Vol. 57 No. 10
On behalf of Deputy Norton, I move amendment No. 56:—
Before sub-section (2) to insert the following sub-section:—
Save in special cases the worker shall be notified at least two weeks in advance of the date on which his annual leave will begin; any curtailment of this period of notice shall be subject to the consent of the worker.
This amendment speaks for itself.
I think there is something to be said for the suggestion in the amendment. I should like to have it postponed until the next Stage and I will consider if it is possible to meet it. The proposal is that the worker should get two weeks' notice of the date of his holidays.
While I agree that there is a good deal to be said for the matter in principle, it would be very hard on the employer if he always had to give that notice. I hope the Minister will take both aspects of the question into consideration.
Quite.
On the other hand if a worker wanted to make arrangements in advance for leaving his home in order to go on holiday, surely it is not too much to expect that notice should be given?
It is not too much to expect that notice should be given, but the Minister will I hope bear in mind, and I think Deputy Corish will agree, that an emergency might arise.
We accept that. "Save in special cases" is the preface to the amendment.
Provided these words are so elaborated by the Minister as to provide for that kind of case there can be no objection.
Where it can be given we expect it to be given.
On behalf of Deputy Norton I move amendment No. 59:—
Before sub-section (3) to insert the following sub-section:—
Where it is shown that a worker to whom the immediately preceding sub-section of this section applies was dismissed from his employment on the grounds merely that he absented himself from his work in the manner authorised in the said sub-section, the employer of such worker shall be guilty of an offence under this section and his conviction thereof shall not prejudice the right of such worker to enforce any claim against such employer which he may have independently of this Act.
On the face of it, there is something to be said for the suggestion in the amendment, but in practice I think it will prove to be completely ineffective. If an employer wants to victimise a worker for availing of his rights under the section he will find some other pretext for dismissing him from his employment rather than the way mentioned in the sub-section. Therefore, I think the safeguard which the amendment suggests would be entirely illusory. I do not know if it is possible to devise an effective safeguard, but I should like to consider that. I think it will be very difficult to find any method of ensuring a safeguard which cannot be evaded, but I will consider it.
Before the next stage?
Yes.
I move amendment No. 60:—
In sub-section (4), lines 37 and 38, to delete the words "and in respect of an additional ordinary working day."
I am not clear as to what is intended by the amendment, but I am not prepared to accept it if it has the meaning which I attribute to it. The proposal in the Bill is to ensure that where a worker has been continuously employed for two months then he will get an extra day's pay upon the termination of that employment in discharge of the employer's obligation to him in respect of holidays. It will be necessary to modify this sub-section in some respects, because as it reads at present I think it is open to the interpretation that an extra day's pay will have to be given no matter what the period of employment was. The intention is to ensure that the obligation only arises after two months' continuous employment has taken place. It would be undesirable from everybody's point of view to have a situation in which a worker employed for two or three days would have to get an extra day's pay at the end of the period, because it would discourage an employer taking on workers on trial. The intention is to ensure that the worker shall get a week's holidays after a year's employment. If the employment is less than a year, then he will get a day's pay in respect of every two months' continuous employment. That is, if the employment lasts for two months he gets one day's pay; for four months, two days' pay, and for six months, three days' pay, etc. That is what the section is intended to provide. I think it goes a little further than that, but, if so, it will be amended to ensure that the intention will be given effect to.
Amended to limit it?
I propose to amend it to limit it so as to ensure that the day's pay will not become payable until two months' continuous employment has taken place.
It has been read that a worker would be entitled to a day's pay as well as a day's annual leave. I may be interpreting the Minister wrongly, but he speaks about a day's pay. That is not quite the same as a day's leave. I want to see if the Minister means that if the employee is dismissed before he serves 12 months he will get for a period of two months one day's pay, for a period of four months two days' pay, and so on.
Yes.
Then he can get up to five days' pay, and after a year he will get a week's holiday.
The five days' pay does not become payable unless the employment is terminated. If it is terminated there is no obligation in respect of holidays. This question of a day's pay or two days' pay only arises when a worker is dismissed, and is very largely designed to prevent employers evading the holiday obligation by employing workers for periods of less than a year. The obligation to provide a week's holiday and this day's pay cannot possibly arise together, because the obligation under this sub-section does not arise unless the worker is dismissed from the employment of the employer.
When you say "dismissed" would that, also, arise in the case of employment terminated due to slackness of work or anything like that?
Subject to the definition of "continuous employment," which I propose to embody at a later stage, on the termination of employment the worker becomes entitled to two days' pay if the employment lasts two months, but this gives full discharge in respect of holidays. If he restarts, the date on which he restarts will be the date of his employment for the purpose of the holiday section.
I pointed out, at an earlier stage, the danger of an employer trying to circumvent this Act by terminating the services of his employee at the end of 11 months. This section would remedy that. If they do not give the holidays they must give wages. This Act is designed to give holidays, not in lieu of wages, and to prevent a man working during his holidays for somebody else, but what is to prevent an employee and an employer under this section entering into a conspiracy so that the employer could dismiss the employee, give him a week's wages in lieu of holidays, and then take him on again? Then at the end of another 11 months he could dismiss him again, give him a week's wages, and take him on again and so avoid the whole obligation of giving holidays.
Deputy MacDermot is in favour of that.
What about that? I am only pointing out the way in which an employer and an employee might get over the Act.
If a man completes a year's work he becomes entitled to holidays. We want to prevent him working for other persons while on holidays, and we propose to see if we can get an amendment to effect that. As the Bill stands, there is nothing in it that prevents workers during the week's holidays to which the Bill entitles them from working for others.
But the Minister did undertake, in deference to a suggestion by Deputy Norton, to consider an amendment that would succeed in persuading an employee to take his holidays even though, as I suggested, he might do a job for a neighbour. But suppose that an employer and an employee did not want to have a week's holidays in their business, and the employer said: "I will employ you on the 1st January, and on the 1st December I will dismiss you. That gives you a claim to five days' pay against me. I shall give you the five days' pay, and I will re-employ you on the 2nd December. We will then go on for another 12 months." In that way, if you have collusion between the employer and the employee the whole effect of the holidays can be done away with by the suggestion of 53 weeks pay for 52 weeks work. Has the Minister that case in mind?
I did not see any way out of it.
But it is present to the Minister's mind though he saw no way to get over it?
Such a case is not likely to arise except in a very isolated instance. I saw no way to get over it. Given collusion between the two parties, the holiday obligation could be evaded.
I take it that the employment year referred to will be the anniversary of the worker's employment or of the last time he was taken on. I suggest to the Minister that in a great many cases that would be impossible to ascertain. The date would be lost in the clouds of antiquity in a lot of cases.
I propose to deal with one of the amendments of Deputy Norton under Section 53, with regard to the date on which the employee enters the employer's service.
Could we have the Minister's interpretation of sub-section (4) of Section 20? Suppose a worker is in employment for five and a half months, I take it what he would get, under this section, would be one day, at all events, and two separate days in respect of each completed period of two months.
He gets two days.
Three.
He was to get three, but it was not intended, if he had not four months to show. He must complete the other period.
If the Minister's intention is to reduce the value of this section to the workers he ought to reconsider the position. Suppose an employee is dismissed after five months and the Minister contemplates amending this section in the manner indicated, what annual leave will the worker be entitled to?
Two days.
Therefore, the employer can get service of an employee for one month without any intention of granting him a holiday. Is that proposed in the interests of the employers?
No; in the interests of the workers. The effect would be to deter an employer taking on a worker on trial. As it stands here, if the worker was taken on for one day he would have to get two days' pay, and I think that would be undesirable.
That is one step, but it is not the whole case. Suppose an employer has a worker in his employment and has him working for five months and three weeks, the obvious thing for him to say, in his own interest is, it is better to get rid of the man before six months' service is complete. If it is six months he must get three day's wages; not less than six months, two day's wages. I think the Minister could deal with an emergency if taking him on trial.
No matter what the period, the same difficulty would arise.
Under this section, it is possible for an employer to employ a man for three weeks, and under two months, and give him no holidays whatever. Is not that so?
It is so.
Theoretically.
It is as likely as the case of the worker on trial. He is going to give the employer a loophole to employ workers for three weeks, and under two months without any holidays.
What is the Deputy suggesting?
To leave the section as it is in this Bill. The Bill was approved by the Minister when it was introduced. When he saw and read this sub-section, he was apparently satisfied. Now, he proposes to amend sub-section (4) in such a way as to enable the employer to employ a worker for seven weeks in every period of two months without giving any holidays. I think you might as well delete in many cases the provision for holidays with pay if the Minister is going to do that. I would urge the Minister, whatever difficulties have to be dealt with, not to deal with them in the way the Minister suggested in his own speech.
What does the Deputy suggest?
The Bill as introduced——
Precisely the same thing arises under it.
I suggest to the Minister that under sub-section 4, if the employer dismisses a worker after he has rendered service for portion of a period of two months, he must get a day in respect of that fragmentary period, and he must get a day for every completed period of two months. If a worker has done seven weeks' work he gets one day. If he has rendered service for two completed periods of two months each and seven weeks in addition, he must get three days' holidays. The Minister has answered a question as to whether that view is correct, in the affirmative. I suggest to the Minister that he ought to leave the section as it stands, and not amend it in the way he proposes, because I fear if he does, the effect of the amended section will be to provide employers with a loophole which would enable them to evade the provisions of the Bill in respect to holidays.
If there is no objection, I wish to move amendment No. 62, which stands in the name of Deputy Anthony. The amendment reads:—
In sub-section (4), line 39, to delete the word "consecutive".
The statement made by the Minister that he proposes to amend sub-section 4 in such a way as to provide that an employee with seven weeks' service can get no holidays, no holidays with pay, makes this amendment particularly necessary. In the Bill it is provided that an employee will get one day's holiday for each completed period of two months' consecutive service in such employment. An employer, realising under this section that he will be liable to pay the worker for one day's holiday in respect of every completed period of two months, will find that it is advantageous to himself if he can pay off the worker a few days before the two months period is completed. Apparently judging by the amendment which the Minister is going to bring in to sub-section 4, the employer is going to be facilitated in that by the Minister.
What has that got to do with this amendment?
If the Minister reads the amendment he will see that the aim of this proposal is to make sure that it shall not be a period of two consecutive months.
Oh, no, I do not read that into it. As I read the proposal it is to make the section practically meaningless, so that nobody gets the benefit of it.
It will be meaningless so far as the worker is concerned if the Minister amends it in the way he suggests.
The Deputy has taken on himself the task of defending the amendment. What has he got to say for it?
If the Minister will not interrupt, I shall do my best to tell him. The object of this amendment is to ensure that the worker will get one day's holiday with pay for every completed period of two months in such employment. Under the section which the Minister at first liked, but which he now dislikes, it was provided that the worker would only get one day's holiday with pay, for every completed period of two months' consecutive service, so that a worker who came into the employment of an employer on the 1st January and remained with him until 28th February, was entitled to one day's holiday with pay under this section, but the employer could defeat the object of this section by paying the worker off, let us say, on 26th February——
How does the Deputy's amendment propose to remedy that?
This amendment proposes to deal with the problem by saying that once he has completed a period of two months' service—and two months' service is obviously not two consecutive months' service—he shall be entitled to one day's holiday. I suggest that under this amendment it is possible to enable an employee who has given services for two months, not necessarily consecutive, to claim one day's holiday for that two months. I did not draft the section. I can only amend it as I find it and I suggest this is the most practical way to amend it, to benefit the workers who are intended to be benefited by it. If the Minister says it has no meaning, well that is his own fault. I think it has a very definite meaning. It has a meaning which will enable an employee to get a holiday for every two months' service. If the period has to be consecutive an employer can evade the obligation to give holidays by discharging the worker for a few days before the full period of two months is completed and re-employ him afterwards.
I am afraid the Deputy has not appreciated the meaning of the section at all, having regard to the fact that the obligation to pay only arises after the worker is dismissed. I do not think that this amendment will clarify the section in any way. It would make the section, in fact, practically unintelligible. I agree that we have got a definition of two consecutive months service, but to get a definition of service that would not be consecutive would be an impossible task having regard to the nature of the whole section.
I am pressing this amendment.
I move amendment No. 64:—
Before sub-section (5) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
Pay in respect of annual leave shall not be payable to a worker who is dismissed by his employer because of either misconduct on such worker's part or of the destruction of property caused or brought about by such worker.
I am afraid I could not accept this amendment. If we were to accept it we would have to provide for some means of inquiry into the circumstances of the dismissal of a worker where the facts were contested. As it stands, the amendment would give rise to endless trouble because the employer might say that he had dismissed the employee for the destruction of property or for some similar offence and the employee would contest that. Therefore it would be necessary to have some kind of tribunal before which the case could be argued. In view of that, I think it is better to leave the section as it is.
What tribunal is necessary for the purposes of this measure that is not already available to a worker in the case of wrongful dismissal? As the situation is at present, if a man is working for me and is being paid on a weekly basis, I have no right whatever to dismiss him without giving him either a week's notice or a week's wages in lieu of notice. If I fail to do either he can sue me in the civil courts for damages for wrongful dismissal, and the judge can measure the damages by the amount of the notice to which the man is entitled. Now, suppose I dismiss a man and decline to give him a holiday, or pay in lieu of the holiday to which he will be entitled under this measure, the same course is still open to him. He can sue me for wrongful dismissal and assess his damages at a week's notice, plus the rate of his holiday pay under the Conditions of Employment Act, 1935. The judge, in assessing the damages, will measure them by: (1) payment in lieu of notice, and (2) payment in lieu of the free time which had accumulated to the employee under this measure at the date of his dismissal.
I am glad that the Minister is resisting this very reactionary amendment. Deputy Dockrell wants to say that "Pay in respect of annual leave shall not be payable to a worker who is dismissed by his employer because of either misconduct on such worker's part or of the destruction of property caused or brought about by such worker." Under this amendment the employer is to be the sole judge of misconduct. He is to be the sole judge of whether the worker was guilty of the destruction of property or whether the destruction of property was brought about by the action of such worker. If it is alleged that the worker is guilty of the destruction of property or that the destruction of property is brought about by the action of the worker, is there not a simple way of testing whether the worker is guilty or not? Should not that be the test to be adopted by the employer rather than keeping in his pocket the money representing payment for the worker's annual leave to which he is entitled under this Bill, apart from the amendment? The whole test in connection with the holidays is service with the employer. If the worker renders the service, then he will be legally entitled to his holidays when this Bill becomes an Act. It is obviously unfair for the employer to set himself up as sole judge as to whether the worker has been guilty of misconduct or of destruction of property or as to whether the destruction of property has been brought about by the action of the worker. Deputy Dockrell must appreciate that, particularly in the latter part of his amendment, he is arrogating to himself a power which properly belongs to the courts. If the employer feels that he has a grievance against a worker as regards the destruction of property or conspiracy leading to the destruction of property, there is a simple way by which the matter may be tested in the courts. He should, at least, make the payment until such time as the worker is proven to be guilty of any such misconduct.
I should like to point out to Deputy Norton that he is trying to make the case that this is something quite different from what occurs in ordinary practice. It is not very common, but it does occur that workers, wilfully or through intoxication, do something that they should not do. They are dismissed without being paid the wages due them. They have a very proper remedy—they can sue the employer. If this amendment is accepted, the employer will have to pay them the holiday money due, even though he withholds the wages. I think that any payment for holidays might as well go the same course as the wages.
The Deputy wants to be illegal twice.
In a case of wilful misconduct, the employer should be given the right to put the wages due and payment for holidays into the same box. If the worker thinks he has a case, let it be tested before an independent tribunal.
Surely Deputy Dockrell is not claiming that it would be just to the worker to establish the principle here that an employer has the right to dismiss him and leave him to challenge his action in the courts. That would be all right if the worker and employer were in a position of equality so far as capacity to avail of the law is concerned, but the dismissed man may not have 5/- in the world. To say to the worker, "You have your remedy if you think I have dismissed you wrongly" is not being just to the worker. Surely, Deputy Dockrell does not suggest to the House in connection with holiday money or anything else that the worker should be compelled to go round on his knees to solicitors in order to get a member of that profession to take up his case on his behalf. Deputy Dockrell assumes that the law can be availed of equally by the worker and employer. That is far from being the case in practice. In many cases, workers have to accept unjust dismissal simply because they have not the means of challenging the action of the employer in court. I know a man who has been idle for the last two years. If he had the means of going to law, his last employer would be in jail for the wrong he had done that man. What is a worker to do if he is not able to avail of the law?
If he joins his trade union, he would be all right.
Many a youth would have a very strong objection to joining some of the trade unions going now-a-days.
What is wrong with them?
That is another day's work.
Does Deputy Traynor agree with that?
I think that this amendment is not one which, in its present form, should be passed. I should like to know what the position is with regard to the final remark of Deputy Norton—that, if it could be proven that the employee acted wrongly, he would be satisfied to have him deprived of his holiday money. I should like to know from the Minister if that will be the position under the Bill if no amendment is passed, because that is a very important admission from Deputy Norton.
No. I thought that Deputy Norton was taking a rather dangerous line in his opposition to this amendment. I do not think that the employer has any right whatever to withhold arrears of wages from an employee whom he has dismissed for misconduct. Deputy Dockrell seems to suggest that he had. What is involved here is something in the nature of arrears of wages. If a worker works for an employer for four months, he will have earned not only so many weeks wages but also, if dismissed at the end of that period, two days' pay in lieu of wages. If dismissed at the end of that period—no matter what the cause—he is entitled to get the arrears of wages due to him, including the two days' pay in lieu of holidays.
Surely the Minister is misdirecting himself. If there is a weekly contract of service and the employee is guilty of gross misconduct, justifying his peremptory dismissal in the middle of the week, the worker has no claim in law for the wages which would be due to him. There is a maxim in Equity dealing with the matter but, at the moment, it escapes me. Suppose the employee's contract is from Monday to Saturday and, on Wednesday, he is guilty of an act so gravely wrong as to justify the employer in dismissing him peremptorily, he has no claim for the pay which accrued due in respect of Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.
That is not the point.
He has no claim in respect of pay for these three days unless he completes the week's work or alleges that his employment was terminated without cause.
Will the Deputy quote the decision.
I submit that is the correct view about the present position. The purpose of the amendment is to provide that the benefit accruing due under this Bill, of so many days' holidays in respect of each two months worked, will not obtain if he is dismissed for gross misconduct. That is the only justification for withholding it from him. Deputy Norton asked why the employer should be constituted the judge of misconduct, and why should the employee be entirely in the power of the employer. No such situation is involved in the amendment.
Read the second portion.
The second portion provides that in the event of the employee being guilty of gross misconduct it shall not be payable, and only in these circumstances.
It is not gross misconduct at all but "the destruction of property caused or brought about by such worker."
It says "because of either misconduct on such worker's part or of the destruction of property caused or brought about by such worker." The amendment means misconduct on the part of such worker. Let us assume that the amendment meant misconduct brought about destruction of property. In that event the employer is released from the obligation placed upon him by Section 20 (5). If the amendment is accepted, a situation may arise in which a trade union may advise an employee: "We could not help you to sue the employer in these circumstances because you were obviously properly dismissed, and you have no claim against him." Although the trade union advised the employee that he has no case in common law for damages, he can sue under sub-section (5) for money in lieu of holidays.
Which he has earned.
If a man was disqualified from any common law rights, as a result of deliberate misconduct or destruction of an employer's property, it is equitable that the misconduct discharges the employer from all further liability to a man who misconducted himself. I would like to see some system instituted whereby, if an employer acts with gross misconduct towards an employee, the employee would have stringent remedies. I think the common law provides pretty stringent remedies against an employer who ill-treats an employee. It should be remembered that inherent in every contract of service in a Christian country there is not only an obligation to pay wages and to do work, but there is an obligation on the employer to treat a man who works for him decently, and an obligation on the working man to act decently and generously towards the employer. If either behave with gross misconduct towards the other, in my opinion they are exonerated not only from their statutory obligations but the Christian obligation or relationships between employer and employee cease to operate. Both are thrown on their strict rights and are entitled to enforce them, one against the other. It is a mistake to break in on that arrangement, and I suggest, although an employee definitely has been guilty of gross misconduct and destruction of an employer's property, there still faces the employer a claim for something that has accrued due. If people behave with gross impropriety, or gross disloyalty, either employee or employer, let them take the consequences of their action. They should be made to do so. I am not in favour of weighing unduly on behalf of an employee or an employer. Let justice be done. Let both sides know that if they treat one another unjustly they must take the consequences.
We cannot regulate the matter in the delicate way that Deputy Dillon would like. What the amendment of Deputy Dockrell proposes to do is to insert a provision in the Bill, assuming statutorily that the worker is guilty of an offence in advance.
No.
That is the effect of the amendment. Remember he has not proved it.
It must be proved under the terms of the amendment.
And withhold the pay. Let us assume that the worker is entitled to holidays, and that on a certain Saturday morning the employer says: "I am satisfied that, as a result of certain negligence on your part, a quantity of goods was damaged, which would not be damaged if you had been zealous, and because of that fact I am not going to pay you for any holidays which have accrued." The worker goes off and he can get no pay according to the amendment.
He can. He can sue the employer.
The worker was expecting a week's pay on that Saturday. Let us assume that he expected also to be paid another week's pay on 12 months' service, but as a result of what the employer considered to be certain negligence on his part, when goods were damaged, he informs him that he is not going to pay him for the week's holidays. As the employee finishes with the employer, according to the amendment he is going to spend his holidays during the following week looking for a solicitor to take action against the employer for withholding a week's pay. This assumes in advance that the worker is statutorily guilty of an offence and is the employer's title to withhold the money.
That is not so.
All the employee is given now is the right to sue the employer. In the meantime, the employer withholds the week's pay, and his only title to do so is the extravagant assumption in the amendment that the worker has been guilty of a statutory offence in advance.
If the assumption is wrong the employer will not only have to pay a week's pay in lieu of notice, as well as pay in respect of the holidays, but will also have to pay the employee's costs in legal proceedings. If the Deputy imagines that employers like to pay costs any more than employees, it is absurd.
It must be taken into consideration that the workman is the weaker person financially. His capacity to sue the employer arises, and his capacity to sustain his assumption against the employer also arises, while the amendment wants to assume that the worker has been guilty of an offence, in advance. The Deputy has drawn the amendment in such a way that it does not impose any obligation on the employer to initiate an action in law as to whether he was justified in withholding the money or not. The amendment wants to make it possible for the employer to be able to make allegations against the workman, that he caused the destruction of property or conspired in that direction, or brought about destruction of property, and, in the meantime, the Deputy wants the week's wages to remain in the pocket of the employer. Deputy Dockrell is not concerned about the fine points at all. He is not concerned about going to any court to initiate an action as to whether such action was justified or not. The Deputy's object is to secure that the money will remain in the employer's pocket until such time as the court decides the question. It is an extraordinary contention. The Deputy is trying to establish by the amendment a kind of jungle law.
One of your stock phrases.
I have not used it for a long time, if I recollect. I am glad, at any rate, that the Deputy pays attention to what I do say.
It is always very interesting.
What Deputy Dockrell is advocating here is a kind of jungle law, and I am surprised at a respectable citizen like Deputy Dockrell, associated as he is with——
Jungle law!
——the institutions with which he is associated, advocating such procedure. The Deputy ought to know the difference between jungle law and ordinary law. Deputy Dockrell, in any case, comes here to advocate what in effect is jungle law. He says in effect: "A worker has been guilty of misconduct or of damage to my property; I owe that worker money in respect of holidays, and I am going to keep that money until he pays me for the damage he has done." Let me put it to the Deputy this way. Suppose the worker left the employer's employment on Saturday, and suppose that he left a coat and a case behind him. According to the philosophy of this amendment, the employer would be entitled to seize that coat and case and to say: "I am going to hold on to these, until such time as you make good what I, not the courts, consider you have wrongfully done." That is the effect of this amendment. It means that the employer is entitled to seize all goods that he can seize from the worker——
That is jungle law the Deputy is speaking of.
——in satisfaction of a claim by the employer based upon an unproven allegation. Deputy Dockrell knows perfectly well—in any case, if he does not know it, he has enough legal minds around him to advise him on the matter—that if he can substantiate a claim against a worker for malicious destruction of property, there is a legal remedy for dealing with it. Nobody wants to stand for the worker who is guilty of malicious destruction of property but the Deputy does not want to take the obvious remedy for dealing with such conduct. The Deputy wants to make sure that he wins from the outset. He wants to make sure that he can collar the worker's wages and keep them, trusting to two things: (1) that he actually has the wages, and (2) that the worker may not have sufficient resources to enable him to pursue his claim through the courts. Obviously, that is an unfair attitude for the Deputy to take. He wants to strengthen the position of the man who is already well-to-do as against the position of the man whose sole worldly goods are his capacity to sell his labour. I should like to hear Deputy Morrissey on this amendment in order to see whether he agrees with the other members of his Party, and I venture to say that nobody—unless it is somebody who wants to make sure that the employer will win in any case —will support this amendment.
Let me put this case to Deputy Norton. Let us suppose that Deputy Norton borrows half-a-crown from me this evening and says that he will pay it back to-morrow when the House meets at 3 o'clock, and let us suppose that I go down to his house to-night and put a brick through the dining-room window of Deputy Norton's house and pull the knocker off the door: is it jungle law for Deputy Norton to say to me, "I am going to sue you for the damage you have done," and if I reply that I want my half-crown back, is it jungle law for Deputy Norton to say that he is going to hold on to that half-crown until I make good the damage—either until I have paid for the damage or we have arrived at some decision on the matter? This amendment says, in effect, that the employer may say, on Wednesday, to the worker, "I admit I owe you a week's pay."
Not Wednesday.
Well, Saturday.
Why not Wednesday?
The employer says: "I admit I owe you a week's pay, but you have put a brick through my window, and, in my judgment, the damage you have done to my window is such as to justify me in indemnifying myself by withholding what I owe you so as to compensate me for what you have done." It is open to the employee to say: "I did not put a brick through your window, and if you do not pay me what you owe me, I will sue you in the courts."
Why should the worker be put to that expense?
It is no expense if he has a good case.
No expense?
No, because if he succeeds, the employer must pay all his costs.
No. All his taxed costs.
Whether it is jungle law or not, it is bad law.
It is damned bad law. Does not this amendment propose to give a legal right to the employer to hold the wages of the worker?
Is it not a fact that if an employee is improperly dismissed, he must get his wages?
Who decides that?
The courts.
No.
Of course, they do.
The wages are withheld on the assumption of the employer that he is entitled to withhold them.
If the employer refuses to give the worker his wages in lieu of notice, the worker can sue for damages, and if the courts determine that he has been improperly dismissed, they will give him damages measured by the notice to which he was entitled.
I think that both Deputy Norton and Deputy Dillon are slightly astray here. In the first place, if I dismiss a man on account of damage that he has done, I cannot retain any wages. I can do it, but there is no law justifying it. I think that that should govern the principle of the Bill. I have been an employee myself for many years, and I believe that wherever an employee does something that would justify his dismissal, the employer should have the absolute right to dismiss him, with or without notice; but in any case I have ever known, where employees were dismissed, a civil bill can be taken out in the district court and you can issue a quantum meruit, and I have never seen a case where the worker was not paid for the amount of work he had done. If this section, as it stands, would put an employer in such a position that he could not dismiss an employee, I think it would be a very arbitrary position and would mean that employees could be quite reckless with their employers' property. I have been an employee for a long period of my life, and I would not stand for any employee being permitted to destroy property without being penalised in some way—being penalised at least by dismissal from his employment. Of course, Deputy Norton says that the employee is in a bad position. He is not. As I said already, I have never known a case, even where there was justification for dismissal, where the judge gave a decree against the payment of wages for the amount of work done. The same would apply with regard to the question of the holiday. Perhaps the amendment might be redrafted to improve it. Otherwise, I must say that as a person who has been an employee for many years, I do not see much wrong with it. If it only asserts the right of an employer to dismiss an employee who has been guilty of misconduct or who has maliciously damaged his employer's property, I do not see much wrong with it.
On the section, Sir. This is the section on which Deputy Anthony's main amendment, in connection with consecutive employment, has arisen. I should like the Minister to tell us what this consecutive employment involves.
It is not defined in the Bill. I said that we would have to have a definition on it.
I should like to have the Minister's view of the matter and to know whether an employer could employ a man for, say, 30 days and then escape the giving of holidays. The Minister will see that, apparently, as the Bill at present stands, by doing that consistently, he could avoid the obligation to give a man any holidays at all. As far as I can see, the same thing applies unless you eliminate the word "consecutive," and then you are thrown into a worse dilemma, because if you eliminate the word "consecutive" you are left in the position that if you employ a casual labourer for a day you must give him a day's holiday.
Whether the word "consecutive" stood or not, that provision stood.
I think the time has come for the Minister to give us a short expose of what this section actually involves. As I read it at present, it means that if you employ a man from 1st January to 1st March, he is entitled not only to pay for those two months but to one day's pay without working at all.
Or any shorter period, as the section stands.
So that if I employ a casual labourer to sweep leaves for a day in autumn, is he entitled to a day's pay?
He would not come under the Bill at all.
Why?
It would have to be industrial work.
We all know that if you call in a man to oil an engine or to do some work that comes within the scope of this Bill, he is entitled, if he is only employed for one day, to a day's pay without working at all.
I propose to take that out of the section. As the section stands, it is open to that interpretation.
What exactly is the Minister's final intention in respect of the Bill? Is it so to draft the Bill that a man will have to work for two months before he becomes entitled to a day's pay without a day's work?
Not necessarily. He will be entitled to a day's pay for each two months of consecutive work done, but the main purpose of the section is to provide some deterrent against the dismissal of employees periodically in order to prevent their becoming entitled to the holiday week. Whatever change in the section is necessary to ensure that, while, at the same time, not requiring that a man who gets one day's work will get two days' pay, will be introduced. I think it would be undesirable that we should have the extra day's pay even if a man does only one, two or a few days' work.
On the case as stated by the Minister, I am in entire agreement with the Minister's method of dealing with the dilemma.
This is the section in which the Minister takes power to make regulations declaring any specified form of industrial work to be excluded as industrial work "for the purposes of any or all of the sections of this Part of the Act." I should like the Minister to tell us in what circumstances he proposes to use the provisions of this section, from the point of view of excluding industrial work from the provisions of this Part of the Act. Is this intended to deal with the situation indicated by the Minister in Section 4, sub-section (2)? Can we have some general idea from the Minister as to what the object of this section is?
The object of this section is to give power to deal, by way of exclusion from any sections of this part of the Bill, with difficulties that will arise. The best example I can give is the case of boiler men and preparatory workers. There is a certain hour stated in the Bill before which industrial work cannot be done. The work must commence at a certain hour. We may change that hour but there will be an hour stated, whatever it will be. If work is to commence at that hour, in some concerns certain workers must come in an hour or half an hour beforehand in order to prepare the ground, such as boiler men and other preparatory workers. It may be necessary for an engineer to work on the repairing or renovation of plant at times outside the ordinary working hours, and it is desired to have power to exclude certain forms of work of that kind from any of the provisions of this part of the Bill, where a case is made for it.
I understand that certain men employed in certain breweries have to come in for an hour on Sundays for the purpose of testing temperatures, and, as the Bill stands, they will be prohibited from working for 24 hours in the ensuing week. Unless we amend the Bill in some other way to exclude such work, I would be inclined to make an order excluding them from the obligation not to work on Sunday. I think it is in their own interest that they should be excluded, because no man wants to get 24 hours without pay to compensate for one hour's work done on Sunday. Other cases will no doubt arise out of the circumstances of particular industries where there will be an occasional form of work which, for some good reason, cannot be made subject to all the provisions of the section and, upon a case of that kind being made, an exclusion order covering that class of work would be made in relation to the particular section from which the difficulty arose.
Are bakers industrial workers for the purposes of this Bill? Surely the Minister will have to consider excluding bakers. Is there not a provision that industrial workers may not work on Sunday?
Yes.
Will the Minister not have to consider excluding bakers from the provisions in respect of certain hours on Sunday?
There are certain provisions in the Bill which will have to be amplified. We can deal with them when we come to them. There is a starting hour of 8 o'clock fixed, but I do not think we need fix 8 o'clock exactly, provided the total working day is not increased. I think I would be disposed, in connection with Sunday and holiday work, to permit of a certain restricted amount of work being done on those days, to get over difficulties in special cases, but we can discuss that when we come to it. In any event, I think it is necessary, having regard to the nature of the legislation and the fact that this is the first time that we had a Bill of this kind before us and do not quite know, and cannot possibly know, the circumstances of every industry, that there should be some general power of exclusion where these obvious difficulties are going to arise in applying the principles of this part of the Act.
On what section is the Minister going to invite representations in respect of individual industries, if not on this?
This has nothing to do with that.
This is the section which gives the Minister general powers to schedule certain industries in respect of exclusion from the Bill.
It gives power to exclude particular forms of industrial work from any of the sections of this part of the Bill.
Is there a section later on under which the Minister will invite representations in regard to special regulations that will be required for special industries?
Covering hours of work?
Yes?
Yes.
What section will that be?
Section 44.
Will the Minister excuse me, as I may not be here for that section, for drawing his attention on this general empowering section to the situation obtaining in bakeries and, particularly, in rural bakeries? For instance, it is practically impossible to get a continuous working day for rural bakers. You have a situation in which they come in at, say, 5 o'clock in the morning and go off at 11 o'clock, having set what they call sponges. These sponges will mature until, perhaps, 3 o'clock, and the men will then come in and work from 3 o'clock till 5.30 and go off for the rest of the day. On the face of it, that is a 12-hour working day, but in fact it is only an eight-hour day. It has in it, however, the evil element of broken hours and I cannot see any method whereby, in that particular industry, that situation can be avoided. What I want to press on the Minister is that before putting legislation into effect, he should look carefully at the special conditions applying, not only to these industries in general, but to these industries in their own particular localities. He will find in some places where bakers are working on a straight dough, for instance, that the hours worked will be quite different to the hours of bakers who are working on what is called a sponge. Not only will there be the technicalities of each trade but the Minister will find, in rural industries, rural technicalities being introduced into each separate trade.
I am rather astonished that the Minister wants to take power to make regulations excluding certain specific forms of industrial work from the scope of this Bill. On the last day on which we discussed this Bill I sought to give the Minister power to make regulations prohibiting the number of lowly-paid workers in each industry. The Minister on that occasion said that he did not want that particular power, because if he had it the rest of his official life as Minister would be spent in receiving deputations urging him to prohibit the number of lowly-paid workers in particular industries. That, apparently, was considered by the Minister to be good and sufficient reason why he should object to the amendment which I then proposed.
No. It is not the whole of the reason. The whole of the reason was that there was a better way of doing it.
There was no reason at all given for resisting my amendment.
It was not necessary to give a reason. The arguments against it were obvious.
Word spinning was all that was indulged in when resisting my amendment. Such word spinning as we did have on my amendment showed that the principal reason given by the Minister—there was really no reason given, but for the purpose of the peace of the House we will label it a reason—was that he did not desire that particular power, because if it existed he would spend the rest of his official life in receiving deputations asking him to fix certain minimum rates of wages in particular industries. Even if the Minister's official life were spent in receiving such deputations, I think the Minister would have a blameless official life.
Thanks for the compliment.
I think the Minister could not do anything more valuable or more useful for the community than to spend his official life in receiving deputations who wanted to prohibit lowly paid workers in an industry, and the extent to which the Minister prohibited the employment of lowly paid workers——
We cannot do it under this section anyway.
——would indicate his ability as Minister for Industry and Commerce.
Does the Deputy think he is on a deputation now?
No, and after the Minister's declaration the other day I should not like to be on it either. I wanted to give him power to deal with the problem of lowly paid workers in industries, but the Minister wanted to disarm himself of any such power. Now he wants to take power in this particular section to make exclusion regulations in respect of certain specified forms of industrial work. Does the Minister contemplate that he will have any deputations waiting on him in connection with this?
On the contrary, I am required to consult with the representatives of both parties before I can make any such regulations.
The Minister can do what Disraeli said he often did—consult all the members of his Cabinet but never take the advice of one of them. The Minister is obliged to do that under this section—consult everybody but take nobody's advice.
I am not prohibited from taking their advice. The Deputy is wrong in that.
What I mean is that the Minister is obliged to consult certain people, but he is not obliged to take their advice. The Minister wants to pretend now that there are some restrictions on him because he has to consult some people, even though he is not obliged to take their advice. If there is a good case for saying that an amendment prohibiting the number of lowly paid workers in an industry should be resisted because the Minister would have to receive deputations asking him to prohibit the number of such lowly-paid workers, then there is an equally good case against this particular section, because once it is enshrined in this Bill the Minister will be deluged with deputations requesting him to make regulations excluding certain specified forms of industrial work from the scope of this Bill.
Which means that the Deputy is in favour of including this section in the Bill, because he thought the arguments against the other were no damned good.
No; I am not. The Deputy should not embarrass the Minister by this new found friendship.
That is most unfair, after the Deputy voted with you on the last amendment.
No. I took particular stock of the fact that the Deputy remained in his seat.
What about the new enmity between the Deputy and the Minister?
The Minister has so many friends he cannot keep track of them.
What about the new enemies?
What about Section 22?
I prefer to keep to Section 22. The Minister in any case has included a section in this particular Bill authorising him to make regulations excluding certain forms of industrial work. He knows perfectly well that he will be deluged with deputations asking him to make those regulations excluding certain forms of industrial work. The Minister is quite content apparently to receive deputations on the subject of making regulations under this section, while it was apparently undesirable to ask the Minister to receive deputations under the section I sought to have inserted, namely, to give him power to prohibit the employment of lowly-paid workers in a particular industry. This section is a bad one. Even if one could conceive a case for dealing with industrial work of a certain emergency kind, I think the Minister has too much power under this section, because I fear that the object of this section will be to widen the gap in respect of the particular kinds of industrial work which are excluded from the scope of the Bill. In the section the Minister takes no power whatever to ensure that such benefits as are in the Bill are preserved to the worker in the excluded industrial undertaking, unless in Section 44 the Minister proposes to take power of that kind. It seems to me to be a very insipid kind of power the Minister is taking, and he seems to be doing very little to ensure that even in respect of an excluded form of industrial work those employed in that form of industrial work will be safeguarded, and, so far as is possible under the Bill, have preserved to them such benefits as are in the Bill.
Without this section the Bill would be completely unworkable, and would have to be withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 67:—
Before Section 23, to insert the following section:—
The Minister may by order from time to time declare any form of industrial work or any industrial undertaking other than a form of industrial work or an industrial undertaking which is specifically excluded from the provisions of this Act to be a form of industrial work or an industrial undertaking to which this Act applies and such order shall operate and have effect so as to apply the provisions of this Act to any industrial work performed in or in relation to any such industrial undertaking as is specified therein in like manner as if such form of industrial work or industrial undertaking were particularly mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 3 of this Act.
The object of this amendment is to give the Minister power to include within the scope of this Bill certain forms of work which are at present excluded. This amendment is designed to enable the Minister to declare a form of industrial work or an industrial undertaking to be of the kind necessary to bring it within the scope of this particular Bill. In an earlier discussion which we had on this Bill I mentioned the case of a carter who might be drawing sand or stones to or from a quarry, and who was as much an industrial worker as the person engaged in quarrying the sand or the stones. I think it is desirable in a case of that kind, that, if such a person is not brought within the scope of this particular Bill, the Minister should have power, on a detailed examination of the circumstances of the case, or on joint representations being made to him by the workers and employers, to declare that kind of work to be industrial work within the scope of this particular Bill. It is well to mention that this Bill excludes completely from its scope workers engaged in transport. I think it is even still doubtful whether bakery workers are included. It excludes shipping workers, carters, and delivery men. Circumstances might arise where it was desirable that certain of those workers, either as a class or as a section of a class, should be included within the scope of the Bill. It is not sought to make it mandatory on the Minister to include such forms of work; the amendment is designed to enable him to include such forms of work if circumstances should arise in which the Minister would consider it desirable to do so.
The Deputy's amendment is not necessary. It proposes that the Minister may declare any form of industrial work, other than industrial work which is specifically excluded, to be a form of industrial work to which the Act applies. That is the case. The Bill covers any industrial work other than agricultural, commercial or domestic work as defined in the Bill, which are specifically excluded. The Deputy's amendment, therefore, is not necessary. All industrial work, except that which is specifically excluded, is in fact within the scope of the Bill.
Yes—quite so long as it is assumed to be industrial work.
Well, that is a phrase used by the Deputy in his amendment.
But when you look at what is excluded and what is industrial work in this case you find industrial categories set down for which there is no previous definition that they are industrial work; they are not in well-defined categories.
In Section 3 they are not limited to industrial work. Industrial work is not limited to what is done there. They are merely coming up by way of illustration.
At the same time there is nothing to prevent any group of industrial undertakings under this particular section going to the courts and asking for a declaration, having regard to the text of the section and the Minister's speeches and in view of these declarations to group the industrial undertakings which the Minister sought to exclude. They might go to the courts and claim that they should be excluded. That would be contrary to the whole spirit of the text of this section.
No industrial work is excluded. The Deputy's amendment would be meaningless without the definition. If it is in Section 3 it is not necessary to insert it here.
I do not think it is in Section 3, and my amendment does not come under the categories in Section 3.
Section 3 is the definition section.
It is not. It only sets out the categories of industrial occupations dealt with in the Bill.
Industrial work. And that is what the Deputy uses in his amendment.
My phrase used in this amendment is not dealing specifically with the form of industrial work set out in Section 3.
Except that they are specifically excluded.
On an earlier amendment the Minister indicated that a carter who was carting sand from a sand pit or stone from a stone quarry was not engaged in industrial work, within the meaning of Section 3.
I do not think I said that. I was using another illustration.
I think if the Minister looks up his own speech he will find he said that. That is a form of industrial work. A certain man mines sand, another man gravel, and the person who carts the stone and the gravel is as much an industrial worker as the man who is mining the sand or the gravel. I am seeking to give the Minister power to include a person who is doing that particular kind of work, so as to ensure that any sort of industrial work dovetails into the work done under Section 3.
Do I understand that the point is this, that if it is clearly held in a court that this is not work within the meaning of Section 3 that the Minister should have power to make it industrial work?
Yes.
There might be something to be said for this. In fact, it means that you are giving the Minister power, by regulation, to widen the scope of the measure.
It is most refreshing to see the bureaucratic soul of the Minister leap with joy when he sees the implication of Deputy Norton's amendment. Section 3 of this Bill does purport to define industrial work. It does set out certain things which it declares are industrial work, and it says there are lots of other things which are industrial work. That is what we propose to deal with here. Deputy Norton proposes to take from the law courts the function of declaring what is, or what is not, industrial work and to transfer it to the Minister. At first the Minister does not see that. But suddenly he sees it, and he says: "This transfers the whole functions from the court to me and my officials," and immediately he sees something attractive in it.
I would consider any proposal.
Quite. That proposal is certain to receive a warm welcome in Lord Edward Street. Anything that transfers the functions of this House or the Oireachtas to Lord Edward Street is welcome to them. I suggest now to Deputy Norton that he ought to withdraw this amendment. As the Bill stands he can go to the courts and argue there that a certain occupation is an industrial occupation, and if the courts so decide it comes under Section 3 of the Bill and by virtue of that decision the whole Bill is applied to it. If, on the other hand, he gets this amendment inserted the courts are not going to look at the text of the debates in this House. The courts will say: "You have in Section 3 a list of what industrial work is." But if you have later in the Bill a provision saying that where necessary the Minister may declare any other form of work to be industrial work, the court will say it was clearly the intention of the Legislature to limit this, and the limitation is set out in a later section. That is what the courts will say if Deputy Norton's amendment is accepted. If it is not accepted the courts will say: "Here is the section that the industrial work does not include agricultural, commercial and domestic work and mining, and it does include the following things." That is in no way exclusive of anything which is not specifically named in the Preamble. The only things specifically excluded are agriculture, commercial and domestic work and mining. Deputy Norton will find himself entitled by the decision of the courts to add to the categories A to M which at present stand in the section. My suggestion to the Deputy is that his amendment is calculated to defeat the object he has in view. He should withdraw the amendment and rest assured that he can argue his case about the carter drawing metal or sand from a quarry with a far better prospect of success before a judge than he can before the officials of the Department, into whose minds entirely extraneous considerations will enter.
Will the Minister consider the matter?
I am prepared to consider it, having now understood the point.
You have put an evil thought into the Minister's head.
He is in favour of the evil thought on this occasion.
I move amendment No. 69:—
At the end of the section to add a sub-section as follows:—
Where in respect of any industrial undertaking a permit granted under this section ceases to be in force, until the expiration of a period of eight weeks from the date on which such permit ceases to be in force no further permit shall be granted to the person who carries on such industrial undertaking.
I do not think there should be this limitation which the Deputy suggests. I agree that, ordinarily, it would be undesirable to have two permits so quickly after one another, but very special circumstances may arise. In any event, I think there should be power to consider each application on its merits.
I hope the Minister appreciates the fact that under this section, while it is possible to give a permit for a period not being longer than two weeks, it is also possible to have a recurring permit for 52 weeks by means of issuing fortnightly permits.
It has to be by reason of the fact that the work required to be done is at any time abnormally increased.
Now we get to the deputations stage, where the Minister's life is going to be worried and he is going to be pestered by deputations.
Not more than at present.
If the present obliges the Minister to enter a protest against this kind of burden being inflicted upon him, it is desirable, I think, to help him in this respect.
Are we talking about the present or the President?
The present, for the moment. The Deputy cannot get away from his pet aversion.
The President is a most harmless creature.
The Minister is empowered under this section to grant a permit for a period not being longer than two weeks. The amendment is designed to ensure that the Minister will not issue a permanent permit by resorting to the subterfuge of issuing permits every fortnight.
Why should he when he could do it under Section 22 if he wanted?
I do not think the Minister can do it under Section 22.
Surely he can.
Not wholly, because Section 22 deals with any specified form of industrial work, whereas Section 23 deals with any industrial undertaking.
No. The section states:—
If he is satisfied that the amount of any form of industrial work which is required to be done for the purpose of carrying on an industrial undertaking is at any time abnormally increased...
I think the Minister will agree on consideration that Section 22 deals with a specified form of industrial work. In other words, let us say the Minister decides to exclude rainwater goods; they can be dealt with under Section 22, and the regulations so made are applicable to that form of industrial undertaking. But suppose a particular firm said it had an order for the manufacture of rainwater goods for China, a particular regulation will have to be made under Section 23 to deal with that case, because the other firms in the trade will not desire the exclusion regulations referred to in Section 22 made on their behalf. The object of the amendment is to ensure that the Minister will not, by means of the power which he has under Section 22, issue permits every fortnight to a particular firm or firms, in order to take them outside the scope of this Bill. While the eight weeks' period suggested by me is arbitrary and has no scientific or any other basis, I should like, nevertheless, to ensure that a permit of this kind should not be issued in such a way as to enable the Minister by issuing a permit for one fortnight, to issue another permit for another fortnight, and in that way exhaust the whole calendar.
If the Minister did that, he would certainly be going beyond the purpose of the section which is designed to enable him to deal with an abnormal piece of work in an undertaking. If the conditions which were abnormal in the first fortnight continued for a year, the abnormal conditions would become normal, in which case the Minister's power to give a permit would disappear.
I would be satisfied if the Minister would look into the section and see what can be done to limit what seems to me to be the excessively broad power he has in the matter.
The trouble is that in any emergency provision of this kind— because that is what it is—you cannot impose any definite restriction upon the use of it. You have really to rely upon the judgment of the people who are going to exercise the power and their general policy in respect to it. Circumstances may arise in which a particular restriction would be very onerous, no matter whether the restriction was for eight weeks, or eight months, or eight days. There may be particular circumstances which would make that particular restriction a very serious burden upon an individual. Therefore, I suggest that in any section of this type it is necessary to define the circumstances under which the power can be used, and then leave a sort of general discretion for the exercise of it.
I am sure the Minister appreciates that the general discretion can be utilised in such a way as to give a firm a permit for 52 weeks.
I would not agree with that. It can be utilised for the purpose of giving two permits in succession, but I think that should be only done in very abnormal circumstances.
Is there any restriction in the section on the Minister issuing 26 fortnightly permits?
Assuming the Minister is acting in good faith. The Minister must be satisfied that the amount of work to be done is abnormally increased. If the same conditions were to persist through the whole year, I say they would be normal and not abnormal conditions and, consequently, the power given by the section need not be utilised at all in connection with the undertaking.
The Minister talks about construing this thing from the standpoint of a Minister acting in good faith. But suppose the Minister had no faith, good or bad?
Then it is the Dáil is to be criticised.
Criticising the Dáil is no consolation to the workers affected by the indiscretions of the Minister under the section. The Minister is empowered to issue 26 permits to a particular industrial undertaking. There is no restriction on his doing so under the section.
If the Deputy thinks that I will cease arguing.
Of course, it is possible to do it. What I want to ensure is that the exclusion permit granted under this section will be for as short a time as possible.
A fortnight.
This is only a token fortnight perhaps. The amendment means that under this section, once that certificate has been issued, the workers concerned in that industrial undertaking, are excluded from the scope of this part of the Act. Therefore, the Minister will appreciate the strong reasons that exist for making the permit to cover as short a period as possible. I do not want to press the period of eight weeks because it is not a scientific or an equitable basis but I would like to ensure that the Minister could not issue permits, under the section, for 52 weeks. I think the Minister would find that advantageous if it was there.
That is so.
I do not think it is there. I suggest that he should take counsel with the workers and hear their reasons why permits should not be granted.
The real question is whether in normal circumstances the amount of work has abnormally increased. Are you going to give an employer in these circumstances temporary exclusion from this part of the Bill to enable that work to be done? Having regard to the ordinary overtime provisions that operate I think it is most unlikely that circumstances would ever arise in which a permit would be given and repeated again; but some very abnormal circumstances may arise.
I think a fortnight is normally the maximum.
I do not contemplate these powers being used except in very abnormal circumstances.
And a fortnight is normal.
I move amendment No. 70:—
Before Section 24 to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) Whenever in this part of this Act it is enacted that it shall not be lawful for any employer to permit any worker to do any form of industrial work it shall be equally unlawful for such worker to do such industrial work or any other form of industrial work for such employer or for any other employer or on his own behalf for remuneration.
(2) If any worker does any form of industrial work which it is not lawful for him to do he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.
I agree to look into this matter.
I move amendment No. 71:—
Before Section 25 to insert a new section as follows:—
The Minister, if he is satisfied that in an industrial undertaking there is any form of industrial work which can only be carried on during Sundays, short days or holidays, may grant to the person who carries on such undertaking a permit to employ workers to do such form of industrial work on the days and at the times specified in such permit, in the same manner as if such form of industrial work were excluded industrial work for the purpose of all or any of the sections of this Act as may be specified in such permit, and whenever a permit granted under this section is in force the form of industrial work to which it relates shall be excluded industrial work for the purpose of such sections when done in such industrial undertaking on the days specified in such permit.
In my opinion, the purpose that Deputy Dockrell is trying to achieve in amendment No. 71 can best be achieved by Section 23 when it is necessary to permit work to be done contrary to one or other of the provisions of this part of the Bill. I do not think we could attempt by legislation to define the forms of work in each section of the Bill which could be excluded.
I move amendment No. 72:—
In sub-section (1) (a), line 10, to delete the word "nine" and substitute the word "seven."
This amendment aims at reducing the worker's shift hours from nine to seven. I think the Minister will realise the reasonableness of this. I think the amendment quite clearly justifies itself.
I might intervene now to say that we have implemented, in the general provisions of this Bill, the Washington Hours Convention. We fix the hours of work permitted by that Washington Hours Convention as the maximum hours for occupations under this Bill. I would not propose, in any circumstances, to modify this section. If we go below the hours of work fixed by the Washington Convention for any industrial occupation, we ought only do so after consultation with the persons interested on both sides, whether employers or employees, in accordance with the terms of Section 44. That is the general scheme of the Bill, and to accept this or any other of these particular amendments by Deputy Norton would be contrary to the general purposes of the Bill. That purpose is to fix the hours in accordance with the Washington Hours Convention, and to deal with the matter of shorter hours by Special Order under Section 44.
I do not think the Minister has adopted a very original outlook. He is rather conservative in this Bill.
I am a conservative by nature.
The Minister is conservative by experience in this Bill. The Washington Convention was adopted in 1919, sixteen years ago.
How many countries put it into operation? I think we are the first.
Other countries have travelled far in this matter. The Minister can get information from his own Department in connection with these things. If he does not I will give him some. The Washington Convention, which was adopted in 1919, took note of the industrial conditions then existing. The industrial conditions then existing were such that many workers in many cases worked 56 and 72 hours a week. The Washington Convention was thought to be, in the circumstances then existing, a contribution to the reduction to the hours of workers in industrial employment. And in the circumstances the 1919 Washington Hours Convention was certainly an advance. We did not have that development in industrial technique, rationalisation or mechanisation, that we have now. Looking at the position to-day, we can approach it from the standpoint of what the world was like in 1919. We cannot shut out completely from our minds the technical, mechanical and scientific progress that has taken place in the intervening years. If 48 hours was the maximum week for 1919, then, having regard to the enormous scientific and mechanical progress, and having regard to the enormous extent of the unemployment problem to-day, as compared with 1919, the maximum working week at the time of the Washington Convention in 1919 was justified, but not now. The Minister says he does not propose to amend the Bill in such a way as to meet the amendments moved to this section, and he prefers to rely upon the powers he has under Section 44. The hours suggested in Section 26 in respect to industrial employment do not represent any pioneering effort by the Minister at all. Does the Minister accept that?
In Section 26 that is so.
What the Minister has done under Section 26 is to give a kind of legal sanction to what has been done years ago by the trade union movement. If the trade union movement had not been able to reduce hours to the limits at which they are to-day, and if the hours were higher than they are to-day, we would find the Minister introducing a Bill to legalise the hours of work at the instance of the unions. The Minister is no pioneer: he has done no blazing of the trail; he has simply walked on the velvet road. There is not only a good road but there is a good footpath.
On which no one has yet travelled.
No one wants to travel over that road. The Minister is only giving legal sanction to what has already been done by the trade unions. So far as this particular section is concerned, it is no benefit to the workers whatever. Perhaps one or two industries may be affected beneficially by this section, but if they are, I do not know of them. Perhaps the Minister will take this opportunity to tell us what industries will be beneficially affected by the operation of this section. I think the maximum hours suggested in the section are altogether too long for shift work. I think the problem to-day is not a problem of extending the hours of work or of maintaining the existing hours. The problem to-day is different to the problem confronting those who made the Washington Convention in 1919. The problem is to organise the leisure of the people and share the work available. If there was scarcity of labour in this country, I could understand the Minister making a case against the amendment, but in face of the fact that we have 131,000 registered as unemployed, and that there are plenty of people available to do the additional work in industry and elsewhere, I think an amendment of this kind is calculated to help towards absorbing some of those people in industry. I would press the Minister to accept this amendment and thus, in any case let some slight shadow of the reflection of a pioneer descend upon him.
We shall do our pioneering by using the powers which the Bill confers upon us. I could not accept this amendment. Neither do I think it desirable under any circumstances to regard a movement to reduce the hours of work as a scheme for sharing work. I do not think Deputy Norton fully realised the implications of that phrase when he used it. It is one which has been used in Geneva within the last few weeks, and it has been pointed out that to share the hours of work would mean a reduction of individual earnings. A sharing of the work has generally the meaning that there must be a sharing of the wage fund as well as of the work, and the Deputy knows we are opposed to that. We would oppose any reduction of hours which would mean a reduction in individual earnings.
I am surprised that the Minister should react to this proposal by giving expression to the same ideas as the British Minister for Labour disseminated in Geneva in dealing with the ratification of the Convention in respect to a maximum of 48 hours per week. His whole attitude towards the ratification of the Convention was a fear that the wages of workers would be reduced. In this Bill we specifically provide that there will be no reduction in wages. This amendment is moved in the clear knowledge that that reaction is not possible under this Bill, and as a matter of fact, as the Minister knows——
There is nothing to prevent the British Government introducing a similar Bill with similar safeguards if they wish.
The Minister's approach to this question and his reaction to the amendments is what the British Minister has been saying.
What the Irish Free State delegate has been saying.
There is no reduction in hours in question here.
I agree that the 48 hours will involve a reduction of hours for many classes all over the country.
I hope the Minister will tell us what they are.
Building workers in many parts of the country.
Give us a case.
The City of Galway.
How many hours are worked in Galway?
50 or 52, I am not sure which.
Is there not a trade union agreement there?
Yes.
I doubt this trade union agreement, because I happen to have a specially obtained list of the hours which trade union workers work in the building trade throughout the State. If in Galway they work 50 or 52, it is a very exceptional case.
There are a number of other cases.
The list which I have got is a very exhaustive list and the maximum working hours are 47 or 48. In the City of Dublin they are 44. I cannot see why the Minister should assume that there is any danger of a reaction in respect to a reduction of wages under this Bill. We are specifically providing that there will be no reduction of wages under the Bill. We need not, therefore, fear this amendment from the standpoint of its effects on the wages of workers. He may say in resisting this amendment that it is imposing too great a charge upon industry but, as I said on another amendment, industry is already bearing a charge to provide for 130,000 unemployed persons.
That is not the reason I am opposing it. I am opposing it because I think we ought to deal with the circumstances of each industry separately.
This does not prevent the Minister dealing with the circumstances of each industry separately. He can deal with the circumstances of each industry separately without seeking to impose certain maximum limits for work like this. This amendment is to fix the maximum limits lower than those fixed in the section. Having regard to the extent of the unemployment problem, I believe this amendment would help towards absorbing a large number of the workers at present unemployed. I do not believe that a reduction of working hours will solve the unemployment problem but I believe that a reduction of working hours is necessary. I think that the survey of the matter made by the International Labour Office has shown that a reduction of working hours has made some contribution towards the relief of unemployment.
Question—"That the word ‘nine' proposed to be deleted, stand"—put and declared carried.
That governs amendments Nos. 74 and 88.
I do not think it governs No. 74.
It does not quite. That is so.
A worker might work nine hours on a particular day.
I have embodied the provisions of the Washington Hours Convention, and I would be very reluctant to modify them in any way.
I move amendment No. 74:—
In sub-section (1) (d), line 15, to delete the figures "56" and substitute the figures "49."
I move to report progress.
