asked the Minister for the Environment if he is aware that a proposal received by his Department from Meath County Council for a pay increase for a foreman on direct labour schemes (details supplied) and stated by his Department to be in contravention of the 1977 National Wage Agreement, was the subject of a Labour Court recommendation that the increase should be paid; whether, since the Labour Court has decided that the claim is within the national wage agreement, he will explain (a) why his Department states that the increase contravenes the agreement; (b) if his Department has decided to usurp the functions of the Labour Court and the Employer/Labour Conference in relation to the interpretation of national agreements; and (c) if it is his intention to sanction the increase in view of the decision of the Labour Court on the claim.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Meath Foreman's Pay.
In September 1977 Meath County Council submitted a proposal to my Department to increase the pay of a foreman on direct labour schemes. The increase proposed exceeded 1½ per cent of basic pay, the limit imposed by clause 10 of the Employer-Trade Union National Agreement 1977; a Labour Court recommendation would be required for any increase which exceeded this limit. My Department advised the local authority of this on 28 September 1977 and stated that the claim should be processed in accordance with the national agreement. No further communication was received in the Department from the local authority until 15th instant when a letter was received enclosing a copy of a letter stated to have been sent to the Department on 24 November last and which proposed adoption of a Labour Court recommendation. My Department have now inquired whether the consent of the council has been obtained in accordance with section 6 of the City and County Management (Amendment) Act, 1955. Assuming that the consent of the council is forthcoming, the proposal will be sanctioned by my Department.
I take it from what the Minister has said that there are two issues involved. The first is that he is doubting that a letter which was sent from Meath County Council was in fact sent because he used the words "purporting to be sent". Secondly, is he suggesting that even though the case was processed in the normal way by the Labour Court and accepted as being within the terms of the employer-labour conference agreement, the Department still challenged the right of the council to pay it unless they knew something which had to be done had in fact been done?
I would like to point out that there is absolutely no record of the November letter in my Department. The first that my Department knew about the Labour Court recommendation was in the enclosed copy of the letter which they received on 15 May. They immediately took the necessary steps to arrange to implement the award. I cannot say what happened to the November letter but there is absolutely no record of it.
The postal service again.
The Minister knows as well as I do that in every Department and in every business in the country letters get mislaid. If Meath County Council claim they sent the letter and sent a copy of it surely that should be evidence enough to the Department that there was no reason for disagreeing with them? Do I take it that the sanction of the Department will now be given?
That is correct. The last sentence of my reply stated that my Department have now inquired whether the consent of the council has been obtained in accordance with section 6 of the City and County Management (Amendment) Act, 1955.
That is a rather petty thing because the Minister and the officials know that the consent must be got so there is no point in asking that.
It is for confirmation. The Deputy knows a bit about my Department. It is just to have that confirmed and I will act immediately.