asked the Minister for Health if he is aware that the Dublin Health Authority submitted Labour Court Recommendation No. 1561 to his Department for sanction in September concerning revised scales for city and county health inspectors; and that this recommendation was accepted by the Authority; if so, when sanction to these proposals will be forthcoming; and if an effort will be made to have arrears paid before Christmas.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Health Inspector's Salary Scales.
6.
I am aware that, arising out of the Labour Court Recommendation referred to, the Dublin Health Authority submitted to my Department last September a proposal to adopt revised salary scales for health inspectors employed by the Authority.
The Deputy will appreciate that the interest of that Authority is a relatively narrow one, related to its own service only. The Oireachtas has laid down that proposals of health authorities regarding the remuneration of their staffs are subject to the sanction of the Minister for Health. Inherent in the exercise of that statutory function is a duty to examine all such proposals from a wider point of view than that of the particular health authority primarily involved. In the present instance, an important issue is involved which requires careful consideration by reason of its serious implications in relation to other health authorities and other grades of staff. These implications do not appear to have been adequately presented to the Labour Court and I have, therefore, caused a communication to be sent to that body. Pending receipt of a reply to that communication and fuller examination of the position in the light of that reply, I am unable to convey a decision to the Dublin Health Authority.
May I take it there is a dispute now between the Minister for Health and the Labour Court, in relation to the recommendations which it has made in connection with this case? Is the Minister now disputing with the Labour Court the results and consequences of its function as a body to consider the claims of persons who feel aggrieved and is this a departure from the usual principle of accepting the recommendations of the Labour Court? I understand the recommendations of the Labour Court are usually accepted.
When the recommendations of the Labour Court are found by any party to the Labour Court's proceedings to be acceptable, they are accepted. In this case, I do not find them acceptable, but I am not raising any dispute with the Labour Court.
Are we to take it we have now reached the stage where a Government Department will challenge a recommendation made by an independent body such as the Labour Court? The Department is not a party to the original dispute; it is only exercising its function to sanction.
The Department is very much a party to the dispute, since it foots half the bill but, apart from that, the Department is not exercising any greater discretion than that which is exercised by a trade union and in that sense, it can make further representations to the court.
Surely the Minister does not suggest that the Department of Health, which was not present at the Labour Court hearing, and therefore is not a party to the dispute, has the same right as a trade union or a direct employer, such as the health authority, to refuse to accept a recommendation.
If the Deputy will study my reply, he will see that I have stated that in my view certain aspects of this matter were not adequately presented to the Labour Court. Perhaps they will be presented on another occasion.
Surely the Minister is not the person to say that.
Is it to be taken now that the Minister is creating a precedent so that if Labour Court recommendations go to other Departments of State they will be in the same position to dispute the recommendations of the Labour Court? Take, for instance, the Civil Service or some of the larger bodies. Will we have the situation now that the decisions and the recommendations of the Labour Court, will not alone be disregarded but will be contested?
No. I do not know how the Deputy has arrived at the conclusion that the recommendations —and, mind you, they are only recommendations; they are not findings; they are recommendations of the Labour Court—will be contested. However, the Minister for any Department, in the exercise of his responsibility to the taxpayers at large, is entitled to exercise his judgment as to whether he thinks it is or is not in the public interest to accept a recommendation of the Labour Court without demur.
Surely, this is challenging the very existence of the Labour Court?
Who has challenged it more often on that point than the trade union movement?
They have the right at that level but the Minister certainly has not.
The collective employers agreed, did they not?
This is only a sneaky way of turning down increases for workers.
It is not anything like that but, after all, I have as much responsibility in this matter as the Dublin Health Authority.
Of course you have not.
I have, of course. I foot half the bill.
You do not.
You contracted to foot half the bill.
At least, the tax-payer foots half the bill.
That is more like it.
And I represent the taxpayer in this matter.