§ 9. Mr. C. DUNCANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a labourer at Chatham Dockyard who has received instant dismissal, it being alleged that he presented himself for work under the influence of drink; whether the man was discharged without being given an opportunity of being heard; and whether he will inquire into the matter with a view to allowing the man an opportunity of defending himself against the charge, and, if the circumstances have not warranted dismissal, re-instating him in his employment?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAMy hon. Friend no doubt refers to the case of a labourer who was refused admittance to the yard when going on night duty on 12th October last in consequence of being drunk. The case was subsequently investigated by the general foreman of works, and the man, who was present, made no request to see a superior officer. The man was given no opportunity of defending himself against the charge of drunkenness at the moment of his exclusion from the yard. I made inquiry when I was at Chatham at the end of October, and having regard to all 1164 the circumstances was satisfied that justice was done in this case.
§ Mr. C. DUNCANWhy was there a difference of treatment between the men who were concerned? One, I understand, is an engineer, and he was stopped temporarily, and this man was stopped altogether.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI do not know about the other case. I understand my hon. Friend says that on account of being drunk he was suspended for a week. I assume that the officers who adjudicated upon the cases were guided by the circumstances and the previous record of the men.
§ Mr. C. DUNCANMay I ask that the man who has been dismissed may have a chance to defend himself or to put his side of the case?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThe case was investigated.