asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he is aware that seventy-five men have received notice terminating their employment at the locomotive, carriage, and waggon department of the Dublin and South Eastern Railway on March 21st; if he will take steps to secure employment for these men at the works where the repairs and building ordinarily done by them is being transferred, and if he will see that no hardship is caused them as a result of the recent railway amalgamation.
CEISTEANNA.—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - DISMISSAL OF RAILWAY EMPLOYEES.
I understand that 160 men hitherto employed in the locomotive and carriage shops of the late Dublin, South Eastern Railways Company have been transferred to the works at Inchicore or Broadstone and that the 75 men referred to in the question are the residue whose services are not required.
It would not be proper for me to interfere with the Great Southern Railways Company in the discharge of its responsibility for securing all possible economies in the railway service, and for determining what staff is reasonably required for railway work. In carrying out my functions under the Railways Act, 1924, I may, in fact, have to question before the Railway Tribunal the action of the Company in any case in which it does not appear to have exercised due economy and efficiency.
All the men whose services are dispensed with will, if qualified, receive compensation under the Third Schedule of the Railways Act.
Does the Minister take any responsibility for implied understandings given during the discussion of the Bill that there would be no particular selection made as between one company's servants and another company's servants? When the question was raised as to undue preference of one company over another the Minister himself, I think, suggested that there would be no such undue preference, as some kind of understanding had been arrived at that no company would allow its servants to be particularly prejudiced by the transfer?
If the Deputy would refer me to the exact quotation from the Official Debates in which there is what he calls an implied understanding I will have the matter inquired into, but I hardly think that I was likely to give any understanding on anything which must ultimately be decided by the amalgamated company.
Does the Minister not accept responsibility for the Railways Act, as a result of which these dismissal notices have been issued? Would he not consider it fair that his own Department, having that responsibility, should make representations to the Great Southern Railways Company to see that any process of elimination is on an agreed basis of service or qualifications, so that one person will not get privileged treatment over another simply because he happened to belong to a railway whose directors did not go into the amalgamation under agreed circumstances?
I accept responsibility for the Railways Act, and the Dáil also in passing it accept responsibility for it. I accept particular responsibility for that portion of the Act which insisted that there should be due economy and efficiency, and if the Deputy is able to make any case from which it appears to him that unfair or unreasonable discrimination was made, I can further inquire what my powers as to making representation to the railway company are. At the moment, from the information given, it would be quite outside my scope to interfere with the new amalgamated company in the discharge of the duties put upon it by the Railways Act.
If the Minister is furnished with information to show that unfair treatment has been meted out to the officials and workers of the Dublin and South Eastern Railway Company, will he make representations to the Board of the new company?
I have said on being furnished with such evidence I will make further inquiries to see what my powers of making representation to the new amalgamated Board are.
On the figures the Minister has given one out of three of the Dublin and South Eastern carriage and waggon works staff has been dispensed with. Has a similar proportion been dispensed with in the other companies?
I cannot say that.
No.
Is there any means by which the Minister can bring his influence to bear to have a reasonable proportion made, so that if there have to be dismissals they will not be overabundant in one particular company?
The Deputy will agree that simply on a proportion it is not possible for me to say whether that proportion, or discrimination on foot of that proportion, is or is not fair. All sorts of other considerations will be taken into account. I have to assume that the railways company have looked into all these matters and taken everything into account. If evidence is put before me that they have not, I will see what powers I have under the Act.
I think it would be necessary for the Minister to find out what powers he has. As far as I can understand, it is anticipated in Cork that a number of men will be shifted. If so, there will be considerable trouble.
Does the Minister agree that victimisation should be inflicted on workers of one railway company simply because the directors at a particular time did not do what they were wanted to do?
That is a hypothetical question.
I want to ask the Minister if he did not give an undertaking to the Dáil when the Bill was going through, that economies would result from the fusion. Is it the intention of the Dáil to interfere with the company in effecting these economies?
At the expense of one section of the men.
I do not know at whose expense.
We cannot have a debate now.