asked the Minister for Finance whether notices of dismissal have been served on painters employed by the Board of Works, if he is aware that these tradesmen have long service, in one case close on 20 years; if any alteration has been made in the terms of contract by which it is proposed to replace these tradesmen by others, and whether it is proposed to make permanent reduction in the number of painters employed by the Board.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Employment of Painters.
The painting works required by the Board of Works are almost entirely carried out under contract. There is only one regular painter in the Board's direct employment and no notice of dismissal has been served. The painters referred to in the question are the employees of the contractor who holds a contract with the Board of Works for painting and glazing works, labour, and supplies. It is understood that some of them have been employed for long periods on the Board's work by the contractors. No alteration has been made in the terms of contract with these contractors, but it is contemplated to introduce a system of rotation by which a larger number of painters would share in the Board's work. It is not intended at present to reduce the number of painters engaged under the contract but the number required at any time depends upon the extent of the painting works required at the various public buildings, etc.
Is it not a fact that the Minister's Department have actually intimated to Messrs. Dockrell and Co. that they desire that a certain number of painters, who have been in the regular employment of that firm, should be paid off and an entirely new staff of painters taken on for a period of six months? Is the Minister aware that many of these painters who are to receive notice as a result of the Minister's arbitrary edict, have 20 years' service and that, in one case to my own knowledge, a man has over 30 years' service? Does the Minister propose to suggest to a private firm that a person with 30 years' service should be turned out and should spend six months in idleness?
The Minister has not issued any arbitrary edict in this matter, but, with the concurrence of his Parliamentary Secretary, he is of opinion that where there is Government employment to be given that Government employment should be shared, as far as possible, amongst the greatest number of people.
I want to ask the Minister if it is the decided policy of his Department that men who have given good service and against whom there has not been the slightest charge of misconduct are to be dismissed after long years of service in order to make room for others?
There is no question of the dismissal of any person. A number of people have to stand off in order that other people who have been out of employment for years may be given some chance.
Does the Minister recognise that persons who have given good service for 15 or 20 years and who are now thrown out on the road without any charge of misconduct against them stand little chance of getting work elsewhere? Does he know that these men have been in that employment for years?
Does the Minister recognise that his decision in this case is going to affect the whole building trade and that every worker in the building trade is to be affected one way or another. Does he recognise that this is a most unfair decision; any decision that does not take cognisance of the system in which these men were employed?
That is not a question.
I suggest to the Minister that a building strike is to be a serious matter for the country and I suggest now that the Minister would reconsider this whole question at this stage so as to avoid the serious consequences.
Is it not a fact that if there will be a building strike in such circumstances it will be a strike against a Christian Government?
Question No. 9.
Can the Minister tell us what is the difference between standing off men from work in which they have been engaged for years and dismissing them?