asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether he is aware that, when an application for a wage increase made on behalf of the National Health Insurance Society was considered recently by the Labour Court, objection to the application was conducted by the Secretary of his Department; whether he will state if this was done by his authority; whether, at the time the case was being determined by the Labour Court, his Department was aware that the society had a disposable surplus amounting to £250,000 a year during the next five years; whether he is aware that, apart from an emergency bonus of 16/- a week, the staff of the society received no increase in wage since 1939; and whether he is now in a position to intimate to the society that there will be no Departmental objection to the wages of the staff being adjusted in such a manner as to compensate them for the depreciation in the purchasing power of their wages.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Wages of Staff of the National Health Insurance Society.
I am informed that the chairman of the Committee of Management of Cumann an Árachais Náisiúnta ar Shláinte gave evidence before the Labour Court on behalf of the society in connection with staff applications for court wages orders. My authority was not required. I am aware that the actuary has advised that there is a disposable surplus for expenditure on benefits amounting to £250,000 per annum during the quinquennium commencing on the 1st April next. I am not aware that, apart from an emergency bonus of 16/- weekly, the staff of the society have received no increase in remuneration since 1939. I understand that increases were granted in 1940 and that all salary scales were again revised, following the application to the Labour Court, with effect as from the 10th December last. It is estimated that the society's expenditure on staff remuneration in the current year will amount to over £120,000, as compared with approximately £80,000 in 1939—an over-all increase of about 50 per cent.; in the same period, the total staff decreased by 17.
Will the Minister say whether, at the time the chairman of the society appeared in connection with this matter before the Labour Court that he was and had, in fact, been previously appointed Secretary of the Minister's Department?
I think at the particular time he was designated as secretary.
Was he actually appointed on the 1st January?
No, he was not actually appointed.
What was the date of the appointment?
He was designated as secretary on the 1st January, but he was not actually appointed at the time.
This case was first heard by the Labour Court on the 10th December and the then secretary of the society gave an undertaking that, in the event of an award being made by the Labour Court, it would be honoured in full by the society. Does the Minister not regard the appearance of the chairman of the society at a later stage in opposition to the Order as a repudiation of the undertaking previously given?
That is a new point.
What is the Minister's attitude to the application of the employees of the society? Is he in agreement with the action of the Secretary of his Department who, as chairman of the society, opposed the application?
I think the Deputy will have to look on it that he was chairman of the society at the time. He was not acting as Secretary of the Department and, therefore, he did not consult me. As soon as it could possibly be arranged, he resigned the secretaryship of the society and another man was appointed in his place.
Has he altered his views on the whole question?
I do not know what his views may be.
The Minister is very close about his own views.
I have not any.
Is it not a fact that the Minister said he would probably have to take cognisance of the pay position?
Yes, and I still believe that.