With regard to Amendment No. 3, if I understand it aright, it proposes to delete all references to losses due to amalgamation and therefore it would be out of order. I am simply making it clear that the amendment seems to be out of order.
RAILWAYS (EXISTING OFFICERS AND SERVANTS) BILL, 1926—THIRD STAGE.
The Dáil, according to Order, went into Committee.
Question—"That Section 1 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
(1) Every officer and every servant of the amalgamated company who if he had not become such officer or servant would have been entitled to a gratuity under the first paragraph of the Third Schedule to the Principal Act shall, if his services are dispensed with by the amalgamated company within seven years after the passing of the Principal Act and whether before or after the passing of this Act on account of his services having become unnecessary in consequence of changes of administration due directly and solely to the amalgamation and absorption of companies effected by or under the Principal Act and not caused or contributed to by decrease of traffic, reduction of renewal or maintenance work, introduction of improved methods of working (other than methods which would not have been feasible for the amalgamating or absorbed company by which the officer or servant was formerly employed), or other economic cause, be entitled to be paid by the amalgamated company a gratuity calculated on the basis of one-sixth of the amount of his annual salary and emoluments for every completed year of his service.
(2) In this section the word "service" does not include any period of service as a trade apprentice with any amalgamating or absorbed company.
(3) For the purposes of this section the annual salary and emoluments of an officer or servant shall be calculated at the rate of the salary or emoluments of which he is in receipt immediately before his services are dispensed with and his service shall include his service with the amalgamating or absorbed company of which he was formerly an officer or servant as well as his service with the amalgamated company.
(4) In this section references to officers of the amalgamated company and references to servants of the amalgamated company respectively include officers of the amalgamated company and servants of the amalgamated company who have before the passing of this Act ceased to be in the service of the amalgamated company as well as such officers and servants who are still in the service of the amalgamated company at the passing of this Act.
(5) In this section the expression "the first paragraph of the Third Schedule to the Principal Act" means the paragraph at the beginning of that Schedule which commences with the words "Every person who" and ends with the words "completed year of service."
I move:—
In sub-section (1), lines 28 and 29, to delete the words "within seven years after the passing of the Principal Act and."
The section as it stands would make it impossible for any claim for compensation to succeed after the 23rd July, 1931. May I say, with your permission, sir, that I hope it will be possible to save a good deal of discussion arising out of these amendments as a result of a number of conferences which I understand took place between the different parties and the Minister, especially the conferences that have taken place since the Second Reading was passed. I can assure the Dáil that, so far as I am concerned, I do not propose to weary the House because I appreciate the consideration that has been extended to us from all parts of the House when the measure was being discussed on Second Reading. I am only hoping that, as a result of the discussions that have taken place between the Minister and the different parties who met him since the Second Reading was passed, that it will be possible to save a good deal of discussion on the Committee Stage. Personally I cannot contemplate the company keeping, as they have, at the present time, a large number of a redundant staff on their premises or pay sheets until the 23rd July, 1931, but I can imagine that it would be a good policy on their part to do so, assuming that certain wording was allowed to remain in the Bill. In the ordinary course of events one would hope that if the company wanted to complete its organisation in order to carry on its ordinary business such as a railway company in normal times, that it would be the duty of the company, or its chief officers on the board of directors, to reorganise the concern, get rid of the redundant staff and provide plenty of useful work for every person at present in their employment. That is certainly what happened in the case of the British railways, and in the case of the British Acts no such time limit was laid down, or no time limit was sought to be laid down in the British Act so far as this matter was concerned. The Minister is, but the House may not be, aware of the fact that railwaymen up to the present— and the position will remain so if this Bill passes in its present form—were exempted from unemployment insurance by agreement between the then British Government and the British and the Irish railways on the understanding given by the companies them-serves to the British Government at the time that they were more or less permanent employees. Supposing that the Bill passes as it stands, and that the company decides to hold over all these redundant employees that we know are knocking about until after the 31st July, 1931, the position will be that the men will be dispensed with without any compensation, although their redundancy might arise as the result of amalgamation, and they will not get compensation from the railway company as was intended by the original Act, and will certainly not be entitled to unemployment insurance benefit although they had an understanding with the British Government that they were in the nature of permanent employees. I think the Minister should take these things into consideration.
There is also, as the Minister knows, a proposal in the Bill that a superannuation scheme should have been produced on 1st January of the present year by the company. The Minister gave an extension of six months, so one may assume in the ordinary course of events, that unless the Minister gives a further extension a superannuation scheme will have to be brought forward by the Great Southern Railways in the course of the next two months. If the position taken up by him in this Bill be allowed to remain, how can the railway company or anybody else bring forward a scheme that will be actuarially sound if they do not know how many employees will be in the company and how many are likely to be brought under the superannuation fund? The Minister, in the course of the debate on the original Act, and I think also in the course of a speech on the Second Reading debate of this Bill, justified some of his proposals by references to the British Railways Act of 1921. I suggest to him that he might in this case take up the line taken up in the British Act and leave out any date such as he tries to fix in this amending Bill.
I would like to hear from the Minister, and I think the Dáil is entitled to hear from him, what reasons were put forward by the railway company's representatives to him when they met in support of an amendment of this kind. I personally have not heard the reasons, and I would like to hear from the Minister if he proposes to insist upon the clause as it stood originally. Perhaps if the Minister could produce any arguments in support of the amendment, one might be inclined to consider them, though in what the Minister has said up to the present I cannot find any good reason for this proposal. So far as I am concerned I have heard no reason at all as to why a date should be laid down in this amending Bill, as no date was laid down in the British Act which the Minister referred to so often in the debates on the original Act, and also on the Second Reading of the present Bill.
I wonder would it be right for me to start by referring once and for all to the question that is being asked simply to add a certain amount of weight, or that is expected to add weight—"What did the railway companies say to you when they asked you to bring in such and such a proposal?" The railway company never mentioned this to me. I have asserted over and over again that I am acting in the interests of the railway users. The railway company had as much or as little to do as the railway employees had to do with this Bill.
On a point of explanation, the Minister admitted to myself and Senator O'Farrell that he had received a Bill from the railway company. I know he met the railway company's representatives and they must have met the Minister to put forward a certain case.
I received a Bill and met the railway company's representatives. Did I meet the railway company's representatives on that Bill? Is that the contention? If it is, I never did.
I accept the Minister's assurance.
The railway management, the railway directorate, and all the rest are outside this. It is a question of the Dáil and its attitude towards railway users and a question of an economical railway system. It appears to me, and I think it ought to appear to the House, that a seven-year period is sound in itself, for this simple reason: The basis of the whole Third Schedule was that where a man was rendered redundant by reason of amalgamation or absorption he should be compensated. I ask the Dáil if they think what can be described as the upset caused in railway conditions by the amalgamation scheme is or is not going to settle itself within a period— I do not say of seven years—of three years. If there is going to be a reasonable case that a man was dismissed, his services were dispensed with or any change made in his tenure by reason of amalgamation or absorption, it ought to show itself within a three-year period, and we allow seven years. If there seems to be any desire on the railway company's part to keep a man on whom they might have otherwise to render redundant, because of the amalgamation scheme, and pay him full pay for three, four, or five years redundant, useless service, so that they might then escape the compensation that was payable, the contention I put to the House is a very simple matter: Does it seem to the House that in a three-year period the effect of amalgamation will have shown itself in so far as rendering railway servants redundant? Is it possible that outside the three-year period anything arising from the amalgamation scheme will occur which will, three years after the date of amalgamation, cause a man to be rendered redundant by anything that has happened after that scheme? Three or four years seems to be a likely period. Then I say that a seven-year limitation is a secure one. You must have some finality about the thing. There must be some period within which what will prove to be an untenable case can be brought. People ought not to be put to the expense— either the railway company or the unions concerned—of bringing cases. I hold, and I put it to the Dáil, that they ought to hold with me that the reason, if the reason be amalgamation, must have made itself clear within a three-year period.
As to the Superannuation Fund and the question of exception from the Unemployment Insurance Act, in so far as that has any bearing on this amendment—and I am not quite clear as to what bearing it has—I would like to put my point of view this way. Deputy Davin says the Superannuation Fund must be brought forward by the Amalgamated Company for discussion with the trades unions before the 1st of July of this year. He asked how can there be any scheme which will be actuarially sound if people do not know what is to be the number of permanent railway employees. I agree with him that that must be known and the scheme must be based upon their knowledge of what number of railway servants will be permanent. If we were to accept that logically I would have to adduce the argument I have made already, that three years is a sufficient time within which this amalgamation would show itself as affecting people's employmer to a one year period. I agree with Deputy Davin that the permanent staff of the railway company must be fairly clear before that superannuation scheme can be made. However, it has to be remembered that that superannuation scheme has only an obligation upon the railway company to this limited extent, that it has to be brought forward for discussion. There has to be agreement about the thing, and I have very little hopes that a superannuation fund, when brought forward by the 1st July of this year, will be immediately acceptable. I imagine that there will be months of discussion before any superannuation scheme, if there be one at all, will be finally agreed on. As regards the Unemployment Insurance Fund, I hold that outside the three years' upset that may have been caused by railway amalgamation it has little to do with the case. Prior to there having been any question of amalgamation or absorption, on the demand both of the railway companies and the railway employees railway work was excepted from the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Act on the ground that the occupation was permanent in character. Whatever character of permanency railway occupation had at the time of and prior to amalgamation it still has after amalgamation. The people who would be upset by reason simply of amalgamation would be rendered redundant within a three years' period. As far as they are concerned, they would be out and would have compensation. But so far as the people who remained on are concerned, their occupation will be on whatever permanent character railway employment was prior to the amalgamation scheme. I do not know what the unemployment matter has to do with this particular amendment. I think the amendment stands on a very simple basis, the question of people having to make up their minds that within a certain period the effects of amalgamation will have shown themselves as far as rendering people redundant is concerned. If it is correct that three years is a likely period within which that will have taken effect, I say a seven years' period is a fairly good extension of the three years' period within which to look for finality on this question.
I think that the Minister has missed the point of the case against the seven years' limitation. Let us take it as established that three years is a reasonable limit of time within which the redundancy will have proved itself. That is exactly the case. But redundancy having shown itself with respect to particular bodies of men, the railways company balances the cost—"Shall we dismiss these men because they are redundant, or shall we wait until the expiry of seven years? It will be cheaper for us," they will say, "to keep this man on, though he is redundant, for another four years and then dismiss him, notwithstanding that his dismissal is through redundancy, at the end of the seven years, and then we will have no charge in respect of him." It is certain that redundancy will have proved itself within three years, but if you have no limitation it would be the duty of the company to give effect to the redundancy. But if there is a limitation of period they may say: "We had better keep these men on for another three years. We will then have no obligations with regard to them." The very fact that there is no period in the present Act obviates any risk, I think, that at the end of seven years any case will be brought before the arbitrator. But put in a limitation of seven years and the cost to the company will be very much less at the end of the seven years and no benefit will be drawn by the dismissed servant. By putting in this limitation there will be a direct temptation to the company to weigh up the financial consequences of keeping a man on, or dismissing him and paying him compensation. I think that that is the serious part of this to the railway servants—and the point about unemployment insurance arises here— that if this limitation is inserted, if the railways company take advantage of their new position and keep a man on for the seven years rather than declare him redundant within that time, and that the man is then dismissed, he will have neither compensation nor unemployment insurance. But the unemployment question is a comparatively small one, although it is important to the individual if he is dismissed without anything at the end of the seven years.
Surely there is no need for putting in a seven years limitation, inasmuch as all the redundancy will have been proved before that time, and there will be no temptation to the railway company to keep a man on longer. I am taking it as in the normal working of things that redundancy would be proved within three or four years. There may be cases—I cannot imagine them—where it may be shown that the redundancy will not have occurred within the seven years. In such a case the arbitrator will declare whether any compensation is due, and, if there is, will fix the compensation. But I think we ought not to leave it open to the railways company to weigh up the relative merits of dismissing the man in a case of redundancy and paying him compensation, or holding him in hand until the expiry of this time and then saying: "We will dismiss him without any charge upon the funds."
That is probably the other side of the argument, that you have the definite agreement that redundancy will have proved itself within three years, and taking this at the very furthest point to which Deputy Johnson can drive it, you have almost an invitation given to the company to weigh up the advantages and to decide whether it is worth while to keep on people who are definitely rendered redundant by the amalgamation scheme and pay them salaries for so many years. There is this temptation at the moment: A person is rendered redundant, and they will say: "We will not let that redundancy appear. We will keep that man on, and at the end of the seven years we will abolish the position." Then that man will have to go before the arbitrator and prove that the abolition of that position was due to amalgamation or absorption.
Is the Minister maintaining the position that he is throwing the responsibility of proving redundancy on to the railway servant?
No, I withdraw that. I am, of course, amending the Bill. The proof must in every case be upon the railway company. The railways company seven years after would have to show that the abolition of a particular person's post was not due to amalgamation or absorption. I say that the mere lapse of time is a very strong point in your favour. I say that if the railways company is to be credited with all these calculations, balances and farsighted views with regard to how far it would be wise to pay a certain person's salary, as opposed to giving him compensation, they have that more or less before them at the moment. I do not credit them with anything of the sort. I think that with the old Act, if there had been any sort of cordiality, any sort of proper working of it, they could have got along all right, if there had been the same sort of attitude taken up as on the other side, where there were very few cases taken to the arbitrator. But when people became aware that there were certain loopholes in the section, they simply wanted to drive everyone they could through and it had to be amended. So far, if there is to be any balancing of motive to give the Deputy's view of what is to happen in the future, that balance of motive is not to be put down to the credit or discredit of the railways company.
By reason of this clause the Minister is giving an inducement, and I think a natural inducement, to the general manager of the railways company to hold over until the date mentioned in the Bill, or after it, the dismissal or removal of a certain number of men who are to-day walking idle about Kingsbridge and other headquarter depots. I am acquainted with a number of these men, and I know for a positive fact—and the Minister can, I am certain, confirm it if he makes inquiries—that there are quite a number of redundant officials walking to-day about Kingsbridge, and as far as we can gather, the company is keeping them there in anticipation of the passing of this Bill in its present form, when it will be impossible for any of them to make a case for redundancy. As the Minister has put up the argument that he believes the redundant officials will all have disappeared in the course of three years, may I say that the redundancy in the case of the operation of the British Act has not yet quite cleared itself up, and a colleague who worked for the same company as I do was only declared redundant from the beginning of the present year. I know of another case where it is likely that another official of the same company may be compensated as being redundant as a result of the abolition of his position, which apparently will take place shortly. The Minister should make inquiries as to whether reorganisation that resulted from the passing of the British Act is yet complete. I think if he makes inquiries as to whether it affects other British railways, the L.M.S., the L.N.E. and the Southern, he will find that many redundant officials are walking about and the companies are keeping them walking about in the hope that they will be in a position to put them into jobs similar to what they held previously and give a return to the companies for the money they have been drawing. I know an official who is walking about to-day at Kingsbridge with a salary of £350 a year. He is 35 years of age. Under the original Act he would, if he went before the arbitrators, be entitled with additional service, to a pension of £175 a year. If this clause passes I consider it would be good policy for the company to pay him £350 a year for the next five years, or £1,750 altogether, and at the end of the five years there would be no obligation at all on the company to pay compensation, if this is stereotyped as in the amending Bill. He would merely get what he would be entitled to out of the Superannuation Fund. That is one case. Take that as a case in point. They would pay that man £175 a year if he was rendered redundant to-day until he reached the age of 61 years. That would be the average life of the railway people who go out on pension. That is the figure that has been supplied to me. Now that would cost the railway company, if it got rid of him, £175 a year until he reached 60 years of age, and that sum would be considerably more than his salary for the next five years, up to 31st July, 1931. That is a case in point, and I put the case to the Minister that if the position arising out of the amalgamation of the British railways has not been completely cleared up yet, and if there are, as the Minister will find, if he makes inquiries, many men actually walking about to-day with no definite position in the service of the great British combines, I think that is an argument to show that the Minister's anticipation with regard to the clearing up of redundancy in the next three years would not be justified. I can give the Minister the name of an individual in the London Midland and Scottish Company who was cleared out under the terms of the British Act on 1st January this year on this side of the water. If the company were anxious to reorganise the administration since the date of the coming into operation of the Railways Act, 1924, I seriously suggest that they could have removed many men who were redundant, but the fact that they have not done so and the fact that there are large numbers of people walking about without any particular work to do, must be due to some reason or other and the Minister can draw his own conclusion as to what is the reason. I am speaking of facts. If the Minister persists in insisting upon the date being stereotyped, I dare say that no argument of any kind can induce him to change his attitude. I hoped that as a result of what he has heard, and I believe this was discussed with him, that he would be disposed to give and take in this particular matter.
This particular section can hardly be said to have been discussed with any of the people I met. I can almost definitely state that the question of the seven years in Section 2 was not discussed. Seven years in Section 4 was simply mentioned.
The same thing.
So far from being the same thing, there was a further definite point to weigh down in my favour in Section 4. In Section 2 there was hardly any discussion and in Section 4 it was simply mentioned. There was not very much talk about it. If it is a question of getting back to the British Act we should wipe out Section 2 altogether. The people referred to in Section 2 are not dealt with in the British Act at all, so that if there is any question of basing ourselves on the British Act the argument should lead to the complete abolition of Section 2. Deputy Davin has referred to the British Railway Act. That is one of those comparisons that can be made casually. I do not think it is a comparison that will help him. Will the Deputy give me a rough case of the number of railway servants and companies amalgamated under the Act of 1921? It would be somewhere near three-quarters of a million.
Approximately correct.
About 700,000 at a minimum. Let that be put in comparison with the few thousands that are to be dealt with here. Assume that the British Railway Act has been in operation since 1921. That is to say, not five years yet. No one can say that the full effect of redundancy has not made itself clear as a result of the amalgamation. I say that the comparison does not do Deputy Davin's case much good. The other point was in connection with Section 4.
I put up these reasons to the Minister in anticipation of the consequential elimination of reference to the seven years in the other section.
Is it not desirable in this case that whatever limit of time is inserted in respect to any officers or servants of the company that it should be uniform? Whether they are existing officers of a permanent character or whether they are temporary officers that are dealt with there should be uniformity.
We are aiming at that.
I would like to know whether the Minister is really insistent in regard to this seven years. Assuming that this is desirable, I would urge that it is desirable that a period should be fixed to cover the time where it would be impossible for the railways company practically to weigh up the merits of keeping a man on and paying him his wages, as against dismissing him at once and paying him superannuation. A longer period, of course, would give finality, as the Minister has pointed out, but it would lessen the temptation to practically nothing if it was made long enough.
On that point of lessening the temptation I wonder if the Deputy would face up to this? Take the position as it is at the moment, omitting the seven years. Let there be no time limit put upon this thing at all. Now credit the railways company with all this desire to make the calculations and simply do Shylock as far as possible on its servants. They decide if they dismiss a certain number of men at the moment it will be clearly seen that redundancy is the cause; they decide that they will not abolish the offices of certain people, that they will keep them on for, say, six, seven or eight years and then take their chance before the arbitrator of making the point that obviously as this has occurred so long after the event which gives rise to a claim for compensation it is a prima facie case that amalgamation was not the cause. You have that at any rate in the circumstances to-day. There is the additional point the Deputy may urge of having the railway companies in such a way that they are going to do the Shylock. By fixing seven years you give them a better basis for calculation, but I say they have almost the same basis at the moment. They may say that we have a very strong case to prove our contention that it is not amalgamation which is the cause of those men becoming redundant.
The case set up by Deputy Johnson bears on long-service people, but as I read it this section refers to short service. Take the case of a short-service man. Supposing he had four years' service he would only be entitled to four-sixths of a gratuity, that is two-thirds of a year's pay. Is it possible that a railway company would keep a man four years in full pay when they could get rid of him for two-thirds of the year's salary? Is that the case? I think the railway company would be very foolish to act the Shylock. The case made by Deputy Johnson is impossible.
We can admit at once, from the point of view of persons referred to in this section, that the case is of little moment, but for the purpose of uniformity we wanted to have "seven years" remitted in both cases, and the case we are arguing now is the case for long-service men.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 16; Níl, 48.
Tá.
- Seán Buitléir.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- William Norton.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Seán O Laidhín.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
Níl.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Thomas Bolger.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- John J. Cole.
- John Conlan.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean.
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Seán de Faoite.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- Connor Hogan.
- Liam Mac Cosgair.
- Sean MacCurtain.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Patrick McKenna.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Michael K. Noonan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Parthalán O Conchubhair.
- Conchubhar O Conghaile.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Seán O Duinnín.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Andrew O Shaughnessy.
- Seán Príomhdhall.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Liam Thrift.
- Nicholas Wall.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Corish and Nagle. Níl: Deputies Dolan and Sears. Amendment declared lost.
Amendment declared lost.
I move:—
"In sub-section (1) to delete from and including the word ‘on,' line 30, to the word ‘cause,' line 38, and substitute the words ‘on account of or by reason of the amalgamation or absorption of companies effected by or under the Principal Act.'"
In my opinion the words in the Bill which my amendment proposes to delete are of too narrow a character and unduly limit the terms upon which compensation will be allowed. The use of the terms, "amalgamation and absorption," as qualified by the words "and not caused by decrease of traffic, reduction of renewal or maintenance work, introduction of improved methods or other economic cause," might enable reductions of staffs and dismissals from employment to be effected which really arose out of the amalgamation and absorption but for which no compensation would be available. It would be better not to narrow the terms of reference which may be placed before the arbitrator and to give a reasonable amount of discretion to him in dealing with cases which are on the border-line of these two categories, the dispensation of services through amalgamation and the dispensation of services for economic causes.
The amendment is aimed at eliminating certain words, and these words have, I think, been described as being so narrow that they unduly limit the provisions with regard to compensation. I would like the House to look at the words which are regarded as being so narrow that they unduly limit the employee's chance of compensation. The real words aimed at, I believe, are those that occur from line 33 down to line 38: "caused or contributed to by decrease of traffic, reduction of renewal or maintenance work, introduction of improved methods of working (other than methods which would not have been feasible for the amalgamating or absorbed company by which the officer or servant was formerly employed), or other economic cause." What the House has to consider is this: should compensation be paid to a man rendered redundant by reason of the decrease of traffic? That never was the intention under the whole of the Third Schedule of the Act of 1924. Further, should a man be compensated if rendered redundant by the reduction of renewal or maintenance work? That is a right which companies had prior to amalgamation; it is a right which they should have; it is a right which was not disturbed by the previous Act, and it is a right which we should leave undisturbed. Is it seriously intended that people should be compensated if they are discharged by reason of the introduction of improved methods of working which render their services redundant? Finally, is it considered right to compensate persons who have been removed by reason of economic causes? These are the four things set out. There have been cases heard by the arbitrator under the 1924 Act in which every one of these points has been brought in, and which operated to rule men out from compensation. We simply enumerate three of those, and then refer to economic causes. Is there anything unjust or unduly pressing on railwaymen to have certain things enumerated, and if these things are proved certain compensation should not be payable? I would like to have a case made here by somebody that where any single one of these four reasons occur to cause redundancy, such redundant officer should be compensated.
The difficulty that the Minister is placing the House in, the difficulty he is in himself, and the difficulty he is placing the arbitrator in, and, more particularly, the damage he is doing to the men at present, or who have been, employed by the company lie here: He is making it impossible for the statement of the company, that a man has not been dismissed because of a redundancy, to be disproved. If this paragraph and the identical paragraph in Section 4 are passed, then there is no possibility of ensuring that men are to be compensated, because it will always be possible for the company to say that the dismissal was on account of other economic causes; that it was on account of improved methods of working or on account of a reduction of renewals or maintenance work or some re-arrangement of traffic, or a decrease of traffic. This proposition is practically a repeal of the provision of the original Act which ensured that men who were to be dismissed as a consequence of the working out of the Railways Act would get compensation. I think, notwithstanding the Minister's statement, it will be found that it would be impossible to ascertain the exact cause of a man's dismissal. If a company likes to say that there are economic causes, and if a man is dismissed from a depot or a station on the grounds of a reduction of traffic, the alternative in the hands of the company is that that man should be transferred to another station or depot. But the other station or depot is already being reduced because of amalgamation. Now, if the man's dismissal is due to a reduction of traffic, are we to say whether the man's dismissal is due to a reduction of traffic or to amalgamation, and if both causes are at work what is the position of the man? The company can easily say that the man is redundant because of a reduction of traffic. I maintain the position that I have maintained all the time, that the right for compensation and the equitable claim for compensation lies in this: that owing to the operations of the Act men are found redundant, and that there is a claim and a just claim. They are there for so many years, and there has been not merely a fair expectation but almost a certainty of continuous and permanent employment. If the company comes along under the new proposal and says that this, that or the other man is being dispensed with because of a reduction of traffic, or because of a reduction of expenditure on renewals or on the maintenance of the permanent way, and so on, then he has no claim, the whole purpose of Schedule 3 to the existing Act goes by the board, and we are throwing over the case of the men.
The claim that the principal Act embodied and conceded that every man dismissed from causes other than misconduct or incapacity was entitled to compensation was, I think, a reasonable and fair one. It is not a claim that the present staff shall be stereotyped and made permanent, but it is a claim that there shall be no further recruiting. It is a claim that, I think, the public has a right to recognise on the principles enunciated by the Minister himself, that a public benefit should not be bought at the price of a private wrong. I realise that in the amendment of Deputy Doyle the whole question is raised as to the change in the basis of compensation that is to be paid to railwaymen. The Minister proposes to hand over the whole discretion to the company, and to leave the whole matter as one of grace and not of right. If the company desires, in the future, to plead that there are other causes besides redundancy then the company will not be bound to pay anything. That is the case that the Minister has put forward, and it is a case that, I think, the House should resist.
So far as we are advised by legal men who have a working knowledge of the British Act, if this section, with the various reasons stereotyped in the Bill, is allowed to remain, it would be absolutely impossible for a trade union or individual going before the arbitrator to prove a case for redundancy. I am surprised that the Minister, who is himself a legal man, is not prepared to leave this question to the discretion of the arbitrator, a K.C., with a certain number of years practice and with a standing at the Bar. I think the arbitrator, as is the case under the British Act, should be allowed to make up his own mind and to take all the circumstances into consideration. In taking up his present attitude the Minister, I suggest, is inconsistent, because in paragraph (d) of Section 4 there are these words: "In fixing the nature and amount of compensation all the circumstances of the case shall be taken into consideration." There the arbitrator is given a discretion to use his own judgment. The Minister, in giving the arbitrator discretion there, is, I think, doing quite right. I fail to see, however, why the Minister should stereotype all these reasons in the particular section of the Bill that we are dealing with. For instance, if the amalgamated company want to prove that a man's redundancy did not arise solely and directly from amalgamation, they could introduce some new method of working, a thing which is so often done, to defeat a man's claim before the arbitrator, provided the Bill is allowed to stand as it is at present. I cannot contemplate the case of any individual going before the arbitrator, tied hand and foot as he is under this section by the Minister, and getting a decision in his favour on the claim that he was seeking compensation as a result of redundancy. The whole case that I am making to the House is that the Minister should leave some discretion to the arbitrator who, as I have stated, is a man of standing in the legal profession. That, I think, is the least we might expect from the Minister.
Let me assume for the moment that the Minister himself is in the position of an arbitrator and that a case is put up to him that a man's dismissal is due to 75 per cent. decrease of traffic and 25 per cent. amalgamation, what attitude, I ask him, would he take up in a case like that and what compensation would he allow to the individual? If the Minister insists on the retention of this section, worded as it is at present, then he can take it from me that he may as well admit to the House that he is confiscating, wilfully and knowingly, the rights of the railwaymen, rights which they secured when the original schedule was passed. That is the sum and substance of the case that we put up from this side of the House. I think that the Minister should accept suitable wording which would enable the arbitrator who is to be appointed by the Chief Justice and who cannot be assumed to be on our side— who will not be on our side—to decide cases coming before him on their merits. I think we have reason for assuming that it was because of the insertion of words of this kind that the arbitrator resigned. I can tell the Minister, because I know, that the arbitrator has resigned, and I am not surprised that any legal man would refuse to undertake a job of deciding as to whether an individual was redundant or not when he is put in the peculiar position that the Minister places him in by insisting on words of this kind being inserted.
There is too much of the dictatorial kind of legislation introduced by Ministers into this House. Judges and others—the arbitrator is a judge to a certain extent—acting in the courts of justice are very often put in the position, by reason of laws passed through this House, that when a case comes before them for hearing they have only to read out section so and so of a certain Act, and that decides the case. An individual working on the Shannon scheme at 32/- a week, if able to read could do the same thing. If that is all that is required there is no necessity for the high salaries that are being paid and that is one means that might, perhaps, be selected for effecting economy. I ask the Minister seriously to reconsider this whole matter. While we may agree that Deputy Doyle's amendment is a slight improvement, and only a slight improvement, on the original wording of the section as it stands, it is still entirely unacceptable to the railwaymen. If it is passed by the House it will be accepted by us as a deliberate confiscation of the rights that the railwaymen secured under the original schedule to the 1924 Act.
I desire to associate myself with the plea made by Deputy Davin that judges should be paid less than a trade union wage. I would like a little information from the Minister. There were certain railway directors who became redundant under the amalgamation of the railways. That redundancy might be held to be due to a reduction of traffic or to the fact that the traffic that was being carried could not maintain the number of directors that it had maintained in the past. Could the Minister tell us if these directors received any terms of compensation, and if so, can he give a reason why similar terms of compensation, as is contemplated in Deputy Doyle's amendment, should not be given to the workers on the railways? If the directors received compensation, it is not unfair to say that the worker should also receive compensation.
In reply to the last speaker, Deputy Doyle's amendment has no relation whatever to the scale of compensation. There is no scale of compensation laid down in any part of this amendment. I am not an arbitrator or a court of law to decide as to whether the pensions paid to certain people fall within a certain Act, or have been properly granted. There are other methods of testing that. I do not want now to be judging this matter, and I do not want to lay down my position on the points put up by Deputy Davin and by Deputy Johnson. We have had the phrase reiterated that this is confiscation. It is confiscation in this sense, and I hope it will be understood to be confiscation in this sense, that it is going to prevent any claims such as that brought forward by Deputy Johnson being allowed, a bald definite claim that the number of railway servants must be stereotyped, and that the amalgamated company is not going to have the rights that the unassociated elements of that company had prior to amalgamation. It has been said here that we are repealing the Principal Act, in so far as we are refusing to accept that idea, that the number of railway servants were to be stereotyped. I say definitely I am out to repeal any Act which was supposed to have set that up as a standard. When I mentioned that as the standard on the Second Reading Deputy Davin disclaimed it, and said no one put forward such a claim.
We never put it forward in the case of the British amalgamation, and how did it work out there?
It was never claimed by Deputy Davin or his trade union.
It was not.
But Deputy Johnson put it forward in this House, and the Deputy repeated it several times with regard to stereotyping the number of officials.
I say there is no need to stereotype the number of officials, but that if we get rid of them we should compensate them.
That is the same thing as stereotyping them, at least to this extent: if you reduce the number of servants in the employment of the different railway companies at the date of amalgamation compensation must be paid in every such case.
The Minister knows men have been dismissed since the amalgamation and before amalgamation while only a few of their cases have been taken before the arbitrator and claims made for compensation.
Then Deputy Davin had better address his arguments to Deputy Johnson. Deputy Johnson has now made the claim that you should stereotype the number of employees as at the date of amalgamation, and if you reduce it to anything below that number those who have been dispensed with would be entitled to claim compensation.
I must state my position clearly. It is that in any reduction of staffs due to the operations of this Act the men dispensed with should be compensated, and if that involves stereotyping, then stereotype. If you are going to dispense with servants because of the operation of the Act, and because of the operation of the fixing of rates, then there is a liability upon the railway companies to compensate the men who were dismissed.
That is getting away from the point I have mentioned. At any rate, I think the Deputy not merely stated that the number should be stereotyped, but he repeated it in an interjection. I am not now arguing this point put up by the Deputy. Let it be understood that there never was any intention so to stereotype the number of railway servants that any reduction in their number should lead to a claim for compensation. That may or may not be accepted by Deputy Johnson or by Deputy Davin, but that is the clear-cut position. I take it that that never was mentioned, and it never entered the minds of the people who framed the original Act that that was the position, that you should stereotype the number and if you lessened that number there was a claim for compensation against the railway company. Let me move on to Deputy Johnson's latest assertion that if redundancy is due to the operation of the Act, if men are dismissed—I am quoting from certain points I took down, but I do not suggest he put the argument so bluntly —because of the operations of the Act the men who were dismissed should get compensation. The aim of the Act was to ensure the more efficient and economical working of the railway system. If by the introduction of improved methods you secure a more efficient working of the railway system and people become redundant, the Deputy claims you should compensate them, and if because of the working of the Railway Act someone has been rendered redundant a claim for compensation follows. That never was intended. There was no question of taking a decrease of traffic, a reduction of renewals or maintenance work, or the introduction of improved methods, as giving rise to a claim for compensation if redundancy occurred through these causes.
Not by you, perhaps.
It is for the House to decide what was their intention, or what is now their intention with regard to the future. Are they going to say the railway company should not have the right any company had prior to amalgamation that these men could, following upon the introduction of improved methods, be dismissed without a claim for compensation? That is the position that the House is asked by my amendment to take up. The things are explicitly stated and by Deputy Doyle's amendment they are not even ruled out.
I can quite understand Deputy Davin's statement of Deputy Doyle's amendment—that it is only a slight improvement. What he should certainly advance to is that yon should have a claim for compensation wherever a man becomes redundant and is dismissed, no matter what it is due to. I should apologise there; it was not Deputy Davin's point but Deputy Johnson's. Then there is a further fallacy in Deputy Johnson's argument. Deputy Davin has made the distinction he generally does when he speaks of me in relation to a certain profession. He always says quite suddenly that I am a member of the legal profession; he never refers to me as a lawyer. Apparently the arbitrator will be spoken of in that way too. The arbitrator will be also a member of the legal profession. He will be, apparently, the same type of member of the legal profession as I am in Deputy Davin's eyes.
I did not say there was anything wrong about you.
Deputy Johnson's point is: "It is always possible for the company to say..." It is possible for them to say a great many things. What is to be looked to in this Bill is what can the company prove to the satisfaction of the arbitrator, who, as well as being a member of the legal profession, will be, we hope, a lawyer. The proof is the important thing. It is not a fact that the benefit is really with the company and always against the men. The fact of the matter is that by throwing all onus of proof on the railway company the residue in the case is in favour of the men. You start with the onus of proof thrown on the railway company. That means that until the railway company establishes its case the men have the benefit. That is the position set up and we set out certain things which, to my mind, are implicit in what was in the British Act. We set them up explicity. What has to be considered is: does anybody allege any of these explicit things we set out here is an injustice to the men if proved against them and results in no compensation being payable to them?
What is the case of the man involved in the fifty-fifty proposition?
A member of the legal profession would have to decide that. There again the benefit is really with the men. If the company does not prove that a servant has become unnecessary in consequence of a change of administration, due directly to amalgamation or absorption of companies, and not caused by a decrease of traffic or a reduction of renewal or maintenance work and so on, the fifty-fifty case would go to the man.
Or for economic causes?
Certainly—or for economic causes. I can meet Deputy Johnson's points quite clearly on those matters, with the definite point of view of the Railways Act of 1924 showing that a man should be compensated if he were removed from service by reason of some economic cause and not by absorption or amalgamation—redundancy due to the operation of the principal Act. I do not know how far that is going to drag us. I take the simple point that I referred to on the last day, that in the first year of amalgamation there has been a decrease of fifteen million ton miles in the matter of traffic. I wonder is that due to the operation of the Railways Act? If it is not, it is due to a decrease of traffic. It is asserted the railway company should compensate men rendered redundant and for whom they have no use because they have fifteen million ton miles less traffic than they had when they employed the men previously? Is it expected there should be compensation payable because of that decrease of traffic?
Deputy Davin says we have put the arbitrator in a peculiar position, and we are more or less insulting his intelligence because we give him certain rules for his guidance. Is Deputy Davin going to hold that in regard to all legislation which embodies necessary details, or should legislation passed in this House, in order to avoid hurting the feelings of judges, embrace just a series of general principles? Is it necessary that we should point out we could have gone into details but we feared it might put the judges or arbitrators in an awkward position, and it might be considered they would not understand what was meant? According to the Deputy's idea, we are not to put it explicity to the arbitrator that one reason is a decrease of traffic; we should rather put it in some vague way and point out to the arbitrator that, all the relevant circumstances being taken into consideration, we did not desire to insult him by setting them out in detail or by having the suspicion that he might not be able to understand our intentions. I suppose Deputy Davin means that it would be an insult to the arbitrator to tell him that if dismissal is due to a decrease of traffic, then there is to be no compensation. I think we will take the risk of offending whatever arbitrator is appointed and we will give him explicit directions.
So there is a vacancy then?
I do not know where Deputy Davin got hold of it, but I think I already announced to the secretary of a particular trades union that there was a vacancy. Deputy Davin came to deal with sub-section (d). After a case for compensation has been proved, when you come to determine the amount of compensation you take into consideration all the circumstances of the case, which is a very different thing from saying that the proving of the case for compensation does take all the circumstances into consideration. I say we are quite right in being explicit as to what this House means and we should say definitely that dismissal due to a decrease of traffic is not a reason for compensation.
Nobody claimed that.
Then nobody can object to putting it in as a bar to compensation that, if decrease of traffic be proved to be the case, there shall be no compensation. Can there be any objection to putting in a reduction of renewal or maintenance work?
Yes.
If the company find it is not necessary to do as much renewal or maintenance work as it previously did, and if it finds that prior to amalgamation it could have dismissed men without any cause of complaint, and if it now finds there is a necessity for a reduction of renewal or maintenance work but that they cannot dismiss a man without being mulcted in compensation, what is the position? Let us have the case made on each of these items. As regards the introduction of improved methods of work, there have been several cases decided, I believe, if you take into consideration not the Saorstát but the situation in England.
With regard to economic causes, is it the wish of the House that if a man is dismissed from the service of the railway company because of the operation of some economic causes proved by the railway company to have been the cause and reason for the dismissal, there should be compensation paid when the dismissal comes about? That is quite explicit. The other thing is very vague; it sets up the old condition. Being explicit in this section, we simply give the new amalgamated company all the rights other companies had prior to amalgamation. I refer to the rights they had and that were given to them, enabling them to adjust their situation to economic necessities and to whatever were the classes of railway transport at a particular time.
I quite realise that there is a fundamental difference between the Minister and me on this matter. The Minister wants to put into legislation what is assumed by him to be the general will, that any change in industrial methods or processes may be made, and quite rightly made, at the expense of the workmen who are being displaced. I take a directly opposite view. I take the view that to encourage improvement in methods of working, of administrative machinery and the ordinary organisation of industry, and to improve these methods and to encourage workmen of all kinds to assist in that improvement, we should not face them with the proposition that as soon as these improvements have taken place they will be thrown aside without compensation. We set up machinery by the Railways Act. We said: "Amalgamate your companies. Improve your methods generally." Advance your scheme of organisation, and in the doing of it, if you have to dismiss and dispense with workmen, they shall not be the sufferers but shall be compensated on the score of your improvements." That is the position I frankly take up. If yon are going, by legislation, to compel railway companies to produce more efficient transport machinery you ought not to do that at the expense of the workingmen, and if you are going to dismiss workers by reason of the improvement in the transportation machinery, these workmen must receive compensation. That is my position quite frankly. The Minister says: "No; you can improve the machinery, get rid of the men employed hitherto, and you can leave them aside with no compensation."
There is a fundamental difference between our relative positions. I am trying to ensure to the best of my ability the retention of the principle embodied in the 1924 Act which was that if in the working out of this improved scheme of transportation men are to be dismissed and dispensed with, the company can make their economies but the men are not to suffer. You must compensate them for their loss. You will not be paying them as much in compensation as in wages and, therefore, you will be economising, but your economies shall not be at the expense of the workmen to the degree contemplated by the Minister now.
The Minister seems to forget in his whole argument that the original Act secures to the company a standard revenue, and you compensate your workmen who are found redundant. But now we are told the workmen may be dismissed without compensation if the company can persuade the arbitrator that economic causes or improvements in methods of working, or reduction of the expenditure on renewals were the real reason why these men should be dismissed. But the railways company are still to be entitled to charge the public sufficient rates on goods to maintain their standard revenue.
Now, I have not ever, so far as I know—certainly not deliberately—suggested that reduction due to a decline in traffic would entitle a man to compensation. I have not contended that at all. When we come to deal with a question of that kind we have got to put the man's claim upon the community, not upon the railway company. But those other factors which may definitely and clearly come from the operations of the Act—economies due to amalgamation, economies that the company have taken in hand, because of the decline in revenue owing to the reduction of rates, the refusal to do certain maintenance work, to do certain renewal work, because they say their revenue has declined because of the reduction of rates—all these are directly due to the operation of the Act, and my contention is that compensation is clearly due to the men under these heads. But if the House takes the view of the Minister then it is another invitation to the workmen in this industry, as in every other industry, to refuse to assist in the better organisation of industry, because the direct consequence of the Minister's advocacy is that they will be thrown out of work and consequently they should impede —it is blind but it is natural and inevitable—these improvements in organisation because the immediate effect is to penalise the men on whom the economy is to be founded. I say that your whole scheme is one that invites workmen in all sections of the community to impede improvements in organisation because the cost of these improvements is, in the first case, going to be borne by the workmen themselves. That is the proposition that the Minister invites the Committee to concede.
I feel compelled for the sake of accuracy to put both the Minister and the Committee right, and to put on record the fact that the claim has never been made by the railwaymen or their representatives for the stereotyping of a certain number of permanent employees. The Minister knows quite well that the working of a station or a depot must depend upon the employment of a minimum number of employees, and an increase in the minimum number will depend upon the extent to which the traffic increases or decreases. There cannot be, in the working of any depot, a fixed maximum. For that purpose the railway companies, Irish and British, have always employed a certain number of temporary employees. Take the case of the Irish railways when the eight-hour day, about which we heard so much both inside and outside the House, came into operation. Undoubtedly, the Irish railway companies, now the Great Southern, had to employ an additional number of men to those normally employed previous to the coming into operation of the eight-hour day. A huge number of men they took into their service at that particular time were never permanently appointed. Would the Minister believe that since the passing of the Railways Act of 1924, or rather its coming into operation, about 2,000 employees of the Great Southern Railways Company have been dismissed from the service? Will he tell the Committee how many cases have been brought before the arbitrator by these individuals for compensation? I cannot quote correctly the number, but I would be surprised if more than a hundred cases were put before the arbitrator for compensation. The Minister should give us the facts.
I asked the Minister in July or August last how many employees were in the employment of the Great Southern Company on the coming into operation of the Act, and how many of those were now in the employment of the company, and how many were working short time. He gave the figures then. I asked him later for similar figures, and he said they were not in his possession. He probably thought I was going to make use of that, if I had got it, for the official records of the House in a debate of this kind. If the Minister has made any inquiries into the working of the Great Southern railways, as I think it was his business to do before bringing in this Bill, he should have the figures at his fingers' ends, and could refute my figures by quoting the correct ones. Can he give the number of men employed on the Great Southern railways on the 1st January, 1925, and the number employed on 1st January, 1926? If he does it will be quite clear to him that 2,000 men, and probably more, have been dismissed. Will the Minister, at the same time, give us the number of cases that went before the arbitrator? They may have been, and probably were, dismissed as a result of the decrease of traffic. Cases were never brought before the arbitrator on behalf of temporary employees—and, presumably, the majority of these were temporary—for compensation under the Act. These are the facts as I know them. Let the Minister quote the figures and the House will know who is right and who is wrong. I am supervising a number of men working at a certain depot. The number normally would run to close on 100 employees, but of these there are only 56 permanent employees. The numbers increase and decrease. At any rate the number will not fall below 56. An increase or decrease will be effected by the traffic passing in and out of the depot. Can the Minister contradict that?
I do not know what the Deputy is driving at. He says that a number of those dismissed have not lodged claims for compensation. I readily admit that.
I am refuting your argument. You tried to show that the railwaymen were demanding a stereotyped number of men being employed by the company. I say that is wrong, and if you acquaint yourself with the figures of the amalgamated company you will find I am stating the facts.
I had referred to the Deputy's retort on Second Reading that such a contention was never made. I was referring Deputy Johnson to that remark. I think Deputy Johnson was making that contention.
It does not matter to me what the Minister thought Deputy Johnson said. I do not think Deputy Johnson went as far as the Minister assumes, and I think it is right to put it on the records of the House so that the Minister can, if he has an opportunity, refute it. Take Kingsbridge goods depot. I am sorry to have to detain the House, but I think an explanation is necessary. In the summer time, when traffic would be normal, there would be, say, 1,000 men employed, while in winter or at the present time, when traffic is not actually normal, there might be only 750 employed there. When traffic would increase or decrease the company would have to re-employ or dispense with hands. The new hands will be temporarily employed and the company can dispense with them any time they think right. The union cannot put forward on behalf of these men any claim for compensation before the arbitrator. I am putting these facts on record for the information of the Minister and he can make any case he likes to refute them, if he still persists in saying that we stand for the permanent employment of all who were employed in pre-amalgamation days. That is not so and never was so. As far as I know, that case is not likely to be put forward at any time. I did not catch whether the Minister, when he stood up to reply, accepted an amendment moved by Deputy Doyle.
No.
If the Minister had said that I would be very glad not to have to listen to all this debate on Section 4.
Certainly, it is no exaggeration to say that we look upon the elimination of these provisions as depriving railwaymen who may be redundant in the future of any compensation whatsoever. Redundancy, if I understand it correctly, means the permanent abolition of a post now or previously held by a certain individual and as a consequence the person concerned would be entitled to the benefit of the Act passed by the Oireachtas. I heard Deputy Gorey saying a few moments ago "Hear, hear" to what the Minister said, that wrongs only now appearing to the Minister should be righted. That is quite true, but after all I put it to Deputy Gorey that it is a reflection on himself and his colleagues that they did not detect the wrongs when the Bill was going through the Dáil.
That was Deputy Davin's business as much as Deputy Gorey's.
It was the duty of the leader of the Farmers' Party, with the legal advice that I am sure they had at their disposal, to correct the Minister in the interests of the railway users, who are the farmers. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider the drafting of this section. Without going into reasons, I think it was made clear at the conference that this was the real trouble in the Bill. I appeal to the Minister to see if he cannot accommodate us in this matter by leaving a discretion to the arbitrator, whoever he may be, the same as is left in the British Act. The British Act works smoothly, as the Minister has admitted, and to the mutual advantage of the people concerned.
I understood the Minister to give some assurance in the case of a man whose dismissal was brought about partly by amalgamation and partly by other causes. I would like if the Minister repeated what he is prepared to do in that particular matter.
Deputy Davin has asked me to leave something to the discretion of the arbitrator. I want to examine him on that point, if I may do so through you, A Chinn Comhairle. Is it to be left to the discretion of the arbitrator—I put the strongest case, from my own point of view, first—in a case where redundancy is proved to have been due to decrease of traffic, whether that man should get compensation or not? Should the arbitrator have a discretion in a clearlyproved case of redundancy, due to decrease of traffic, as to whether he should award compensation or not?
I say the whole question of redundancy should be left to the arbitrator during the hearing of the case. When the case has been presented by the individual who claims compensation, arising out of alleged or real redundancy and the case has been presented by the company on the other side, the arbitrator should certainly have the discretion he had under the British Act.
I shall put it to the House that it is not right to leave to the discretion of the arbitrator the question whether or not he should give compensation to a man whose dismissal is clearly proved to have been due to decrease of traffic.
I did not say that.
I am not saying the Deputy said that. I am asking the House to agree with me that in such a case—dismissal clearly proved to be due to decrease of traffic—there should be no discretion with regard to awarding compensation. There should be no compensation in such a case.
Let me take Deputy Johnson's point, that there may be maintenance work that the company have had to give up because of reduced receipts. "Because of reduced receipts" is put in to weigh the argument in a certain way.
Would the Minister finish the sentence—"owing to reduction of rates."
I said "because of reduced receipts."
"Because of reduction of rates." The railways company contend that certain dismissals are taking place because of loss of revenue owing to reduction of rates. That is a direct consequence of the Act.
If the rates were not reduced, there would be a loss of traffic.
Certainly.
I deny that.
I come to what I call Deputy Johnson's "most frivolous point," raised on Second Reading— that a reduction in rates has led to reduced traffic, or, if Deputy Johnson likes to have it put in this way, that it has led to reduced traffic receipts. Against that you must put the consideration "Would there have been more or less traffic if the rates had been kept at their old level?"
They would not have been altered.
Let us take the facts. The Railway Tribunal insisted on certain reductions in rates. I wonder if the Deputy knows—and if he does know, can he state the reason for the occurrence—that the railway company has, in many cases, reduced rates beyond the reduction the Railway Tribunal imposed upon them? That was done owing to the necessity of keeping traffic from leaving them.
Would the Minister say if it is not a fact that, as a result of the reduction below the figure allowed by the Railway Tribunal in the case of the Dublin South-Eastern section of the Great Southern Railways. the passenger receipts were increased by £1,000 per month last year?
As far as I understand the point made by the Deputy, it is a reply to Deputy Johnson's argument. I put it definitely to Deputy Johnson that the railway company has, in many cases, reduced rates beyond what the Railway Tribunal imposed on them; that they did that to keep traffic on the rail-road which would otherwise have gone to the roads and that it cannot be alleged that reduction of rates has been the cause of their giving up maintenance works.
They do allege it.
If the Deputy takes one side of the railway company's argument and fails to have regard to the second side, he can of course make an allegation like that. But the railway company directors at their meeting said that the economy effected had balanced any reduced receipts, through reduced rates, and that in so far as there were any further reduced receipts beyond that, it was due to decrease in traffic—and that, although the railway company had reduced their rates below what the Tribunal imposed upon them in order to keep traffic on their system. Deputy Johnson argues that because there was imposed on the railway company a certain reduction of rates that that led to reduced receipts and to reduced maintenance work. He takes no account of the reduced traffic. I could equally ignore the reduction of the rates and say it was entirely due to reduced traffic, which the reduction of rates failed to keep on the railway system, that there had to be any reduction of maintenance or renewal work. I could say that equally well with Deputy Johnson ignoring, as he does in case of the railways company, the other side of the argument. But both matters enter into it. The reduction of traffic is a thing that cannot be blinked at. There is a very serious reduction of traffic. If that traffic had gone off the railway system prior to amalgamation there would undoubtedly have been a reduction of maintenance and renewal work. There would have been men dismissed, and these men would have had no claim for compensation. We sought to put the amalgamated companies vis-á-vis, in those circumstances, as they would have been prior to amalgamation. That is the simple case.
I now come to the second point. Are you going to say that where a case is clearly proved to have resulted from the reduction of renewal or maintenance work compensation should be paid? The railway company is not going to give up what it considers the ordinary amount of renewal or maintenance work. There has to be a certain amount of renewal and maintenance work carried out year by year. They are not going to have their whole system affected injuriously in years to come for the sake of getting rid of a certain number of men. If the case is clearly proved that there has been a dismissal and that the dismissal is due to that particular item—reduction of renewal or maintenance work—I hold, and I ask the House to hold with me, that there is no reason for compensation. There is a proviso—"Other than methods which would not have been feasible for the amalgamating or absorbed company by which the officer or servant was formerly employed or other economic cause." That is the simple position the House has to vote on. Do they think that where a man's dismissal was caused by economic cause he ought to get compensation?
I am not going to enter on Deputy Johnson's theoretic argument as to whether or not improvement should be effected at the sacrifice of employees. I simply say we had a particular system in operation before amalgamation. We set out to carry that forward with regard to the amalgamated company. We said that anything due to amalgamation or absorption causing redundancy should have the effect of bringing compensation, but that outside that —redundancy or absorption causing redundancy—there should be no compensation; that the united companies should have no further obligations in respect of compensation than the unamalgamated elements had prior to amalgamation. I am glad the Deputy made the point I should have made, that proprietors' dividends do not enter into this matter. This is a question between the railway user and the railway employee. Is the railway user to pay increased rates for the compensation of people dismissed under the operation of economic causes, or is he not?
Deputy Norton has asked me again with regard to this "fifty-fifty" case. I am not going to take any further steps with regard to this fifty-fifty case than are shown here. The railway company has imposed on it the onus of proving and establishing to the satisfaction of the arbitrator that the redundancy—if I may put in a comprehensive word—is due directly to the amalgamation and absorption of the companies, and is not caused by decrease of traffic. If there were a "fifty-fifty" case, and if I might presume to be in the position of arbitrator for the time being, I should say that the company had not proved its case. But I cannot say what the arbitrator will say in the matter. That is one of the things we must leave to the discretion of the arbitrator.
Am I to take it from Section 2 that the obligation of proof is on the man that his dismissal is due directly to amalgamation or absorption?
No. The railway company have to supply the proof. The onus of proof is on the railway company the whole time. At least I have attempted to ensure this. I do not know what is going to happen to the amendment that is down. The amendment down would have the effect of making line 33 read: "and not shown by the amalgamated company to have been caused by decrease of traffic," and so on. If there is what the Deputy describes as a "fifty-fifty" case, it will be for the arbitrator to decide how far the company have made good their claim.
The section reads: "On account of their services having become unnecessary in consequence of changes of administration due directly to amalgamation." Has the man imposed upon him by that particular form of words an obligation to prove that his dismissal is due directly to amalgamation and absorption?
I should say not.
Who is to prove it, then?
The man makes a claim that his dismissal is due directly to amalgamation or absorption of the companies affected by or under the principal Act. The railway company have to rebut that, and they have to rebut it by showing that it is caused by decrease of traffic and so on. If they do not show that, the claim obviously will stand.
I should like to ask the Minister if he is in a position to justify the inclusion of this particular phrase "the reduction or renewal of maintenance work," and if the company are carrying out their obligation in that respect at the moment, having regard to the fact that they admitted in the report last year that they held over a large portion of the repair work for reserve, that the men at the moment are working only four days a week, that there is a considerable number of failures in rolling stock, and that the railway is anything but in as good a position as a railway should be, and having regard to the fact that they ought to look forward to a number of years' improvement in rolling stock?
I am not sufficiently versed in the intricacies of railway management to reply to that. I think the railway management are in this dilemma: that they must show to the satisfaction of the general proprietors, the shareholders, at the annual meeting, that the system is kept in a good condition, and that they had paid sufficient attention to renewal and maintenance work.
How do they show the shareholders?
Obviously, if sufficient money is not spent on renewal or maintenance work it is going to show in some disaster on the line. They cannot afford to neglect the maintenance of the system, and leave the line running as if the repairs were going on in the ordinary way. They are in the hands of the proprietors. They have to justify the absence of the percentage of money ordinarily set aside for repairs and maintenance. As a matter of fact, as far as I can remember from the latest accounts, there was an abnormal percentage of their receipts given to maintenance and repair work, not merely abnormal for this country, but abnormal in relation to railway work in England.
Has the Minister a comparative figure for recent years?
I have figures. One of the points actually examined was as to how far they were spending too much money on renewal and maintenance work, and I think they will find some difficulty, if the proprietors like to look into the matter, in proving that they have not been spending too much money on this work or else they will have to give an explanation about it. There is a possible explanation that it is due to the fact that there was not sufficient attention paid to this work for a number of years past, and that they are now making up arrears in that respect. The railway company is in the position that this is a thing that cannot be trifled with. They have either to spend enough money on renewals or repairs or allow the line to get into disrepair. They are not going to carry on long until some decisive and startling disaster occurs. I am not able to answer here as to how the management are carrying out their duties to the shareholders and to the railway users. As I say, it is a thing that should be left to the arbitrator, to decide that a dismissal some time in the future is clearly proved to have been due to a reduction of maintenance work. If so, there is no reason for compensation.
Will the Government accept the arbitrator's decision in all cases?
Once the Bill leaves my hands I have no control over the arbitrator.
Will you bring in any further Bill?
Not unless there are further defects.
I am anxious to get the Minister's interpretation of the fifty-fifty case. My reading of the section is that the man has got to show that his services have been dispensed with on account of their having become unnecessary in consequence of changes of administration, due directly to the amalgamation and absorption of companies. Putting a layman's interpretation on that. I think that the onus is imposed on the man of showing that the dismissal is brought about directly by or is directly due to amalgamation. I would like the Minister to indicate where or because of what form of words that onus of proof is not on the man. I would like him, if he cannot answer me off-hand, to consult the Parliamentary draftsman to see if it is clear, and if not that he would make it more clear than it appears to me.
The Minister talks about a very large sum of money spent on maintenance work last year. I had some figures here some time ago—I have not got them now—that would throw some light on the statement the Minister refers to. One thing that would make it very difficult to follow the statement from the point of view the Minister talks of, is that with regard to the expenditure of any Department previous to amalgamation, there were no comparative figures. I imagine that it would be very hard for the Minister, acting on the information that he could get from that statement, to come to a definite conclusion. I realise now the folly of pursuing this thing if the Minister does not give any indication of what he is prepared to do or whether he is prepared to give any accommodation in this matter. I want to find out from him whether he is prepared now or at a later stage of this Bill—certainly before the Bill leaves the Dáil— to furnish the House with a statement showing the number of employees on 1st January, 1925, and the latest available figures. He can get the figures for the last pay day. They are always available at Kingsbridge. He can also get the number of cases submitted to the arbitrator before he resigned, so that the House will be in a position to judge the number dismissed for any cause whatsoever and the number of cases brought before the arbitrator. I think if the Minister furnished the House with that information—which he can get if he has not already got it— he will put the House in a position to judge what the effect of the original Act was on the revenue of the company.
I do not know what the information Deputy Davin referred to is required for.
To disprove the statement you have made to the House.
What statement?
With regard to stereotyping the number of permanent employees.
I have stated that Deputy Johnson has advanced from the point of view which you so decisively rejected on the Second Reading. I then said that I was going to put it to the House that they should not stand for that whether it is alleged or not. I have still my rights to put it to the House that they should not stand for that contention. Irrespective of whether that is put forward or not I would like to see the Official Report, just to find how near Deputy Johnson went. I am not alleging that he went to the full point, but I would like to find how close he went. Anybody who will read the debates on the Second Reading will see that Deputy Norton advanced an argument which by implication—I do not say it was explicitly stated—led to that. I have seen no indication that the Dáil requires this information, but I can ask the railway company to furnish it. I do not think I could enforce a demand that they should give me any information, and I do not think that it would be of any value to the Dáil at the moment.
Do I take it that the Minister refuses to ask for the information?
I do not. I say that if there is any indication given by the House that it will help I will get it. There has not been any indication, and I do not think it would be worth while going to the trouble.
The Minister will realise that no member of his party spoke on the Second Reading of the debate, and I am sure he is not going to get any pressure from them.
That only points to the conclusion that they are already satisfied on the matter. I might say, only I hesitate at the consequences of the statement, that if the Labour Deputies do not stand up and argue against this Bill they will have to be accused of being in favour of it. I think that is a wrong assumption altogether. Deputy Norton might address his question to a legal gentleman.
I am addressing my query to a member of the legal profession.
I can only put it this way. It seems to me that the ordinary progress will be that the railway employee will allege dismissal. That is a thing that is easily proved. He will claim that his dismissal is due to changes of administration due directly and solely to the amalgamation and absorption of companies affected by the 1924 Act. Immediately arises the question: is it caused by anything else? There is a definite, direct onus thrown on the railway company of proving that it is caused by these other things. I should say that the next step would be that the arbitrator would call on the railway company to prove that the dismissal was due to those things that are mentioned.
Is the Minister not throwing any onus upon the applicant to prove that his dismissal is directly due to the amalgamation and absorption of companies? How is he going to prove that?
I think what happens is that the applicant claims. I am not speaking now on any legal advice, but from what I remember from text-book law. Without "putting in this phrase" the onus is on the railway company, they being in a superior position, having books and documents in their possession, by the ordinary rule of evidence the onus would be thrown on them.
You will accept Deputy Norton's amendment then?
By no means. Deputy Norton's amendment goes far beyond what is imposed by the ordinary law of evidence. But I should say that the railway company is bound to be in the position of having to prove this, and, being in the superior position, the arbitrator would immediately turn to them.
I do not like to interrupt the Minister, but would the arbitrator accept that if it was not in the Act? What you are saying now is not in the Act.
Can you show anything in the Bill that proves that the onus is placed on the man?
That is not the position.
Is it stated anywhere that the man must prove that his dismissal is due directly to anything?
The Minister talks of the law of evidence. I do not know very much about it, but my understanding is that the plaintiff makes his case. If he is making a case he must show, according to this proposition. that his dismissal is due directly to amalgamation.
The onus is thrown, if you like, on the person making the case, but where one person is in a definitely superior position to the other the person in the superior position has to prove the case. The onus rests on the person in the superior position.
Is the Minister refusing to give the figures I asked for?
I have not got them.
I asked him that before the Bill reached its Final Stage he should get the information. I do not know anything about the work of the company, but I believe that they could give the information to-morrow.
So as to put this thing beyond doubt may I suggest to the Minister that he should make the section read: "Shown by the railway company to be directly due"?
That is a very dangerous thing, because if the railway company did not show that it was directly due to the amalgamation and absorption the man might lose his case. You are throwing on the railway company the task of proving the man's case.
The task of proving that it is due to something else.
You have thrown on the railway company the task of proving it is due to something else. The Deputy now wants to add in that they must show that the dismissal was due to amalgamation and absorption. If you leave it as it is, it is obvious that the man claims that and the company must then show that it is caused by these other things. As we amended this second section, things which the railway company would naturally be in a position to prove should be proved by them. I should say that if they fail to prove that, the claim stands. I cannot go beyond stating my belief.
The Committee divided: Tá, 17; Níl, 45.
Tá.
- Seán Buitléir.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- William Norton.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
Níl.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Thomas Bolger.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- John J. Cole.
- John Conlan.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceoil.
- Seán de Faoite.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Parthalán O Conchubhair.
- Conchubhar O Conghaile.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Seán O Duinnín.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- Connor Hogan.
- Liam Mac Cosgair.
- Seán MacCurtain.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Patrick McKenna.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Donnchadh O Guaire.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Luimneach).
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Andrew O'Shaughnessy.
- Seán Príomhdhall.
- Liam Thrift.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Morrissey and Norton. Níl: Deputies Dolan and Sears.
Amendment not moved.
Amendment 3.—In sub-section (1), lines 30 to 38, to delete all words from "on account of" to "other economic cause" inclusive.—(Mr. Davin.)
Amendment 3 is not in order.
I move:—
In sub-section (1), line 32, to delete the words "directly and solely."
The Minister has already agreed to delete the word "solely," but I think he might have gone still further and included "directly." Qualifying words of this kind very often lead to a great many difficulties, and I think that the Minister would be well advised to accept the amendment.
I have very little to say on this, except that I think the use of the word "directly" is necessary in order to obviate claims that might be pressed, where a claim could conceivably be made that in some way or other the dismissal was due to amalgamation. I am speaking now definitely and clearly in the interests of the railway users. I do not see why the railway users should be called on to pay higher freights because the amalgamated company had to compensate men whose dismissal was due to some reason other than directly to amalgamation and absorption. The thing to be compensated for is dismissal due directly to amalgamation, and I do not see that railway users should be penalised through the payment of compensation to men who can claim, in some way or other, in some indirect fashion, in some far-fetched fashion, that their dismissal was due to amalgamation.
I can see frequent possibilities of men putting up claims that their dismissal is due indirectly to amalgamation. It may be contended by the company that it is not due directly to amalgamation, or the company may so arrange things that it shall not be directly due to amalgamation. But if the man can show that it is indirectly due to amalgamation he will have no compensation, and again we are put in the position we were in before, that the man has got to show. I contend that under the section as it stands a man will have to show that his dismissal was due directly to amalgamation, and I am as confident as I am of anything that the company, if it desires, will be able to bring about the position that it was only indirectly due to amalgamation, and then there will be no compensation whatever.
The position that the Minister is putting us into will be something like this: If a man succeeds in showing that his dismissal is due directly, but not absolutely, to amalgamation, and the company says that the dismissal is due to a reduction of traffic, each will be partly right. Then the man will not get his compensation because the company will be able to show that the reduction of traffic is a factor. I cannot understand the position that the Minister is taking up, if he wants to deal fairly with the railwaymen. He is placing a weapon in the hands of the company that will be capable of being used very effectively to deprive the men of any compensation whatever, and those who vote for the Minister's position in any of these proposals are simply telling the railwaymen that they have gone back upon their promises of 1924 and are insisting that the company shall be in a position to dismiss men at their pleasure, without regard to any question of compensation, because under the Minister's proposals the company will be able to say that there were other causes, and the man will have to prove that his dismissal is directly due to amalgamation. I support the amendment because at any rate it is one obstacle in the way of the company taking advantage of the position in which the Minister wants to place them.
I desire to support this amendment, because I believe there is very little use in the Minister moving the elimination of the words "and solely" if he does not be consistent, and also move the deletion of the word "directly." I presume that the Minister is aware that in the ordinary course of the conditions of employment railwaymen are obliged to go to whatever depot or office they are required to work at. In other words, their conditions of service mean that they have to go wherever they are sent and whenever they are sent, and to carry out any orders given to them. For instance, if the company wanted to take advantage, as I am sure they will, of the wording of the amendment they can remove a man from Kingsbridge to Ballincollig, or Ballinamuck, or Timbuctoo, or the Cork goods office in the case of a goods clerk, knowing that in that case they could prove a decrease of traffic in Cork, and automatically on those grounds dismiss that clerk without compensation. I believe that that will go on wholesale, and the Minister is absolutely playing into the hands of the officials of the company to enable them to do this; and I can assure him that the officials are quite capable of doing it, and will take all possible advantage of the Bill to bring about dismissals.
Is the Deputy referring to a decrease in goods traffic from Cork to Dublin, or of passenger traffic?
I was referring to the Cork goods offices, where the staff is wholly engaged in the manipulation of goods traffic. On the other hand, as Deputy Cooper knows, there may be a case made for that man's removal, even in the case of the Cork passenger department, because of the decrease in traffic owing to the number of Corkmen coming up to Government Buildings and getting permanent positions, so that there would be no necessity for their continuing to travel up and down the line. I put it to the Minister seriously that there is a big loophole in the amending Bill which will give the company the right to bring about removals in the personnel of the staffs and to prove to the satisfaction of the arbitrator, under the wording of the amending Bill, that a man can be dismissed owing to a decrease in traffic, whereas if he were left in his original position he would not become redundant and could not be dismissed. In that way they can bring about wholesale removals and can penalise people, and that very clearly can be done by leaving this word "directly" in the amending Bill.
I feel considerable difficulty about this amending Bill, and it arises in this way. The original Act laid down certain procedure for dealing with the staffs. That Act after a short period, as we have been informed, operated very much against the railways company.
Operated against the railway users very much, not against the railways company.
On the other hand, we have an amending Bill. I have a grave fear that exactly the same state of things that is said to operate from the original Act may be brought into operation as against the men by this amending Bill. I think it is very often the case that in trying to put one thing right in legislation you make something else wrong. I am inclined to agree that in connection with the wording of this clause a state of affairs may be found to exist in a very short time which this House does not now contemplate, and that an injustice may be done to the men who were supposed to be provided with compensation under the original Act. I am not in any way supporting the original Act, nor, as the House is perfectly well aware, did I support it in any of its phases originally. In this very question of compensation for the men it seemed to me at the time to go beyond what could fairly be claimed as against the amalgamated company. But in its wisdom the House passed that deliberately, and my fear is that in this Bill the Minister may go further than he intends in jeopardising the position of some railwaymen. How far that would operate it is impossible at this stage to say, but obviously the things that can occur under the amending Bill are not things that the House would willingly lend itself to. There is the danger of that. On the other hand, the Minister will say that that is not intended, and the railway directors and management will also say that. But when you come to a close analysis of what will happen to a man when he goes before the arbitrator, you have already seen that cases have been brought before the arbitrator in which he was compelled to give decisions which raised criticism here. Exactly the same thing may and probably will arise in connection with this Bill if the spirit of contention which has been fostered in connection with the whole railway system is to continue. I ventured, on the Second Reading of this Bill, to support the suggestion that this whole question is one that ought in the first instance to have been dealt with by regulations, regulations which would be based on an agreement as between the railway company and the men, with the recognition on the one side that the Act intended a certain thing, and recognition on the other side that the Act did not intend a certain thing. That agreement should have been come to. I am deadly afraid that the amending Bill as at present worded will raise further contention, which it is not to the interests of the country, or of the railwaymen, or even of the company itself, to have continued.
A number of individuals have been called to headquarters here since the amalgamation came into operation, deliberately, I say, from Cork and elsewhere. They are working mostly at Westland Row and Kingsbridge. They were brought up here in some cases owing to the lack of work locally. They are on temporary work in connection with the standard charges on railways, and it will be completed shortly. These men are redundant, so far as they know at present. What will happen if this Bill goes through, with this clause as it stands, is that they will be sent back to the depot from which they were brought where there is a decrease of traffic, and on these grounds they will be refused compensation to which otherwise they would be entitled. Does the Minister deny that that cannot occur? It will occur. If the managers wish to save expense they can do that, and it will pay them to promote a clerk to a position in a station where there is decrease of traffic, so that they can then bring the case before the arbitrator and dismiss him on the ground of decrease of traffic. If these wholesale removals start, as one may assume they will if the company is out to save money, I can promise the Minister that such a situation will not pass by without industrial action being taken. I am not the kind of person to make threats. I have, in fact, no authority to make threats, but I tell the Minister if this thing starts no one knows where it will end. I agree with Deputy Hewat that there is an inducement to the company to start these wholesale removals, and that men who refuse to go can be dismissed for refusing to carry out instructions.
Deputy Hewat did not say that.
Things may happen which the Minister does not intend, and which, perhaps, he did not foresee when preparing his amending Bill. I ask the Minister to say whether such things cannot occur, and I say, if he intends that they should occur, let him say so deliberately so that we may know what is the intention.
Deputy Davin opened by saying that having taken out the word "solely," I should take out the word "directly." There is a big difference. If people had to prove that their dismissal was due solely to amalgamation, you rule out Deputy Norton's fifty-fifty case and you also rule out the one per cent. case. If a man showed that 99 per cent. of his dismissal was contributed to by amalgamation or absorption and that one per cent. was due to other causes, and further, if the words "contributed to" were taken out and the word "solely" left in, he could get no compensation. There is, as I say, a great deal of difference in showing that dismissal was due "solely" to amalgamation and that it was due "directly." The two things do not hang together. It is not logical to take away the word "solely" and leave in the word "directly." I have to appeal to the commonsense of the House as to whether that is fair. I do not want to have any unfairness. I could not understand from Deputy Hewat whether this is to be included in his whole lamentation, and whether this was one of the points in which he thinks that unfairness and hardship may occur to the employee. I think that Deputy Hewat was simply making a general statement with regard to the whole Bill and that he took this amendment to advocate his case.
I should explain in connection with the whole of this amendment that I was taking the opportunity it afforded to state my case generally. I would not be prepared to take part in divisions on many of these amendments, so I tried to point out the responsibility in connection with the Bill as it stands, and I tried to amend it considerably more than the Minister thinks.
That is what I understood. I thought that his statement was rather like the choruses from Euripedes, particularly the more mournful ones which can be taken out of one play and put into another. I think that Deputy Hewat says that he cannot pass judgment as to whether the refusal of this amendment is going to operate with hardship on the employees.
No. It is not so much in the word as in the spirit in which the thing would operate.
It will operate in the word in this case. I again ask the Minister to say whether what I have pointed out can happen.
We will come to that later. Deputy Johnson says that this is another demonstration to railwaymen that something which they regard as a bar to their dismissal has been removed. It is a bar to their dismissal that I never intended should be there. You could counter it by the remark that you were showing to the railway user that another means of heaping charges on his shoulders has been removed. It is for the House to make up its mind, between the railway user and the railway employees, whether keeping in the word "directly" is going to impose a hardship on them. If there is a feeling that it is going to operate unduly on the employees the thing can be considered. I say that it is right that if something other than amalgamation is directly the cause of dismissal there should not be compensation. With regard to Deputy Davin's statement, I gather that these are the circumstances which he puts to me. There is a clerk, apparently, operating at a place where it cannot be shown that there is a decrease in traffic. That clerk is removed.
On promotion.
He is removed on promotion to a second place, and afterwards is further removed to a third place where decrease of traffic can be shown.
He is removed to a second place.
He is removed to a place on promotion where decrease of traffic can be shown. Suppose that that man, who is removed even on promotion, knows that he is going to be offered his removal, he has the option of relinquishing his post. He can then start the ball rolling and can put the matter in such a way that it must finally reach the arbitrator.
On what grounds?
On the ground of duty not being analogous to his other duty. If he can show that that promotion was giving rise to suspicion that would be sufficient. There have been cases brought before the arbitrator in which a change of status upwards has been alleged. I think, however, that that is such an outrageous point that it will not arise.
Can it be done?
I doubt very much if it can be done. You have to envisage such circumstances in which a decrease of traffic would be made apparent at one station more than another, and made apparent to the railway company, but not to the railway employee, that he is offered promotion and that he cannot see ahead of him. I doubt if that set of circumstances could occur. I doubt if the conduct of events lies so much in the hands of the railway company.
Can it be done under the Act?
I doubt if it can. I am trying to show reason why I entertain those doubts. How is that to be stopped? Surely not by taking out the word "directly." It has to be met in some other way. When Deputy Davin convinces the House that that is an ordinary sort of thing to occur under amalgamation, he may have grounds for bringing in an amendment to some other section, but it is not going to be done by the removal of the word "directly." If the amendment is put as it is, namely, to delete the words "directly" and "solely," and if it be defeated, it may not be possible to take out the words "and solely."
You could take out the word "directly."
Yes, it could be met that way.
What does the Minister understand to be the force of this word "directly"? Would he compare the words "due to" and "directly"? Some Deputies discuss and argue this as if "directly" meant "wholly." It does not seem to me that the word has much real force. The most that can be put into it is that amalgamation is the real cause of dismissal. I think it would read as strongly if it were to read "due to" amalgamation apart from "solely."
I was going to make a point somewhat similar to that of Deputy Thrift. I would ask the House to consider this position. The Minister has agreed to delete the words which are really of value in the draft original, to presume the end that was sought for in the beginning, that is, the words "solely to" or "contributed to." With these words deleted, what is the value from the Minister's point of view of the word "directly" and these other words "and not caused by the decrease of traffic, etc"? I suggest to the Minister that all that he has claimed as desirable can be effected by letting this section and Section 4 read like this:—"whether before or after the passing of this Act on account of his services having become unnecessary in consequence of changes of administration due to amalgamation and absorption of the company affected by or under the Principal Act." Once the word "solely" or the words "or contributed to" are taken away, the value of these other phrases are of no effect in securing the ends sought for by the Minister. If you leave them in, however, there is a direct handicap placed upon the applicant for compensation. In the first instance, it is for him to prove to the arbitrator that his dismissal is caused by something different from amalgamation and absorption, that is to say, not merely due to amalgamation and absorption, but in a special way due to them. That is the only value of the word "directly." There is a certain onus on the applicant to show that there is direct connection, and opportunity is given to the company to show that the dismissal is only indirectly caused. If the company can do that and can show that there is an indirect cause but not a direct cause, then there is no compensation due. Further, these other words are difficulties placed in the way of the applicant as between the arbitrator and the company which the Minister, by inference, admits is not intended, because these words "contributed to" are deleted. I submit that the end he is now seeking, having deleted these weighty words, can be sought by leaving the section to read, "due directly to amalgamation."
If this is a new amendment, I may say that it has been defeated already.
It has not been defeated. That was the intention of Deputy Davin, but it has been ruled out of order. It is the latter part of that amendment which I am proposing to leave in.
The earlier portion of it was defeated already.
Only in part.
An amendment to the effect that all words from line 30 to line 38 be deleted was defeated.
It was ruled out of order.
It was Deputy Doyle's amendment No. 2, and that was voted upon.
Then I can only say that the Minister is heading straight for disaster.
I do not see that anything, or at least very little, is gained by the use of the word "directly," but I think it is actually a gain to the worker to have in the concluding words, because it will be up to the company to show that his dismissal is due to one of these alternatives. I would like the Minister to point out what he means to gain by the use of this word "directly."
I think there is that balance of which Deputy Johnson spoke. If you keep in the words "and solely" and "contributed to" there is a certain thing achieved. If we drop out the words "and solely" and not the words "contributed to" you have not avoided what was aimed at when both were in. The House has voted that the words "caused by, etc.," should be kept in. I say that the balance to that on the other side is "due directly to amalgamation." The words "and solely" are balanced by the words "contributed to," and the word "directly" is balanced by the words "caused by" these various things. We have voted against an amendment to delete those things, and I hold that the complementary vote is that the word "directly" should be kept in. Deputy Thrift puts in a difficult point. He asks what is the meaning of the word "directly." I can only put it to him in the opposite way. Would he envisage the section if it were put in this way: "Due directly to, or indirectly to," or "due in any way to"?
Due to.
Surely there should be something more in the phrase than if "due directly to or indirectly to." Supposing we left out "directly to" and said, "due indirectly to," and then went on to say, "and not caused by these things." I say that there is tremendous force in the insertion of the word "indirectly." I cannot, as I say, explain the word "directly." All I can do is to call attention to the opposite side of it. Is it the intention of the House if amalgamation in any form be an indirect cause of a man's dismissal that then there should be compensation payable? If that be the case, then there is a case for striking out the word "directly." I do not see a tremendous amount of value in the word "directly," but I think it is a balance to the section that we have already voted upon and that it should he retained. I think if we have voted that these words should be put out. and that you then have the phrase "due directly to" or "solely to," weakened by the dropping of the word "solely," and further weakened by the dropping of the word "directly," you would have taken away pretty well all the rights to protection of the railway user. If there is amalgamation and a man is dismissed, you would be more or less assuming that the latter was the cause of the former, and you would give him compensation. There is very much winding about this particular word. I think there is a certain value in it, but I do not think there is any of the terrors that Deputy Johnson sees in it, certainly nothing calling for any such phrase as heading for disaster or introducing industrial action or things of that kind.
That applies to the whole idea in the section.
What we have been told is that this is heading for disaster. It is by no means heading for disaster, but it is heading definitely and clearly for a fair position as between the railway user and the railway employee. There is no intention of prejudicing the railway employee in any way further than what could have happened to him prior to amalgamation. There is an attempt being made to give compensation where amalgamation is shown to be the cause of a man's dismissal. I would like Deputy Thrift to try to bring his point down to this one case, and give an indication as to whether, for instance, he thinks that the introduction of the word "directly" is going to impose a hardship on the railway employee. I would like to hear the Deputy's argument on that. He will probably answer that he does not understand the value of the word "directly."
I compare in my mind a sentence running this way "due directly to amalgamation and not caused by a decrease of traffic or some other alternative" with, for instance, the phrase "due to amalgamation and not caused by a decrease of traffic or other alternative." To my mind it is precisely the same thing.
That point of view presents as much argument for putting it in as for taking it out, except that it is so much verbiage.
This argument has got around to something like what we might expect in the law courts between lawyers. I do not see that the word "directly" very much strengthens or weakens the section, but we all know that very often the decision in a big case in the law courts depends upon one very small word. To interpret what the Dáil meant when it passed the original Act and to get it into words is one of my difficulties.
I am prepared, if there is any belief in this House that the word "directly" is going to cause hardship to employees, to cut it out, or hold it over for further consideration, but no one has indicated that hardship will arise from this word in the section, and the word seems to balance the other section.
Perhaps the Minister would find a suitable word by the Report Stage?
I would appeal to the Minister to consider the whole draft before the Report Stage——
No, only as regards this section solely.
——on the ground that anything can happen under the present wording of the Bill, which I gather from the Minister he does not intend. I have cited cases, and I will illustrate one for him if he likes. The Minister, if he were a railway manager, would. I am sure, reading into the Bill, and acting on the letter of the Bill, take a decision as best he could for the purpose of reducing the staff and thereby expenses. I cite the case of a porter at Hazelhatch with 10 years' service shifted to Dublin on promotion, and promotion only in the sense that he would get the wage of the industrial area in Dublin as against the wage of the rural area. He has to go or the company can do the other thing with him if he refuses his promotion, or alleged promotion. There is a decrease of the passenger traffic at the Kings-bridge——
Which there would not be at Hazelhatch.
There is a minimum staff at Hazelhatch which must be kept there for the safe working of the station. Now, as I say, there is a decrease in the traffic at Kingsbridge, and this man from Hazelhatch, who is brought there on promotion, being the last man, is dismissed on the grounds of that decrease in traffic. I am sure the Minister does not intend that anything like that should happen under the working of the Act, and, therefore, he ought to redraft the sections so as to prevent cases of that kind occurring.
Who has been removed to Hazelhatch to supply the minimum staff required there for the safe working of the station?
A boy porter if you like. That would be an advantage to the company.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 20; Níl, 36.
Tá.
- Seán Buitléir.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- Seán de Faoite.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- William Norton.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Seán O Duinnín.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
Níl.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Thomas Bolger.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- John Conlan.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- Connor Hogan.
- Donnchadh Mac Con Uladh.
- Liam Mac Cosgair.
- Seán MacCurtain.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Risteárd O Conaill.
- Parthalán O Conchubhair.
- Conchubhar O Conghaile.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Eamon O. Dúgáin.
- Donnchadh O Guaire.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Luimneach).
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Morrissey and Norton. Níl: Deputies Dolan and Sears.
Amendment declared lost.
Government amendments—5, 6 and 7 —put and agreed to.
Ordered that progress be reported.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Progress reported; the Committee to sit again on Thursday, 13th May.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 5 o'clock on Thursday.