The Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974, provides that pay differences based on sex are eliminated from the 1st January of this year. Wherever a case can be made that like work or work of equal value is being performed in an undertaking, equal pay as between the sexes must apply. Despite the fact that we spent many days debating the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974, in this House that fundamental feature of it, as described in the definition I have just given, has been widely misunderstood. Some commentators apparently think that the 1974 Act purports to legislate equal pay as a principle in itself that would operate in all conceivable circumstances. I repeat, the Act purports to eliminate discrimination in pay between the sexes where such differences have no rationale other than sex differences and where the work is similar and of equal value.
The core of the present amendment provides the right where the employees of an undertaking are convinced that job loss would be a consequence of the implementation of the 1974 Act to agree to a postponement for a limited period of the full application of the 1974 legislation. Even where there is this agreement on the part of trade unions in the workplace, the Labour Court must also accept that there is a genuine basis for exemption from the terms of the 1974 Act.
To come within the scope of the amending Bill, three conditions will have to be fulfilled: firstly, the trade unions and employers will need to agree formally that the introduction of the principle of equal pay in the business would lead to unemployment; secondly, the workers involved will have to be employed in a business where the application of equal pay would lead to loss of employment or affect the financial viability of the undertaking; and thirdly, the Labour Court will, after investigation, have to authenticate the agreement of the trade unions and employers.
The application of the stringent conditions included in this Bill will ensure that the 1974 Act will operate in all save a minority of cases.
I should like to give the background to this amendment. Early in 1975 when asked whether the recession would delay the implementation of our equal pay plans, I made it clear that I would take into consideration any representations of a joint character made by unions and managements relating to repercussions on employment arising out of the equal pay legislation. Such joint representations were not made to me until the 9th September, 1975. On that date, management and unions in the footwear industry supported a joint request for a delay in the implementation of the 1974 measure based on their fear of its impact on the employment position of their industry. Since there has been a good deal of controversy surrounding the appearance of this amendment, some based on genuine misunderstanding, I want to place it on the record once more what was requested in September and how the request was dealt with.
In their letter of the 8th, the joint secretaries of the joint industrial council, writing for the unions and managements in that industry, having outlined the effect of the implementation of equal pay in their industry, went on to say: "Therefore, it was unanimously agreed by all parties to defer discussion on this matter until July, 1976, and to request you to amend the legislation if necessary in order to permit the industry to take this action". Their letter concluded: "We would be glad to have your confirmation that our agreement can be implemented within the law". The meeting of the joint industrial council which reached the conclusion referred to in this letter was chaired by the chief conciliation officer of the Labour Court, Mr. Diarmaid Mac Diarmada.
The court on my request, with the aid of assessors, examined the joint request of the footwear industry. The Labour Court's report, based on examination by the assessors, was received by me on 16th December. The court found that between 500 and 700 jobs would be lost if the 1974 Act were to be implemented. It was on the basis of this report that the Taoiseach announced our intention to introduce an amendment to take account of other similar situations that might arise to that of the footwear industry.
The amendment makes no reference to the public service. The terms of the 1974 Act can apply to the public service as from 1st January. The Minister for the Public Service has indicated that he is anxious to enter into discussion with the public service unions to phase out existing marriage differentials in pay.
An application has been submitted to the European Commission under the provisions of Article 135 of the Act of Accession. This article provides that a member state may apply for authorisation to introduce protective measures if before 31st December, 1977, difficulties arise which "are serious and liable to persist in any sector of the economy or which could bring about serious deterioration in the economic situation of a given area" The Commission have been informed that in the Government's view the measures proposed in this Bill would prevent a worsening of the employment situation in certain undertakings. Should the Commission turn down our request for derogation, as they are fully entitled to do under the Treaty, I want to make it clear that the terms of the 1974 legislation will operate without qualification.
This amending Bill makes it clear that no employer may avail of the amending process without the agreement of the organised workers. There can be no question of an employer going it alone to get an exemption from the terms of the 1974 Act. In addition, where an employer seeks to avail of the amending process there is provision in the amendment that this will constitute immediate recognition on his part that the workers in question are entitled to equal pay. Furthermore, should the Labour Court refuse exemption, then equal pay must be paid retrospective to the 1st January, 1976.
An unfortunate consequence of many of the comments and arguments on the issue of equal pay has been the fact that the impression has been created that large sectors of Irish industry would be exempt from the provisions of the Equal Pay Act, 1974. I think it will be clear, both from what I have said and an examination of the amendment before the House, that its conditions are such that the terms of the 1974 Act will operate save in those exceptional circumstances which the amending Bill is designed to meet.