asked the Minister for Finance if he has given any direction regarding the payment of gratuities to unestablished State servants, operative since the commencement of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967; and, if so, if he will state the nature, extent and effect of any such direction.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Gratuities to Unestablished State Servants.
36.
Unestablished State employees are insured for benefits under the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, which came into operation on 1st January, 1968.
An insured employee who entered State employment after that date will receive any benefit under the Act that may be appropriate in his case if he is discharged because of redundancy. No other payment by way of gratuity will be made in respect of redundancy discharge in any such case.
Persons who were already employed by the State on 1st January, 1968, and who are insured under the Redundancy Payments Act will receive the appropriate benefits under that Act. No compassionate gratuity will be payable in addition, unless the total redundancy payments under the Act to one of these existing officers is found to be less than the gratuity which could have been paid to him if that Act had not been passed. In such an event a gratuity of the amount of the difference will be payable, so as to ensure that any person who was in State employment before the Redundancy Payments Act came into operation shall not receive less on discharge on redundancy than if the Act had not been passed.
I should emphasise that the above arrangements apply only to cases of discharge because of redundancy. In the case of an unestablished employee who retires because of age or ill-health, or who dies in service, the usual provisions for the payment of compassionate gratuities will continue as heretofore.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary not agree it is rather strange that it is only unestablished State employees who are dealt with in this way and that the Department are taking steps to withdraw the benefit of the treasury warrant, as it was called, from a number of people because, in fact, they may benefit under the Redundancy Payments Act? Would he not agree that whatever they were entitled to under the treasury warrant should be paid to them when they are declared redundant even though they may get some small payment under the Act?
The Deputy's suggestion that some employees may be at a loss is not correct, as the reply pointed out.
The Parliamentary Secretary is well aware that I did not say that. I said they were entitled to certain payments under the treasury warrant which has been withdrawn now if they are going to be paid under the——
A far better arrangement.
Again, it is a question of the State cutting off the fingers of the lower paid employees concerned.
This is a far better arrangement.