A strike involving employees of the Dublin Corporation took place in the early part of last year. About 2,200 employees were affected, most of whom were pensionable. The breach in service deprived the pensionable staff of the right to reckon their pre-strike service for pension purposes. When work was resumed representations were received from the corporation in favour of safeguarding pension rights. The purpose of the present Bill is to preserve the continuity of service. The period of pensionable service before the strike will be reckoned with subsequent service as one continuous period of service.
Local Officers and Servants (Dublin) Bill, 1941—Second Stage.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
While there is no objection to the Bill, I wish to bring to the Minister's notice Section 2, (a) and (b). Sub-section (a) states that the period of absence shall be regarded as not breaking continuity of his service with the corporation but, then, sub-section (b) goes on to say that notwithstanding the provisions of the foregoing paragraph, the length of the period of absence shall not be taken into account in reckoning the length of his service with the corporation, nor, where an allowance for life or a gratuity is granted to him, in reckoning the amount thereof. I think it would be desirable if the Minister would agree to the deletion of sub-section (b). I refer the Minister to Section 23 of the Superannuation Act of 1936 where provision is made for analogous circumstances occurring in 1922 in relation to the Post Office service, and in that section the period of absence is not dealt with as the period of absence is dealt with in this Bill under sub-section (b). I see no reason why the Minister would not agree to follow the precedent laid down in Section 23 of the Superannuation Act of 1936 and omit sub-section (b) of the present Bill. It will affect the period of service of the individual because it takes away from his service that portion of time in which he was absent from the service of the corporation and might vitally affect his whole pension position. Therefore, I would be obliged if the Minister would consider that point and agree to take out the sub-section, because it seems to be in contradiction to the previous paragraph, and it certainly is not in harmony with what has already been laid down in the Superannuation Act of 1936.
There may be something in the Senator's point, but the sub-section was suggested by the Department of Finance. They had before them the case which has been referred to, that of the Post Office. However, I will look into it by the Committee Stage.
The two paragraphs contradict each other.
The Post Office strike was a different kind of strike and the Minister will recollect that and agree with me.
I know.
It was a blow against the Provisional Government and those who were in power were the strikers.
The period of absence is co-related with the ordinary service.
I do not see why it should not be let stand, so long as you do not break the continuity of service. I cannot see why it should worry you.
The continuity of service was broken in the case of the Post Office workers. They were out of employment, and these people were out of employment, but in the case of the Post Office workers, the period during which they were out is taken into consideration for pensionable purposes.
Is it equitable?
Why count a period of service that is not service?
Why give a man a pension for the time he was not working at all?
Will the Minister consider it?
I will look into it certainly, but I do not say whether I will consider it. There are more Departments than mine concerned. If you are out of service, you are not in service, but so long as the continuity of service is not broken I think that should satisfy the Senator. Of course they were not paid for it.
But still, it cuts across the principle of the 1936 Act.
I think you should let it go. It was let go in the House below.
They are not doing so badly at all.
I will table an amendment for the Committee Stage.
All right.
Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage fixed for the next sitting day.
As has been intimated earlier to-day No. 6 on the Order Paper is not being moved to-day. The next meeting of the Seanad will depend on the position of legislation in the Dáil. If the Emergency Powers Bill is received from the Dáil this week I shall have the Seanad summoned for next Wednesday. If it is not, our next meeting will be on the 30th July.
The Seanad adjourned at 8.20 p.m. sine die.