Dispute with Engineering Staff – by Donal Kennedy
I recently re-discovered the document below amongst my heirlooms and some readers may have copies of the document,
typed on two pages of foolscap, or have family connections with the men concerned. I submitted it to THE IRISH POLITICAL
REVIEW which punished it on its Labour Comment Page. The Irish Labour History Society may have some prior knowledge
REVIEW which punished it on its Labour Comment Page. The Irish Labour History Society may have some prior knowledge
of the subject.
I will later write of how it impacted on my family, as my father was one of the Engineers dismissed for not kow-towing to
the Board.
Donal Kennedy
—-
A serious situation has arisen concerning the relations of the Turf Development Board and its Staff of Engineers.
The Board was set up by the Government about two years ago with the object of fostering the production and use of Turf. The Board has endeavoured to secure this by providing much needed facilities in the way of drainage works and roads carried out as Minor Relief Schemes to serve the bogs in those districts where the turf producers were united in co-operative Turf Societies, and by setting up as middlemen between the producers and consumers of Turf.
A recent development of the Board’s activities has been the taking over of a large bog near Portarlington for the purpose of carrying out a very large scale experiment in the production of Turf
by means of machinery. This is in addition to, but quite unconnected with the similar very large undertaking formed under Government auspices, just entering the production stage at Lullymore,
near Edenderry.
The Board employs, or did so until recently, a staff of twelve Civil Engineers. Relations between the
Board and its Engineers have not been happy for some considerable time past, but the present difficulty arose when the Board rather abruptly intimated by circular to its employees that the rates then in force for travelling were being cut by approximately one-half. As most of the Engineers were entitled, under the terms of their appointment to the Civil Service rate in force, and had committed themselves to the purchase of cars on the written assurance that such rates would be maintained, they declined to accept this cut. After some heat had been engendered by this refusal, the Board, finding the contention of the Engineers to be well grounded, withdrew for the time being, the operation of the new rates.
In an endeavour to impose the new rate on its Engineering Staff, the Board issued notices of dismissal, coupled with the offer of re-employment on entirely new terms which were to be unconditionally accepted prior to re-engagement. One of the conditions which the Board sought to impose was that its employees whose engagement could be terminated at one month’s notice were to be compelled to provide themselves with cars, to be used on the Board’s business, at rates that could be fixed or varied at any time by the Board.
The Engineers submitted a Memorandum to the Board pointing out the injustice of this provision, and calling attention to several other matters in the new terms offered that they considered to be unsatisfactory.
The Board replied that before any consideration could be given to the points raised, the Engineers would have to accept the terms as satisfactory and apply for re-engagement.
The Engineers replied that to do so would be to place themselves in the entirely false position of signifying acceptance of a set of conditions with which they were dissatisfied, in the hope that consideration might be given to their grievances at some future date. It was suggested also, that the proper time for the settling of the matters in dispute was before re-engagement.
The Board’s reply was that it adhered to its insistence on the Engineers’ prior acceptance of the terms offered before it could agree to consider or discuss modification at a later date.
At this stage the matter was referred to Cumann na n-Innealtoiri (Engineers’ Association) which sent a deputation to the Board which met with no success in its efforts to arrive at a settlement of the dispute, the only concession the Board being willing to to grant being to give an undertaking, if their Engineers agreed to the terms offered and applied for re-instatement, that the Board would meet them before the 15th August to hear their grievance, thus leaving the matter essentially as before,
In a last minute effort to secure peace, he Engineers offered to apply for re-engagement, on the understanding that a Committee, formed of two representatives of the Board and two representatives of Cumann na n-Innealtoiri , with a Chairman acceptable to both, would meet and fix conditions to be binding on both sides and retrospecctive to the date of re-employment. This offer was refused by the Board.
Professor Alfred O’Rahilly, widely known for his successful intervention in many industrial disputes, offered his services as mediator, this offer receiving the approval of Cumann na n-Innealtoiri, but being
declined by the Board.
The deadlock that has ensued has resulted in the Board dispensing with the services of all the Engineers affected, with the exception of one,
It is probable that the Board’s activities in the carrying out of Turf Development Schemes will be seriously curtailed, if not brought to a stand-still until this dispute is settled.
The Turf* Development Board was established in 1934 by the Government.
The Dispute arose in 1936.
I should have made this clear
*Turf is the common term used in Hibernian English for PEAT and should
not be thought to have any connection with Horse Racing.