asked the Minister for Lands why neither the Forestry Division nor the Land Commission have yet agreed either to increase the wages of their manual employees or to discuss the matter with the trade union concerned; and if, in view of the number of outstanding matters which need to be discussed, he proposes to set up an appeals tribunal to deal with these workers' grievances.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Wages of Land Commission and Forestry Workers.
20.
I regret that I am not yet in a position to specify a definite date for discussions with the unions in regard to the wages of forestry and Land Commission workers but I hope to be able to do so shortly.
Would the Minister answer the second part of the question?
I give the same answer to the second part.
In view of the fact that his Department particularly have been notorious for their anti-trade union activities, in refusing to meet trade unions and refusing to carry out agreements when they are made, would the Minister not make some attempt to do what he promised when replying to the debate on the Estimate for his Department, to set up some type of machinery to deal with the workers employed by his Department?
I categorically deny that my Department have been anti-trade union or have given any evidence of any such activity. The Deputy is well aware that there have been continuous discussions going on between my Department, his union and other unions. In this particular category, forestry and manual workers, the Deputy is aware that there are other similar workers involved with other State Departments and as the Deputy knows, there is a claim pending on behalf of the Civil Service for grades under £1,200 a year. I understand that when this decision was taken in 1964, my Department followed whatever settlement was made on that issue.
Does the Minister refuse to accept the fact that his employees at the manual level are entitled to be members of a trade union and to have negotiations carried on on their behalf?
The Deputy is well aware that that has been conceded all along.
Would the Minister say why his Department have refused to meet the trade union to discuss matters at issue? Why have they not carried out the agreement that was made last February 12 months?
Every single increase given to other similar workers has been given to these workers. The Deputy is aware that these other negotiations involving similar classes are going on in connection with the class to which I have referred, the people under £1,200, with a Civil Service grade. I am saying that when a decision about these is arrived at, the forestry employees will be considered.
Would the Minister say why the Forestry and Land Commission employees who are represented by trade unions must wait months after everybody else? Why will his Department not meet the unions concerned? Why should they have to wait until a decision is arrived at with another trade union which has no connection with them?
Arising from the Minister's reply, and adverting to the fact that there are negotiations going on, would the Minister see to it that the curious anomalies existing in regard to the pay of workers in the east and workers in the west—whereby in the west they get 11/- less than those engaged on similar work in the east— will be abolished?
It is not quite as simple as all that. There are certain different rates just as there are different hours. These are some of the matters with which Deputy Tully and other labour people are much more familiar than I am.