asked the Minister for Finance if all Government Departments have made offers to trade union representatives who have claimed increases in wages under the tenth round on behalf of their members employed in such Departments; what was the latest offer made; and from which Department such offer was made.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Wage Increase Claims.
8.
Offers have been made to trade union representatives on foot of tenth round claims for their members by all Government Departments except in a few cases where an offer is consequential on other settlements which are still pending.
The latest offer was made on 5th October, 1966, by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.
9.
asked the Minister for Finance if he will explain the cause of the delay in finalising the claim affecting assistant store-keeper clerks employed in the central engineering workshop at Inchicore, Dublin, having particular regard to the fact that a recommendation for an increase in wages was made to his Department in July 1966 by the appropriate authority.
In accordance with the usual procedure governing claims of this type on behalf of industrial employees in the Civil Service the recommendation of the Office of Public Works in the assistant storekeeper-clerks' claim was referred for consideration, as part of a wider proposal, to the Inter-Departmental Wages Advisory Committee.
A decision will be given on receipt of the Committee's recommendation, which is expected shortly.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that a recommendation in this regard was promised favourable consideration by the Minister on 4th August last? The Minister indicated it was going before a particular committee. We were told first of all, the committee was to meet in September and then October. In view of all that, can the Parliamentary Secretary say when the matter will be finalised?
The Committee is meeting next Friday.
10.
asked the Minister for Local Government whether he is aware that, under an agreement entered into between the County Manager of Waterford County Council and the IT & GW Union, road workers were to be paid £1 per week increase as from 1st May 1966 and the Union were to withdraw a further claim then pending for fringe benefits; and if in these special circumstances he will sanction the payment of the £1 increase to that date, instead of from 1st June 1966 as already notified to the council.
Waterford County Council on 13th July submitted for sanction a proposal to increase the wages of road workers by £1 per week with effect from 2nd May, 1966. Sanction issued on 27th July to the grant of the increase with effect from 1st June, 1966. This was the operative date for the tenth round increase for workers in other branches of the public service and was appropriate also for county council road workers.
Was the Minister aware that our union withdraw fringe benefit claims consequent upon back-dating to May 1st? Had he that knowledge when he decided that?
I have that knowledge and, in fact, it was submitted by the Deputy to my Department.
Did the Minister still decide on 1st June?
Yes.
Could the Minister say why county engineers and office staff have gone back two years as the result of arbitration, why he sanctioned for all sorts of people other than road workers, and decided on 1st June for road workers?
I have answered that in the question.
I have not heard it.
Could the Minister give us a good reason why he should deny road workers an increase from 1st May as against 1st June when, from their own resources in Waterford County Council, the members and the manager are prepared to pay it from 1st May and the ratepayers in the county, through their elected representatives, have said they will pay it to them from 1st May?
I do not want to appear argumentative about this. I have given the reason why I made the decision. I think it would be fairly reasonable that the position in respect of all county council road workers should be the same. If I wanted merely to be argumentative, I could say there were ten reasons why I made the decision, that is, that ten other counties have indicated they would agree to 1st June. In so far as I have sanctioned any other increases retrospective for a year, two years or ten years, whether it was the result of arbitration, conciliation, a Labour Court decision or mutual agreement, I would have to ask the Deputy to put down a specific case
I have a specific case.
I said to put it down as a question for next week, not for this evening.
It is down.
Down where?
Down on the Order Paper.
I shall answer it next week if it goes down.
I am sorry; maybe I misunderstood the Minister. I shall put down the additional one.
Is the Minister not aware that approximately two weeks ago at a meeting of the Labour Court the County and City Managers Association agreed with trade union representatives to request the Minister to sanction retrospection to 1st May for the workers concerned? Has he received that advice?
This was a conciliation meeting at which representatives of eight councils and a number of trade unions were present?
That is right.
I am aware of that.
Will the Minister say what does local autonomy mean, what does local government mean, when he decides, as against the viewpoint of the county manager and elected representatives that they should pay from 1st May, that the date should be 1st June? That is not local government.
This happens to be one of the cases—I do not think it need necessarily be stated but apparently it must be—in which the matter is subject to the Minister's sanction. That being so, I do not think it is right or necessary that any Deputy should ask why the Minister made a decision.
Why not? Is that not why we are here?
Is the Minister stating that a Deputy is not entitled to question the Minister?
I am not saying that or anything like it. I have no intention of doing so. Deputy Corish asked a question, the answer to which he should have known before he put the question. He asked why I should set aside and change what had been agreed between the council, unions and manager, or who you will. In this case, this matter is subject to the Minister's sanction and, if that means anything, it means that the Minister has a say in what the decision will be.
Why did the Minister give this decision, in view of the fact that it will not cost him, the Government or the Department a penny?
I will put another view. In fact, I will be dealing with it on the Estimate, I hope, this evening. I consider it far more important, if the Labour Party do not, that we should continue to have work on our roads and as many people working on them as possible. This effort to indicate that a number of councils, merely because sanction is not forthcoming to an earlier date than 1st June which, incidentally is the date asked for by no fewer than ten councils——
Not by Waterford County Council——
Not by Westmeath.
Does the Minister——
Will the Deputy allow the Minister to finish?
Allow me to finish.
We will, of course, as long as he keeps to the truth.
I am much more concerned about the number of people and that the amount of money available to that number of people should be as great as possible in regard to road works.
More people, less wages.
Dismiss 100 and you can give them double.
The point is, it is more money for a month and a fewer workers probably for a number of months.
A poor law mentality that they have in Donegal.
Do not let it worry you.
Is it not difficult to reconcile the Minister's decision with the Government's alleged support for free collective bargaining?
May I ask the Deputies this—the lot of them—will some of them define what collective bargaining is in this context?
Free discussion and agreement arrived at by the County Managers Association and trade unions. The Minister is vetoing it.
The Minister for Local Government, the elected members of the council, the workers and/or the trade unions, where they have trade unions, representing them, and the county managers—these are the four parties that must collectively bargain in this matter.
At least, the Minister is being more honest than most of his colleagues with regard to what he thinks of free collective bargaining.
Does the Minister not understand that as far as this £1 per week is concerned, it was given long before 1st June and long before 1st May in many cases?
I do not doubt that, and I appreciate the fact that it happened.
(Interruptions.)
What he is telling us today is a nice searchlight into the Minister's mentality. He wants to be the boss, no matter what the elected representatives say. That is what he is saying. That is what we will not take.
Question No. 11.
Arising out of the Minister's reply, I should like to raise this matter——
If it is the Deputy's wish to say how this House should be run, it is not mine.