asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs if it is a fact that the situation formerly held by Mr. P. Grant, Clonmany, Co. Donegal, has been abolished; if as a consequence Mr. Grant is now unemployed after giving 25 years' service, with unblemished character during that period; if the Minister will state on what grounds Mr. Grant's appointment was terminated.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Donegal Postal Appointment.
The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Owing to the curtailment of the services on the Lough Swilly Railway it was found necessary to rearrange the local postal services, and this involved the abolition of a part-time post and the termination of the services of Mr. Grant who, however, was offered but declined similar employment at a neighbouring office.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the fact that the mails to Clonmany are at present being carried by 'bus daily? Further is he aware that this man Grant was in the employment of the Post Office for 25 years and that the alternative employment offered to him was a job at Drumfreece at 14s. 5d. per week while the man who held the job formerly was getting 24s. 5d.?
I am not aware of the exact details in connection with the alteration in the mail service that took place. I know in a general way that there has been an alteration on account of the curtailment of the services on the Lough Swilly Railway. Mr. Grant had not 25 years' service. He had 20 years' service in the Post Office. It was found necessary either to terminate his service or the service of his brother who had almost equal service. It was decided to retain his brother in the service. The post offered to Mr. Grant was the best we could offer him in the circumstances. We realise that it was not convenient to him, but we had no other post to offer.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary explain why it is that there were other men who had not the same length of service in that particular district or who had not the same unblemished character as Mr. Grant retained while Mr. Grant was dismissed? Further, can the Parliamentary Secretary tell me what form the compensation, already mentioned in the correspondence, to Mr. Grant is likely to take?
Mr. Grant was not dismissed. His services were dispensed with owing to redundancy at the time. I have no information whether Post Office servants with lesser service were retained, except in the case of a brother of Mr. Grant's. As to the question of unblemished service, I am not prepared to state what class of service Mr. Grant had. I regard that as a confidential matter. I may add that Mr. Grant was an applicant for retirement under the Treaty. That is the compensation question that is involved.
Does that mean that Mr. Grant will have a claim for compensation in some form; and, if so, does the Parliamentary Secretary think that Mr. Grant should be dismissed after twenty years, like a cast-off glove, he having eight children to support?
Mr. Grant thinks he has a claim for compensation because he is an applicant for retirement under the Treaty. It is not for me to say whether or not he has a claim for compensation. I have said that he has not been dismissed. The terms of his appointment were such that he was not entitled to permanent employment, and the exigencies of the service made it necessary to dispense with his services.
Can I take it that if he presents a claim to the proper source, it will receive consideration?
Mr. Grant's name has already been listed to go before the Tribunal dealing with claims under Article 10. I have nothing whatever to do with that Tribunal. He is not entitled to any form of compensation from the Post Office, apart from the possibility of having a claim in that respect. Mr. Grant's claim for further employment will be considered favourably in the event of a suitable opportunity arising, providing he does not get out under Article 10.