asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if he will state in respect of the period 10th March, 1966 to date the number of employees who were absent from work owing to illness, the total number of work days lost, and the amount of sick-pay paid to each employee at his Department's stations at Abbotstown and Backweston.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Employees at Agricultural Stations.
33.
During the period from 10th March, 1966, to 7th May, 1966, four agricultural employees at my Department's farm at Abbotstown gave illness as the cause of absence from work on a total of 36 working days. Similarly, five employees at Backweston farm gave illness as the cause of absence on 28 working days.
In accordance with the usual terms of employment, the men concerned were not paid by my Department in respect of these absences but they were, of course, entitled to claim the normal sickness benefits payable under the Social Welfare Acts.
34.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries when it is proposed to introduce a sick pay scheme for employees in the Department's experimental stations.
A proposal made for a sick pay scheme in respect of agricultural workers employed by my Department is being examined but pending the outcome of the examination I cannot say whether such a scheme will be introduced.
Will the Minister, at least, agree that it is most unfair that Government employees, even though they are only described as labourers, should be put in the position that they and nobody else in the State in decent employment are left without sick pay when they are ill? If the Parliamentary Secretaries cannot get any action, will the Minister attempt to get some action from the committee that is supposed to be dealing with the matter?
I will try to get a decision soon.
Thank you.
35.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries when it is proposed to grant an increase in wages of £1 per week to employees in the Department's experimental stations.
The Agricultural Wages Board has announced its intention to make an order increasing the wages of adult male agricultural workers in two phases of 13/- a week as from 6th June, 1966, and 7/- a week as from 1st October, 1966, to give a total increase of £1. These increases will, of course, be applied to the agricultural workers employed at my Department's farms as from the operative dates.
Will the Minister not agree that even if it can be argued that some farmers will be unable to pay the £1 at once to their workers, the same argument cannot be made with regard to employees of the Government and would he not agree that the £1 a week should be paid with effect from 6th June, 1966?
It is not as simple as that. As the Deputy knows, we endeavour to follow what good farmers in a particular area do. We try to keep an eye on them. We try not to go ahead or to lag behind. We follow whatever is the general practice of the better employers in the locality. That is what we intend to do here.
Does the Minister think that the better farmers will try to get away with paying two instalments? Would he not agree that most of them will pay the £1 a week and will the Minister not do the same?
Sin ceist eile. We will have to see. At least we will accept what has been laid down by the Board.
Does the Minister not know that the Agricultural Wages Board laid down a minimum rate which they allowed the poorest farmer in the country to pay the worst man he employs? Surely that is not the standard which the Department should accept?
We pay a differential and we will continue to pay that.
It is miserly.