On last Wednesday, I addressed a question to the Minister for Finance asking him if he were aware of the delay that had arisen in rendering a decision in relation to the submission made on behalf of the employees of the Board of Works in the Phoenix Park and St. Stephen's Green for improvement in wages and conditions of employment. In the course of the reply, the Parliamentary Secretary stated that these particular employees had been granted and increase of 11/- a week in 1948, that the claim at present under consideration involved a number of varied items and called for careful consideration, and that he hoped to have a decision in a short period.
I would particularly draw the attention of the House to the actual form of the question, because the question is so framed as to inquire from the responsible Minister if he is aware of the delay that has taken place on the part of the Commissioners of Public Works in dealing with the claim. It sets out certain dates and finally raises a query as to whether the Minister feels that such delay is desirable in dealing with low-paid Government employees. I would like to describe the particular type of employees we are referring to in the question. They are known in official circles as being in what is known as "the industrial fringe." Those are proper words, as they also describe the back of beyond or no man's land, in so far as the attention given to the employees is concerned. They consist of garden labourers, gardeners, gate keepers, and park constables, carrying out the duty assigned to them on behalf of the people in these two public parks. They are employed by the Board of Works and are directly under the control of the commissioners. They are classified as being part of the industrial fringe, as their wages and conditions of employment are not set down in respect of those applying to the general service classes of the Civil Service, nor are they in the fortunate position of other employees of Government Departments whose wages and conditions of employment are automatically regulated in accordance with and following the agreements arrived at between trade unions and employers in outside employment. The result is that this particular group of workers is completely dependent upon the good sense and the fairness and understanding of the responsible officials, the Commissioners of Public Works.
It is not to raise the merits of their claim that I put down this question but to draw attention to what I regard as inexcusable delay and neglect in dealing with the submissions made by these employees, in order to show the need of at least giving some expedition to the consideration of these matters.
Without, as I say, discussing the merits of the claim, it is well to point out that these employees are not part of the well-paid, well-remunerated class of Government employees enjoying fair and reasonable conditions of employment. They are working in, and the majority of them live in, the City of Dublin and in this city, where the average wage for a labourer in private employment is admitted by the employers' organisation to be not less than £5/- per week, the Government is paying these men a wage of £4 8s. 6d. For that wage, in addition to possession of a rent free lodge, some of these men are required during the summer months to be on duty for no less than 16 or 17 hours per day at a time. They are not established, they have no pension rights and only within a recent period have they had extended to them the annual leave that has become the common enjoyment of organised workers in private employment.
If there is any reason for expedition of a claim of any section of workers, this is the type of worker entitled to that extra consideration. Instead of getting that, they are treated continually, not merely in respect of this claim but over a period of years, to the same irritating delay and neglect of their rightful submissions. The effort that is being made by these men to secure consideration for their claims has not been confined to the present Government. I am personally aware that, both in respect to the last Government and under different Ministers for Finance, repeated efforts have been made by these men through their organisations and by other channels to try and secure from the commissioners reasonable consideration of their claim.
I want to say in all fairness that it has been only from the present Administration that there has been any reasonable consideration given. In the past they at times did not even get the courtesy of a reply. I am myself aware that a period of nearly six years elapsed during which practically no consideration was given to repeated representations they made. On the present occasion when the Parliamentary Secretary replied to my question, he referred to an application and an increase that had been given to them in 1948. May I point out that exactly the same delay that is now being objected to took place in 1948? An application was made. It was supposed to be referred to the inter-Departmental Wages Committee for their consideration. Week after week went by, continual inquiries being made on behalf of the employees as to when the decision would be given, and finally we found that the committee had not even met. I want again in fairness to the present Minister to say that the committee only met when personal representation was made direct to the Minister and he gave an instruction for a meeting of the committee to be convened. The committee met and again interminable delay took place before we could find out about the decision and again the decision was available only when a personal approach was made to the Minister.
The increase given in 1948 was part of the general increase in wages given to all types of workers in the period following on what is known as the 11/- agreement in respect of general employment outside. It was an increase given in respect of an increase in the cost of living, but given in lieu of an adjustment in the basic rate that had been claimed on behalf of these employees in 1948. The claim in 1948 was deferred and re-entered in 1949, and formally submitted to the commissioners on the 2nd November, 1949.
One of the difficulties in respect of this group of workers is that they are not included in the general service classes of the Civil Service, they are not covered by any of the recognised Civil Service organisations, they have no access to the newly-established arbitration or conciliation machinery available in the Civil Service and their only recourse is to the ordinary industrial type of trade union which organises them and makes direct representations to the Department of Public Works. Following upon the submission of the claim in November of last year, the question was raised with the Minister that, in so far as this group of employees along with many other Government employees up and down the country were not provided with a system of arbitration or conciliation similar to that available to industrial workers in the Labour Court or to civil servants in the arbitration board now established, some provision should be made to provide similar machinery for this type of worker. The Minister took steps to make that type of machinery available. The result is that to-day a claim is served upon the commissioners, it is negotiated, a decision is made and if that is not acceptable it can be raised with the special appeal board set up by the Minister, which will be constituted of two members of the inter-Departmental Wages Committee together now with an outside chairman in the person of the vice-chairman of the Labour Court. Those who speak on behalf of these employees welcome that advance as a proper and legitimate meeting of the claims of these workers. The important thing is that when that claim was made in November, 1949, and while the Minister was dealing with the question of providing conciliation machinery of a suitable sort, consideration by the Commissioners of Public Works of the actual wage claim was put to one side completely. Why that should be necessary I do not know because the whole value of that conciliation machinery was that it could take up a claim when employees and employers had failed to reach an agreement.
Following on the submission of the claim in November representations had to be made direct to the Minister. In February he indicated that he would arrange to have a conference at an early date. The conference took place on March 9th under the chairmanship of the Parliamentary Secretary but from 9th March to 13th June we are still waiting for a decision. A period of nearly seven months has elapsed since the claim was first submitted to the Commissioners of Public Works.
I am well aware that the Commissioners of Public Works have a reputation for moving slowly. The only time they can move quickly is when they are erecting monuments or erecting eyesores like the one we have outside this building. They also seem to take pleasure in erecting monuments to the dead but it would be better for them if they would pay more attention to the living so that there would be no need to put up monuments to them when they are dead. Some of the men who are making this claim and asking consideration from the commissioners have as fine a national record as some of the men to whom we now propose to erect monuments in the vicinity of this House and they are just as entitled to consideration.
They are working in the City of Dublin for a wage as low as £4 8s. 6d. a week. For the very same type of work, if they went into the employment of the Corporation of Dublin, they would be paid £5 7/- a week and they would work two hours less per week. In St. Stephen's Green if you work on the inside of the railings for the Government, the biggest employers in the country, the employers with the greatest financial resources, you are paid £4 8s. 6d. a week, but go outside the railings, work for Dublin Corporation and do exactly the same work and you are paid £5 7/- a week.
Why has this Government set a record as bad employers instead, as they have been told repeatedly, of setting a headline and extending to their own employees what are regarded as their ordinary rights in Christian justice?
It may be argued that the wages of men employed by a Government Department in Dublin must be the same as the wages of men employed by a Government Department in other parts of the country. That is a fair and reasonable argument, but we are repeatedly told by Government spokesmen that the cost of living is less in small towns and rural areas than in Dublin and that there must be a lower rate of wages in these areas than in Dublin, and if there is to be a lower rate of wages in rural areas for industrial employees why not have a higher rate of wages for the employees of the Commissioners of Public Works in the City of Dublin? I am concerned at the moment solely with the question of the delay. I am not concerned with the decision as such or with the contents of the decision because the important feature regarding the delay is that if and when we receive a decision from the commissioners, if that decision is not acceptable to the men they have the opportunity of utilising the machinery provided by the Minister, the Appeal Board. The Appeal Board is entitled to give consideration to their claim and to expend on that consideration a reasonable period of time; but if the Commissioners of Public Works require seven or eight months to deal with the claim of employees whose conditions of employment they have at their finger tips, how long must we allow this board of three gentlemen who are not familiar with their conditions to acquaint themselves with the whole position anew and to exercise consideration on that claims? If we are to work on the time schedule of the commissioners, if they are entitled to seven or eight months the Appeal Board of gentlemen who are unfamiliar with the claims of the men should be entitled to 12 months, and it would not be unreasonable to expect that in 12 months we might have the decision of the Appeal Board. I do not expect that to happen, however, because I have the belief that of all the slow things that operate in this country the slowest is the Commissioners of Public Works. I believe that while they take seven months to consider the claim we will get a little more thoughtfulness for the men concerned when we come to the Appeal Board.
Last week we had a lightning strike in the city and we heard members of this House, as is usual, addressing lectures to the workers. It might be well if those who are not familiar with the problems of the workers would give some little thought to the problems arising from their conditions. They say that these unofficial stoppages have got no motive, but what would be the position of a group of workers in private employment with a strong organisation behind them if they were told that they must wait for seven months before they could get a reply to their claims? We would have a record of unofficial strikes that would startle the people of this country. But when we come to Government employees we expect a different attitude on the part of the men. They cannot go on strike. The flowers in St. Stephen's Green and in the Park are not going to worry the Government much and they can only make a protest through the organisations which are there or utilise whatever other means are available to them, such as the case I am making here to-night, but the fact that they have not the same remedies open to them as industrial workers have should entitle them to more consideration from those who are responsible for them than if they had. Some consideration should be given to them. When men make a claim such as this they expect and are entitled to get a decision in less than seven months. When a conference is held at which a responsible Parliamentary Secretary presides and at which responsible officials are present, it should be possible to get a decision on the proceedings of that conference in less than seven months.
If the attitude of the Commissioners of Public Works on this matter is allowed to go without protest, then we are not doing a service to those who made efforts on all sides of this House to try to find an efficient and acceptable means of dealing with the relations between employers and employees because a headline has been set by a Department of the Government which, if it were followed by private employers, would create such disturbances and chaos in the country that we would be unable to carry on.
I would impress upon the Parliamentary Secretary that the men are entitled to a decision. It is not sufficient to say that a decision will be forthcoming at an early date when for six weeks, week after week and on two or three occasions each week, inquiries have been made by telephone to the Department and personally to the Parliamentary Secretary as to when a decision will be forthcoming. It is not sufficient again to put us off with another promise that a decision will be forthcoming at an early date. There should and there must be a decision within the next week or so. Although the Commissioners of Public Works have been slow in this instance it seems they have been able to make other decisions, decisions not as important as this decision, so I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to urge on the commissioners that consideration be given to the men's claim and that they make a decision. If their decision is not acceptable we have the machinery provided by the Minister and we will utilise that machinery to put forward the claims of these men.
