overtime is no reason why others should.
The position would arise then that if the Post Office Engineering Branch wanted to complete work in a hurry they would have to lay off overtime.
Not necessarily. These were temporary labourers. There was no element of skill in it. I am sure they could get three temporary labourers in Arklow.
I did not say skilled labourers. I said ordinary workers.
Would the Minister say if this is the first case he is aware of where the State has actually dismissed men because they would not work overtime which they are not, as far as I am aware, required by law to work?
They were only temporary men engaged for a short period of work. It is the first case that has come to my notice officially or otherwise.
It will be establishing a precedent which may be quoted by outside employers.
Is the Minister aware that one of the serious aspects of this matter is that these men have been refused unemployment benefit from the Department of Social Welfare on the evidence submitted to that Department by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs?
I presume that happened. I am now being asked to offer my own opinion, arising out of the question which I answered in every detail.
I am not trying to embarrass the Minister but he has admitted himself that this is the first case that has come to his notice where men were dismissed because they exercised their right not to work beyond normal working hours. Because they refused to do overtime they were deprived of unemployment benefit.
I hope a precedent is not being established in this case.