asked the Minister for Education why a person (name supplied) was dismissed from his post as a warden at Marlborough House, Glasnevin, Dublin.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dismissal of Warden.
32.
The person in question was dismissed from his post because of unsatisfactory performance of his duties.
I asked this question before and the Minister said he was dismissed.
He was not.
The Minister was misinformed by his Department because the following day he was dismissed.
No.
Now "unsatisfactory service" is a little rough and wrong.
The Deputy asked me if the man were dismissed. At that time he was suspended. I want to say to the Deputy that when I was approached by my officials because this man had become troublesome and because they were worried about the operation of the home, and when they suggested to me that he should be dismissed, I gave specific instructions at that time that he was not to be dismissed until or unless his conduct so seriously interfered with the working of the home that it could not be tolerated any longer. Things became worse and eventually he was suspended. When he was suspended I examined the case very carefully and I felt that dismissal was justified at that stage. So I can say to the Deputy that I was just as concerned as I know he would be to see that there was fair play. It was not until I felt that the operation of the home could not be carried on any further as long as he was there that I agreed to his dismissal.
The Minister said he was not dismissed. Obviously they had made up their minds that he would be dismissed without the Minister's permission. It was decided the next day. Would the Minister think that a man should be dismissed for exposing intolerable conditions in this home? Does the Minister not think that the man was performing a very useful public function in disclosing these facts? Would that be contrary to his duty?
That is a separate question.
To answer the first supplementary, the officials in my Department do not decide on dismissing somebody without reference to me. They do not make up their minds that a man will be dismissed until I have considered it and decided what I think should be done in the circumstances. Secondly he certainly was not dismissed because of the fact that he made allegations in relation to this home.
Question No. 33.
This is a very important question, because a man has been dismissed.
We cannot discuss the whole question here.
In view of this man's unsatisfactory case—I am not raising it on the adjournment—will the Minister have this matter reviewed? We do not want to create trouble. He feels that he has been wrongfully dismissed and, in view of that, would the Minister consider looking into this case again for him?
I have gone very carefully into this case. I explained already that I ensured that the man would not be dismissed for any reason except conduct which might interfere with the running of the home. After his suspension I re-examined the case and I was satisfied that what I had done in relation to the proper operation of the home was the proper thing to do. I did not do this quickly. I am as much concerned about a man's employment as anybody else. The Deputy can be assured that I certainly did not have this man dismissed for any other reason except that I was convinced that it would not be possible to continue the operation of the home in those circumstances.
The Minister agreed that on one day he did not know and the next day he made the decision.
No.
Yes. The decision was made the next day.
I said that he was suspended at that time and while he was suspended I examined the situation until I was satisfied——
The Minister was satisfied the next day.
When I had fully considered the whole matter I decided on what I should do.
In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply I propose to raise this matter on the adjournment. Now I will do it.