asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries why an employee of his Department (name supplied) who contracted brucellosis in the course of his work has had his sick leave terminated despite the fact that he is still receiving treatment.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Department Official's Sick Leave.
44.
The employee concerned is eligible under the regulations for nine weeks sick leave per year. When he went sick with brucellosis as from 11th May, he had already taken within the year five weeks sick leave due to other ailments. He received full pay for four weeks of sick leave from that date, being the balance of the yearly allowance due to him. From then on he received the appropriate benefits under the Social Welfare (Occupational Injuries) Act until he resumed duty with full pay on 18th August, 1970.
Does the Minister not agree that this disease was contracted during the course of the man's employment?
It probably was.
Does he agree that the conditions are such that there is a serious likelihood that employees will contract the disease——
Yes.
——and that there are affected carcases lying around for a week at a time uncollected?
No, I was not so aware. If there are brucellosis affected carcases lying around for a week it would be a matter for the local sanitary authorities. I accept that it is a serious thing to have any carcases, especially brucellosis affected carcases, lying around and if the Deputy has any special information about it I should be glad to get it.
I am giving the information to the Minister. May I ask the Minister if he is aware that nine weeks would not be sufficient time for the recovery of a person from this particular illness and since the person contracted the illness in the course of his employment, could not special arrangements be made to pay him for the extra number of weeks that he was ill?
I am assured that this case has been examined as sympathetically as possible and that the person concerned was treated as decently as the regulations would allow.
I am asking the Minister——
Question No. 45.
Because this important question relates to a man who contracted brucellosis in the course of his employment and since the Department stopped payment of his salary after four weeks. I am asking the Minister how long, in his opinion, a person who contracts brucellosis would be out of employment?
This is a medical question and, frankly, I do not know precisely what happens to a person who contracts undulant fever from brucellosis. Consequently, I am not able to reply to Deputy O'Connell's question. The Deputy may have more professional knowledge of this than I.
I can tell the Minister that it would take at least three months for an acute condition to be treated. There is an obligation on the Minister to see that this man is paid for the extra number of weeks during which he was ill. It is not enough to say that he was treated as well as was possible within the regulations. That is not fair.
The regulations specify a period of nine weeks.
Nine weeks is not long enough in the case of a person suffering from this illness. We must be prepared to bend the regulations in such cases. Would the Minister promise that he will look into the matter further?
In the light of what Deputy O'Connell has said, I will have the question re-examined.