asked the Minister for Defence why the agreement to give tradesmen at the Naval Dockyard, Haulbowline, parity with their counterparts at the Cork Dockyard, later known as the Verolme Cork Dockyard Ltd., was broken; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dockyard Tradesmen.
46.
It was the practice in my Department to pay craftsmen and general workers at the Naval Dockyard Haulbowline the same rates of pay as those paid to corresponding classes in Cork Dockyard Ltd., later Verolme Cork Dockyard Ltd. There was no formal agreement to this effect.
In 1969 it became apparent that this practice was leading to the grant of increases to general workers in the Naval Dockyard which were disproportionate to increases granted to general workers in the employment of my Department elsewhere. The union representing these grades was, accordingly, given written notice in September, 1969, that the Department was terminating the practice of conceding to these employees in the Naval Dockyard the same increases conceded by Verolme Cork Dockyard Ltd. Negotiations with the union regarding an appropriate rate for the workers it represented are in progress at this point in time.
The craftsmen employed at the Naval Dockyard asked for and were granted, in 1969, the rate paid to craftsmen employed generally in the Public Service.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that when the agreement was broken another agreement was made with the employees at the Naval Dockyard whereby they would get the same conditions as the maintenance men under the national maintenance agreement? Is the Parliamentary Secretary not further aware that at discussions at Parkgate Street, in Annesley House, in 1969 and 1970 this agreement was arrived at but since then no effective action has been taken on the matter and consequently the employees at the Naval Dockyard are suffering quite considerably financially.
I am sure the Deputy, who is rightly concerned about this particular problem, will be glad to hear that no later than yesterday the third conciliation meeting took place and we can only await the outcome of these deliberations. Since this matter came to public notice there have been three meetings concerned with this particular problem, the third conciliation meeting no later than yesterday.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary say what is the attitude of the Department of Defence to this matter?
The attitude of the Department of Defence in this matter is that justice is seen to be done.
Is the fact of the case not that there was an agreement to pay them the same as the maintenance men and suddenly when the maintenance men got a higher rate the Department opted for the cheaper one which is that of the builders in the neighbourhood? Is this not the basis of the whole thing? They took the cheaper way out. It is like an employer taking whichever side suits him.
I am afraid the Deputy has not got the facts right.
I have got the facts right.