asked the Minister for Finance why an applicant (whose name has been furnished) for the post of established postman was refused appointment although he secured seventh place in the examination held by the Civil Service Commission, while many others securing lower places secured appointment.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Established Postman Examination.
29.
The applicant was refused appointment because the Civil Service Commissioners were not satisfied that he was qualified in all the necessary respects for appointment. Having examined the papers about the matter, I am satisfied that the Commissioners' decision was correct. In the public interest, however, I cannot indicate in any further detail the grounds for that decision.
Would the Minister not agree it is a very undesirable situation that a man, who is invited to sit for examination, sits for it and is informed by the Commissioners that he has secured 7th place and then subsequently he is informed that, for reasons which they will not reveal, persons who are very much lower down on the list are given permanent employment and he is refused it? Has he no means of discovering what it is the Commissioners have against him?
I think the procedure adopted is the best that can be devised. The person sits for an examination, is placed in a certain order and he is notified that he took a certain place but subsequently further inquiries have to be made regarding age, health, character, etc., and these inquiries may result in the fact that the Commissioners cannot sanction him. I do not see how we can improve on that procedure. It would be unnecessary to go into these matters of health, age and so on before the person sits for the examination.
All I am pressing is that if that situation arises and the applicant says: "Tell me why, what are the extraneous matters outside the examination which debar me from employment in a permanent post?" and if the Commissioners warn him that they have no desire to go into these details and he says: "Well, while fully aware of that fact I still want to know," then surely, in accordance with natural justice, before he is denied employment, he is entitled to know, if he elects to put the matter in issue?
The Deputy is aware that this procedure has been working for over 40 years. To change the procedure would require a great deal of examination and it would be a big step to undertake without very minute examination.
To tell the truth I was not so aware. It seems to me to violate every canon of natural justice to invite people to present themselves for examination, to advise them of having secured a high place, so that they broadcast that information amongst their neighbours, and then to leave them under this slur that for some unknown reason they will not be appointed and when the reason is sought, whether it was because of character or morals, they will not be told. They will be told "We admit you secured a place far higher than many others but we will not state the reason why you will not be appointed." Surely that leaves a man in a truly desperate position. He is unable to defend himself and nobody knows the reason except that it applies either to health, character or age.
If the net point raised is that he should not have been told the place he took——
No.
——that is something that could be considered.
Might I put this to the Minister: suppose a man comes forward, and asks: "Tell me, in confidence, why it is I will not be appointed, why the Commissioners will not tell me?"
He is entitled to know.
Surely there must be some method which would enable the Commissioners to give the information confidentially, without leaving themselves open to any subsequent unreasonable process.
As I said, it is a very big question. It could not possibly be dealt with here by way of question and answer. It is a question that would have to be debated.
Can the Minister suggest to me any relief I can suggest to my constituent who says: "My neighbours know I got 7th place, but I have been refused employment, and I am prepared to ask the Commissioners to tell me what the reason is. I want to know." Can the Minister suggest to me anything that can be done? Will he say to me that, if I produce authority to him to get this information, he will tell me in confidence, for communication to the person concerned, what the trouble is?
I should like to make it clear that I do not know and I cannot make guesses. I do not want to make guesses here. The Commissioners are not bound to give me any information whatever except to state that the person passed the examination but was rejected afterwards on further inquiries. I do not know what the further inquiries were and I am not going to make a guess.
If they said he passed the examination and qualified, without stating that he got 7th place, would it not be better? If he gets 7th place, surely it is reasonable for him, and others, to expect he will get the 7th position, or else be told why?
Does the Minister appreciate that these possible inquiries the Commissioners made may possibly be based on erroneous information and, if the applicant were given some information as to what the trouble is, he might possibly be able to dispel any fears that exist?
It is very hard to discuss a general principle on a particular case. If we were discussing a Bill dealing with the Civil Service Commissioners, I could explain the procedure. It is difficult to defend the procedure when one is dealing only with a particular case.
The Minister must know he will find it very hard to get another job.
Is it not twice as hard when an elected representative approached on behalf of a constituent, has to go back to him, when it appears to him, and I am sure to most members of this House that this man is being unjustly treated, and tell him that he cannot get any redress? Turning to the natural resources for the redress of this grievance, he is told that nothing can be done. Does anybody think this man is being fairly treated? I do not think he is.
Address the Chair.
What further can we do ? I can understand the Appointments Commissioners saying: "We have made inquiries and we do not propose to produce the results of those inquiries, but you will not be appointed", but, if the man comes and says he wants to face whatever allegation is against him, on what basis of justice can we say: "We have ruled you out, we will not tell you why and we will give you no opportunity to defend your character?" Surely that is an outrage on natural justice? Will the Minister look into the case?
I have examined the principle very closely. I am not entitled to get information on each case. I can only examine the principles.