asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether he proposes to introduce proposals for legislation extending the provisions of the Railways (Existing Officers and Servants) Act, 1926, for a further period, with a view to ensuring that railway employees dismissed as a direct result of amalgamation shall receive compensation for disturbance as provided in the Act; whether he was requested by the Railway Trade Unions on 28th April, 1931, and subsequent dates, to receive a deputation for the purpose of discussing the question; whether he declined to receive this deputation; and, if so, for what reason; whether he has been in correspondence with the Great Southern Railways Company on the matter, and has accepted their point of view without hearing a statement on behalf of the employees through the deputation asked for.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Railways (Existing Officers and Servants) Act.
I have been asked by the Railway Trade Unions to receive a deputation which would represent that railway employees would be discharged after the 23rd July as a direct result of amalgamation and would not then be entitled to compensation. The Great Southern Railways Company has informed me that there would not be discharges after that date as a direct result of amalgamation. I saw no useful purpose in receiving the deputation to discuss a situation which has not yet arisen.
If I have reason to believe that discharges do take place without compensation after the 23rd July as a direct result of amalgamation I will introduce retrospective legislation to secure that the employees concerned do not lose their right to compensation. But I, and, I have no doubt, the public, would expect that seven years after amalgamation was effected the responsible parties should have been able to dispose of reorganisation questions without further recourse to the Oireachtas.
Is the Minister aware that a new scheme of reorganisation which will result possibly in the dismissal of a considerable number of employees has recently been ordered by the Board? Is he aware that arising out of that some of the workshops—Limerick, for instance—are partly closed down, with the result that about seventy men have been dismissed recently?
That is something that has happened before the 23rd July and, therefore, the Act applies and I see no reason to amend it.
Will the Minister state why in this case he refused to meet representatives of the employees of the company, seeing that it is generally understood that he has discussed the matter with representatives of the directors.
I discussed it in the same way as I did with the employees, by correspondence. I have not seen either party.
In view of the very unsatisfactory attitude adopted by the Minister in this matter, I propose to raise the question on the motion for the adjournment.