asked the Minister for Lands why the building workers on the Legg-Burke Estate, Hayestown, County Meath have not been paid the correct rate of wages for the hours worked on that estate; and if he is aware that the Land Commission have refused to meet the trade union concerned to discuss this matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Wages of Meath Estate Workers.
19.
Following receipt of a claim dated 3rd March, 1966 from the Federation of Rural Workers, the Land Commission, with effect from 4th April, 1966, brought the working hours of its building workers into line with those agreed between the building trade unions and the Federation of Builders, Contractors and Allied Employers of Ireland and the appropriate wage adjustments are being made from that date. It is not proposed to extend further the degree of retrospection and the Federation of Rural Workers have been so informed on three occasions.
Does the Minister not appreciate that there is a new legal minimum rate for building workers and that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it? The Land Commission have broken the law in this case, and will the Minister see to it that the correct rate of wages for the period is paid to the people concerned?
The reduction in working hours and the appropriate wages were conceded as from the time the claim was lodged by the Deputy's union. What the Deputy is seeking now is that it should be made retrospective, and I do not concede that should be done.
There is a legal date laid down by agreement. Surely the Minister will agree that his Department should not be the first to break the law for the purpose of saving a very small amount of money? Would the Minister say why it is that his Department have refused to meet the union to discuss this matter, or is this the type of thing to which the Taoiseach referred in regard to the ESB when he said that this matter should be taken to the Labour Court?
As far as I know, there are two workmen involved. The Deputy's argument arises out of a settlement of the building strike to which the Land Commission were not a party. When the union sought to apply the terms of the settlement to this class of land worker, the claim was conceded. I do not see what complaint the Deputy has, unless perhaps it is that nobody thought of making the claim earlier. I think the union has been dealt with fairly.
Surely the Minister must agree that a Department of State should not be the first to say that an agreement should not be accepted? That is the principle, even if there were only one workman involved.
I do not think that anybody could say that if a strike is settled down in Knocknagoshel, every employer should immediately take those terms and apply them to his workers. This claim was made as a result of this settlement, and a considerable time after the settlement, but when it was made, it was conceded. I do not think the Deputy has any real complaint on this issue.