asked the Minister for Finance if he is aware that a big number of drainage maintenance workers on arterial drainage jobs have been dismissed; and that this appears to be a breach of the public service pay agreement; if they were dismissed because of lack of money; and if he will arrange to have them re-employed.
Ceisteanna—Questions, Oral Answers. - Drainage Maintenance Workers.
44.
The workers mentioned are seasonal workers whose period of employment in any year is not fixed. The maintenance work considered necessary for the 1969 season has been completed for some schemes and the workers have been let go. A few workers are retained on each scheme throughout the winter, mainly on patrol duties. Apart from that, there will be no further employment on maintenance work until work for the 1970 season starts next spring.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that it was usual to employ these men from early March until late the following January and that because there was a wage increase of £2 5s given during the year the amount of employment was reduced so that they were laid off early in December and some were laid off in November? Would the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that the work still remains to be done and some effort should be made to re-employ these men particularly as some of them are drawing social welfare benefit which may amount to what they would be getting if they were working?
I am glad to say that it was as a result of the work of Deputy Tully and the trade unions that we were able to pay these men their increases. There is no question of these increases being responsible for these men being laid off before Christmas. There is a fixed estimate and a fixed amount of money arrived at and that money has been spent.
Is it not a very left-handed way of paying an increase if, when somebody gets the increase the amount of his employment is reduced? Does the Parliamentary Secretary not think that something should be done to try to get the men in question——
What I am trying to get across to the Deputy is that the fact these men were laid off has nothing to do with their increase. The reference to the public service agreement is not understood in this question and it has no relevance to the matter of laying off.
The Parliamentary Secretary's reply was that a fixed amount of money was made available for the work and the men had to be laid off because the money was spent. Either he was right the first time or——
(Interruptions.)
The Minister for Local Government cannot answer his own questions.
The Deputy may be concerned about the Glyde and the Dee. In so far as that is concerned, at the peak period last year 44 men were employed and this year there were 39. That is only a small reduction.
You fired 30 of the 39 men two weeks earlier. I am not blaming the Parliamentary Secretary but surely he should look into the matter.