I addressed the following question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce yesterday:
To ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether he proposes to introduce proposals for legislation extending the provisions of the Railway (Existing Officers and Servants) Act, 1926, for a further period, with a view to ensuring that railway employees dismissed as a direct result of amalgamation, shall receive compensation for disturbance as provided in the Act; whether he was requested by the Railway Trade Unions on 28th April, 1931, and subsequent dates, to receive a deputation for the purpose of discussing the question; whether he declined to receive this deputation; and, if so, for what reason; whether he has been in correspondence with the Great Southern Railways Company on the matter, and has accepted their point of view without hearing a statement on behalf of the employees through the deputation asked for.
In reply the Minister stated:
I have been asked by the Railway Trade Unions to receive a deputation which would represent that railway employees would be discharged after the 23rd July as a direct result of amalgamation and would not then be entitled to compensation. The Great Southern Railways Company has informed me that there would not be discharges after that date as a direct result of amalgamation. I saw no useful purpose in receiving the deputation to discuss a situation which has not yet arisen.
If I have reason to believe that discharges do take place without compensation after the 23rd July as a direct result of amalgamation I will introduce retrospective legislation to secure that the employees concerned do not lose their right to compensation. But I, and, I have no doubt, the public, would expect that seven years after amalgamation was effected the responsible parties should have been able to dispose of reorganisation questions without further recourse to the Oireachtas.
I think I am putting it very mildly when I say that the reply given by the Minister has caused consternation in the ranks of all grades of railwaymen, particularly that part of the reply which pretends to justify the refusal to hear the views of representatives of the railwaymen in support of the extension of the existing compensation clauses in the Railway (Existing Officers and Servants) Act, 1926. The Minister was approached in this matter by correspondence as far back as the 28th of April last. After repeated communications had been addressed to him during which time presumably he was in communication with the Great Southern Railways, he finally replied on 3rd July. Surely it should not take the Minister from 28th April to 3rd July to make up his mind as to what should be done. I think it is only right that the reply which the Minister forwarded to Senator O'Farrell, Secretary of the Railway Clerks' Association, should be placed on the records of the House in order that the Minister or his successor may see as time goes on to what extent his action in this matter was justified. The following is the reply from the Minister, dated 3rd July, 1931, and it is signed by Lord Glenavy:—
"I am directed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce to refer to your letter of the 26th June on the subject of the Railways Act, 1924-26, and to enclose for your information copy of a letter dated 27th June received from the Great Southern Railways Company on the question of the relation between the amalgamation scheme and the reorganisation of the Company's staff.
"In connection with that letter the Company have been notified by the Minister that if hereafter he were satisfied that any reductions in the establishment which were in fact a consequence of amalgamation and not due to the fall in the Company's revenue, had been deferred until the expiration of the seven years' period within which the right to compensation arises it would be necessary for him to consider such legislative readjustment as to secure that the intention of the Railways Act was not defeated."
With that letter was enclosed copy of reply forwarded to the Minister for Industry and Commerce dated 27th June and it is of greater importance for future reference than the letter I have read. The letter is from the Secretary of the Great Southern Railways Company. It says:—
My Directors have considered the subject of your letter of the 18th instant (T.S.58) concerning the Railway Clerks' Association's request for extension of provisions, in Railways Acts of 1924 and 1926, governing compensation for loss of office.
The allegation that existing and pending re-organisations of the Company's establishments are only now arising out of amalgamation, and that such reorganisations should have taken place some years ago, is unfounded, and it is, therefore, needless to add that the Company would resist to the utmost any extension of the Acts based on that allegation. The urgent and vital necessity of reduction in expenditure because of the alarming and persistent fall of the Company's revenue is the sole cause of present and pending economies, which must necessarily result in reduction in staff, and which have no connection whatever with the amalgamation of 1925.
In this connection my Directors desire to say that for a considerable time past they have felt intensely the heavy burden thrown on the Company by the extent to which, and the manner in which, the compensation provisions of the Acts of 1924 and 1926 have operated against the Company. They would have long ago made representations to the Ministry of their sense of grievance in this matter, but for the fact that redress could only be secured by legislation, and that opportunity for addition to the burden would automatically expire in 1931.
The evidence adduced by Senator O'Farrell of necessity for extension of the Act is fallacious. Many of the decisions of the arbitrator and of the principles underlying them would have been appealed against by the Company. No appeal having been provided for in the Act, the Company—however aggrieved it felt—had no option but to accept the judgments and act on them. As a result the Company had been obliged to discuss with the Unions, on a purely monetary basis, questions of compensation which in the view of the Company was not fairly due. To represent such a discussion at the present time as justifying prolongation of the Compensation Acts is to ignore the real condition of affairs. Indeed if any such argument is admitted it is difficult to see how any limit at all could be fixed to the future period, in which reduction in staff could not be attributed to amalgamation now seven years old.
I quote that letter and leave it to be put on the records of the House to prove to all concerned that the Minister has taken his cue and has acted upon representations made to him in that letter by the Great Southern Railways Company. Even though the Minister might have reason, looking at it from his personal point of view, and particularly his responsibility for the railway amalgamation policy, I think there is not a good case for his refusal to meet a deputation appointed by the members of the men's unions in order to state their position to the Minister. This action on the part of the Minister in refusing to meet a deputation is unprecedented. In my opinion the Minister refused to receive the deputation because he was aware from previous experience of dealing with some of the men concerned that a good case could be put forward for an extension of the existing compensation legislation. The original Act came into operation in 1925, and made provision for the payment of compensation to all railway servants likely to lose their employment as a result of amalgamation. Shortly after that Act came into operation the Great Southern Railways Company retired certain servants of the company, and denied to some of them who were compulsorily retired compensation to which they and their unions considered they were entitled.
In one test case that was brought before the arbitrator the company lost, notwithstanding the fact that they had employed the ablest counsel to represent their point of view. Following that unfavourable decision from the company's point of view, they made certain representations to the Minister, with the result that the Minister at that period, 1926, accepted their point of view and introduced the Railways (Existing Officers and Servants) Act. It is commonly stated in railway circles that the Bill that was introduced by the Minister on that occasion was actually drafted by the company's solicitor. It was made practically impossible for railway servants, even though dismissed as a direct result of amalgamation, to obtain compensation. It stated that the compensation under the terms of the amending Act can only be paid to those who lose their employment "in consequence of changes of administration due directly to the amalgamation and absorption of companies affected by or under the principal Act, and not shown by the amalgamated company to have been caused by decrease of traffic, reduction of renewal or maintenance work, introduction of improved methods of working (other than methods which would not have been feasible for the amalgamated or absorbed company by which the officer or servant was formerly employed) or other economic causes."
The railway servant who was dismissed from his employment following the passing of that amending Act was actually sent before the arbitrator, if he thought fit to appear before him, to make a case which the company in the ordinary way would have been obliged to make. It was left to the railway servant who believed he was dismissed as a direct result of amalgamation to prove that he was actually dismissed as a direct result of amalgamation, instead of as under the original Act, the company being obliged to defend such a claim. The individual who was dismissed from the service following the passing of the amending Act was put into the box to defend a charge which was not stated by the railway company. That was the actual position.
In the amending Act, and this is the most important part of the complaint I have to make, the Minister laid it down that the reorganisation of the railways arising out of the amalgamation scheme should be completed inside a period of seven years. That particular portion of the amending Bill was strenuously opposed by members of the Labour Party at the time, because they were aware that no such time limit was laid down in the British Act of 1921. I work for one of the biggest British railway companies, and I can tell the House that although the British Amalgamation Act was passed in 1921, the reorganisation of the British railways is not yet complete, and men are being retired from them and given the full compensation rights which were laid down under the Act. That is over ten years ago, and the Minister apparently thought—and I believe he is wrong in still thinking —that the reorganisation of the Irish railways could have been completed in a seven-years' period. The seven-years' period laid down in the Act of 1926 will expire on 23rd of this month, and the Minister contends both in communications addressed to responsible officials of the trade unions and verbally that he is satisfied that no further dismissals will take place as a direct result of the amalgamation of the Irish railways.
I wonder if the Minister has changed his mind within the last few days, whether he is aware that 63 men have been dismissed within the last week in the Limerick works, 42 in the city of Cork, 17 in Bray, and that a number of other dismissals have taken place and that larger numbers are likely to be dismissed after the 23rd of this month when the time limit will have expired. What does the Minister propose to do. He proposes to appoint himself as arbitrator to decide the merits of any claims which railway servants may have for compensation arising out of dismissals which will take place after the 23rd of this month. I think the Minister is going to place himself and his successor in a most unfortunate position unless the law is altered and he is also going to be quite unfair to those who feel that they may have claims for compensation for disturbance or dismissal. It has taken the Minister from April, 1928, to 3rd July, 1931, to decide whether he would extend the existing compensation section of the Act of 1926. How long, I wonder, will it take the officials of his Department and himself finally to decide in all the individual cases that are bound to come before him for consideration after the 23rd of this month, and after he has allowed the compensation clause of the existing Railway Act to expire.
I am reliably informed and the Minister can have fairly reliable information if he wants to go the right way about getting it, that at a recent meeting of the Board of Directors of the Great Southern Railways departmental officers were brought in and were told that the Board was not satisfied that the reorganisation scheme which was intended under the Act of 1925 had been carried out and these departmental officers have got instructions to proceed to draft a real reorganisation scheme and that is now to be done and possibly will be put into operation after the 23rd of this month.
Certain dismissals which have already been agreed upon by the Board are held up pending the expiration of this particular clause in the Act and the Minister's Department will, I believe, be flooded with applications after the Act expires from men whose dismissals should have taken place before the 23rd of this month, but whose dismissals are held up until this clause expires and when the company will be left without any obligation to pay compensation or gratuity to the men concerned. Speaking for myself only in this matter, I would be prepared to submit any case on its merits to the Minister. I believe such cases if he were free from his responsibility for the amalgamation policy would get fair and impartial consideration.
I believe, however, that the Minister is so alarmed with the failure of his amalgamation policy and the reduction in the revenue of the Great Southern Railways Company that he is prepared to go any length to relieve that Company from any further financial obligation to servants who may be dismissed after the 23rd of this month. The Minister is not a free agent, and cannot consider these cases on their merits, and I say that it is unfair for this House, if it can prevent it, to allow him to set himself up as an arbitrator to decide on the merits of any cases submitted to him after the 23rd of this month. There is a general impression that all the railway men who have been dismissed since the amalgamation of the railways came into operation have received compensation. Might I tell the Minister, if he does not know it, that 500 men on the Great Southern Railways were dismissed one day last November and not one of them has got compensation? Very few of those who have been dismissed since the amalgamation came into operation have received compensation. I have before me particulars of the last 63 cases that were before the arbitrator. What happened in these cases? Out of the 63 only 19 were successful, 36 were unsuccessful, and the remainder of the cases were deferred for further consideration, and they will probably be held over until the compensation clause has expired on the 23rd of this month. The Company say they are not in a position to pay any further compensation. That is the main case which the Company has made to the Minister. The net receipts of the Great Southern Railways Company in 1925 were £466,493, while the net receipts in 1930 amounted to £825,085, showing quite clearly that the poverty-stricken attitude the directors have taken up in this matter is not verified by these figures.
I tell the Minister, and I am not making the statement without provocation, that the directors of the Great Southern Railways are for some time past doing their level best to provoke trouble with railwaymen by dismissing and changing them, and adopting the kind of attitude which ordinary men would not adopt towards human beings. They are treated as part of a machine and not as human beings, and I want to say this to the Minister —and time will tell whether my prophecy will turn out to be true— that by allowing the compensation clauses to expire on the 23rd of this month he is assisting the directors in their attempt to provoke trouble with the railwaymen.
