Is the Minister prepared to stand fast to the position he took up, and is he not prepared to depart from the terms of the amendment proposed by himself? Does he consider that there is no substance in the arguments advanced by members of the Labour Party in this matter?
Committee on Finance. - Conditions of Employment Bill, 1935—Recommittal.
Debate resumed on amendments Nos. 56 and 57.
None whatever, and much less in the arguments of Deputy Dillon.
I never asked that. I know the Minister finds considerable difficulty in understanding and appreciating my arguments. What was suggested would make no material difference to the arrangements he has in mind, and would, in fact, only give satisfactory recognition to what he himself said. Will he consider the matter between this and Report Stage?
The class of industry affected here is a very small class and is a continuous process industry. It must be run, not for eight hours, but all the time. Where there is interruption of the working of the shift, for the purpose of providing a rest interval, I think it is reasonable to require that the worker should not leave the premises without the permission of the employer. There are certain classes of process industries in respect to which the permission of the employer would be readily given, but in quite a number the permission of the employer would not be given. In such cases either of two things can happen: Considerable risk would be run by leaving machinery, parts, tools and things of that kind about, or it would be necessary to employ another shift for the purpose of replacing the one at work. In this process industry it is necessary that rest should be taken on the premises. The actual work done is not heavy work; it is important work but rarely heavy work. There is little hardship imposed upon the workers by the restriction that they should remain on the premises. That is the practice at the present time, and it is in no way intended to depart from that practice, except after an examination of all the circumstances in conjunction with employers and employed. If, after such consultation, it is considered desirable that the existing practice should be altered and the conditions of employment improved. there is power to do that. If it is felt, on the other hand, that the provisions of the Bill are too onerous then, after consideration, there is power to exempt an industry from that observance. Having regard to these two provisions—the power to alter one way or another the actual proposal in the Bill—I think it is necessary to meet the obvious difficulty by this amendment to the Bill.
The Minister will agree with me that these continuous process industries represent about 5 per cent. of the total industry of the country. They are the exception rather than the rule?
Yes.
Therefore, it would be fair to say that the necessity for this continuous supervision applies to approximately 5 per cent. of the total industrial workers' population?
Yes, but of course the section to which the amendment has been moved relates to that class of industry only.
It does not relate only to this continuous process work; it applies to piece-work.
No. It applies only to continuous process work. It is an amendment to Section 26, which relates only to continuous process industries.
I put it to the Minister that, in dealing with those people, it would be more expedient to say that where he is satisfied it is essential that they should remain in constant attendance they should not be subject to this part of the Bill at all; they should be taken out. Otherwise you are going to have continuous dissatisfaction arising. If he constitutes himself the judge of the special circumstances in which persons can legitimately be asked to remain constantly on duty, no reasonable complaint will be left to anybody. It is not going to be a very onerous business, because as he himself knows, very few of those people are to be seen. It will remove a considerable sense of grievance from a number of other people, and will make the whole thing work easily. I would urge on the Minister that he is mistaken in standing pat in regard to this particular amendment. He always has the remedy, if he proves to be right in face of the whole rest of the House—the whole rest of the House is against him—of bringing in further amending legislation, and steam-rolling it through.
Oh, no. That is the remedy—but a remedy which I do not want. If that amendment is not in then the only power we would have of dealing with the circumstances in this particular case would be to exempt those industries from the whole of the section, which would be obviously against the interests of the workers concerned.
I do not think that is the only remedy. However, I do not propose to weary the House. I have put my case, and Deputy Norton has stated his view. I can only say that I think the Minister is imprudent in not undertaking to review the matter between this and the Report Stage, if he is not prepared to come the whole way and accept a compromise solution such as I have proposed.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Tá, 61; Níl, 27.
Tá.
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Cleary, Micheál.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Corbett, Edmond.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Flinn, Hugo V.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Good, John.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl; Deputies Everett and Keyes.
- Bourke, Séamus.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Davin, William.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Everett, James.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Keyes, Michael.
- Lavery, Cecil.
- McGuire, James Ivan.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- Norton, William.
- Pattison, James P.
- Rice, Vincent.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Everett and Keyes; Níl: Deputies Little and Smith.
Question declared carried.
Níil.
|
Anthony, Richard.Belton, Patrick.Bourke, Séamus. Davin, William.Desmond, William.Dillon, James M.Doyle, Peadar S.Everett, James.Keating, John.Keyes, Michael.Lavery, Cecil.Lynch, Finian.McGovern, Patrick.McMenamin, Daniel. |
Burke, James Michael.Burke, Patrick.Daly, Patrick. Minch, Sydney B.Mulcahy, Richard.Murphy, James Edward.Murphy, Timothy Joseph.Norton, William.O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.O'Leary, Daniel.O'Sullivan, John Marcus.Pattison, James P.Rice, Vincent. |
Number 57 is a similar amendment to a similar section.
Can we hear from the Minister why he is not prepared to agree to an amendment, the object of which will be to require that he should be satisfied that it is necessary for workers to remain on the premises? If he is satisfied that it is necessary the Minister could make a regulation requiring that workers should remain on the premises. In the vast majority of cases I think it will not be possible to satisfy the Minister that it is necessary to keep workers in a factory, but some captious employers may refuse their workers a few moments' recreation during the licensed shift period.
It is no different from the present position. What I want to make clear is that in any event there is no change and no worsening of the position of the workers. In so far as an employer gives permission to leave the premises he can do so. Presumably he will continue to do so. There is no reason why he should not. What we are aiming to do is to leave the present practice undisturbed unless it should become necessary to make an exclusion order in reference to that section following consultation with the parties. The reason I think these words should be in is because their absence would make it practically necessary, in the case of a number of responsible industries, to make an exclusion order under section which would be very undesirable.
I do not think it is necessary to go to that extreme at all. Under the Bill as it stands, the worker is entitled to a certain rest interval. Apparently the Minister thought he should have that rest interval when the Bill was circulated, and passed through Committee, because he did not propose to amend it then. He proposes to amend it now in such a way that although the worker is given the rest interval, he cannot leave the premises unless with the permission of the employer. I think that is an unfair amendment. It ties the worker down to the premises, while the employer is not required to show to anyone's satisfaction that it is necessary to keep the worker on the premises. If an employer can say that he can refuse the worker permission to leave, then that employer automatically vitiates whatever value there was in the Bill as it passed through Committee.
Does the Deputy not appreciate the fact that there are industries in respect of which it is not possible to let workers leave the premises?
The Minister quoted the case of a gas gauge and a sugar gauge.
There are a number of others.
Taking the gas gauge and the sugar gauge for argument, supposing it can be shown that it is necessary to prevent workers leaving premises where they are engaged watching these gauges, can the Minister not deal with that problem in respect of these or any other industries, where their presence is constantly necessary, by making an order in the terms that they cannot leave without permission?
No. The only order I could make would be one excluding that class or work from Section 26, but not from the operation of the section which relates to the rest of the work.
The Minister is not serious in that. What is to prevent him from leaving Section 27 (1) (e) as it stands and saying that on application from the employer, or after consultation with both sides, he may make a regulation providing that it is an offence on the part of the workers to leave or that they shall not be given permission to leave during the rest interval? What is to prevent the Minister saying, if certain representations are made to him that it is necessary to keep workers on the premises, that he has power to make a regulation? That regulation would be just as effective as any phraseology in this Bill. Is not that the simple way out? Would it not enable the Minister to get constant attention, where it is shown that constant attention is necessary, without at the same time giving the employer the wide and promiscuous authority that is given in the amendment, to refuse the worker permission to leave the premises during the rest interval?
It would be practically impossible for a Minister in such a matter to act contrary to the advice of an employer. If any employer came and said that in his opinion it was necessary that an employee should be on the premises, there would be a great risk if the Minister made an order contrary to that advice. He would be in a very curious position if he was wrong, or there was an accident involving loss of life or destruction of property, in consequence of that order. No Minister could take the responsibility of acting in that matter except he either had, on the one hand, first-class technical advice or, on the other hand, was prepared to accept the opinion of those interested in the matter as employers.
That is not a case for taking this excessive precaution. Surely the Minister can get the advice which he needs. The Minister has people on his staff qualified presumably, to judge of the merits of a claim of that kind made by an employer. If there was the remotest danger of anything going wrong on account of a worker leaving a machine, most sensible people would say that the machine must be watched at all cost, because of the possibility of some catastrophe occurring. But it is the patent case, where there is no justification for keeping a worker on the premises, that I want to safeguard against. I would not mind if the Minister used his discretion.
Why do you assume that an employer is going to keep a worker there when there is no reason for it?
Because he can do it and there is nothing to prevent his doing it unreasonably under the amendment.
It is most improbable, to say the least of it.
Can you not take the power which we suggest you want to decide these difficult cases? The whole principle of this amendment is wrong. The language of it belongs to the Constitution (Amendment) Act and not to a Conditions of Employment Bill. The whole principle underlying it is vicious. The Minister is asked to decide the issues in a dispute. He can decide in favour of the employer where he is satisfied and, if he is not so satisfied, he can decide in favour of the worker. But he is legislatively too lazy to do that. He will not put a provision in the Bill saying he will examine the merits of the dispute. He says: "No, let the employer do it and do not trouble me with these administrative details."
In a matter of that kind the employer, whether the employer is a private individual or a company or the State, must be the person to determine what is required in the interests of the industry. The employer in this case need not necessarily be the bloated capitalist the Deputy is always attacking. The employer may be a Department of State.
Where did the Minister get his notion about the bloated capitalist?
The Deputy is talking about an employer who is so utterly unreasonable that, out of sheer vindictiveness, he is going to keep his workers there when there is no need.
I saw a case recently where an inspector of the Minister's Department had to prosecute an employer for failing to pay Trade Board rates.
You see that in the papers frequently. In that particular case, it was obviously to the advantage of the employer if he succeeded in getting away with it. What possible advantage is there to an employer to keep his workers on the premises doing nothing when there is no reason for it?
I think it is often advantageous to an employer to be on good terms with the trade union which represents his staff.
Very much to the advantage of the employer. That is why none of the dangers which the Deputy anticipates will arise.
We had recently to bring to the notice of the Minister cases of employers who tried to prevent workers belonging to a particular trade union and who spent their whole time creating friction between themselves and the union, instead of harmony. The Minister then comes along and says: "You can trust the employers implicitly; they would not do a thing like that."
Not in self interest.
The Minister should undertake to look into this matter and see whether it is possible to meet the proposal in the way suggested. It has been suggested from all sides of the House, except the Minister's own side, where there has been silence.
I do not accept Deputy Dillon as representing all sides of the House.
Deputy Good does not agree.
A lot of folly has been talked.
That benediction to the Minister will be quite good. This is clearly an employer's amendment put in unreasonably and the Minister falls for it. Anything the employers ask for is reasonable and you can trust them all.
Deputy Norton has been supported by Deputy Dillon and he says that is support from all sides of the House.
I think your support is much more embarrassing than mine.
That is a matter of opinion.
And my opinion is right. I make a final appeal to the Minister not to be unreasonable. His Bill has been fairly discussed and he ought to try to make it a good and reasonable Bill. Instead of that, he simply digs his heels in the ground and gets stubborn and infuriated. He says: "I have decided this and I have done so at the request of the employers; I think it is all right." He should try to meet this thing in a reasonable way.
It is the same case as the last amendment.
I dislike very much the mentality behind the amendment, because there is no doubt that the language of the amendment and the mentality disclosed by the Minister in the discussion shows that it is a purely militaristic mentality, the mentality of the sergeant-major when dealing with a body of soldiers on parade. The Minister admitted—he was frank enough on that, but he has not been frank on other questions—that he had been approached by a body of employers and that it was as a result of his leg being pulled, either by the Saorstát Federation of Industries or the Chamber of Commerce, represented by Deputy Good, that he seeks to insert this amendment. The meaning of the amendment, and I am not attempting to exaggerate, is that he does not trust a certain type of workmen engaged at a certain type of machinery to carry out the spirit of an understanding as to when they should leave work and whether they will go out a minute before or remain out a minute after they are due to attend to certain machines.
Will the Minister tell the House frankly what kind of case has been put to him by the body of employers which convinced him that this amendment was necessary? Will he give the House the case made to him? It is the House he has to convince. The absent Deputies do not want to be convinced. They will stroll in and register their votes like putting a penny in the slot. Will the Minister give a case where any cantankerous or careless workman left a machine and allowed the machinery to be upset or any damage to be done to the factory? If he cannot give a case of that kind, he should at least trust the workmen who are going to come under the terms of the Bill that they will do in the future what they have done in the past. If there is a cantankerous or careless workman who is going to evade the spirit of a measure of this kind as between himself and his employer, surely the Minister knows well that there are disciplinary measures which can be taken by employers rather than by bringing in an amendment of this type.
No; quite the reverse.
The Minister thinks that any man who leaves his work a minute before or remains out a minute after the 15 minutes' rest must be compelled by the wording of this section and that as a result of that he is going to be a better workman than he otherwise would be. Legislation of this Public Safety Act type is not going to make better workers in the future than in the past. In any case, the Minister should give the House any cases put forward by Deputy Good or some unnamed body which persuaded the Minister to put in a section of this kind. I do not believe any sensible argument of any kind was put up to the Minister but that he was merely approached or written to by the Secretary of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, or by some of those people who speak for these new industrial concerns set up in this country, and led to believe that the workmen who attend to machinery are a reckless and careless body of men and cannot be trusted, and that the only way to make them do work in an efficient and conscientious way is to bulldose them with a section which should be contained in a Public Safety Act.
Deputy Davin's speech convinces me that he does not know what we are talking about. There is nothing in this section which compels a worker to do anything. For the first time we are giving him a statutory right——
To stay on the premises.
A statutory right to this rest, and we are limiting that right in a manner which is necessary in his own interest as a worker as well as in the interests of his associates. Why say we are compelling workers to do one thing or another? We are doing nothing of the kind. We are saying that these workers are being given from the date upon which this Bill becomes law this right to a rest on a statutory basis. Deputy Davin says that if a worker walks away from a machine he can be punished by an employer in some other way. He can at present, but after this Bill goes through, unless the amendment is adopted, the employer will commit an offence punishable by a fine if he attempts to interfere with a worker leaving his machine, no matter what may happen.
Have you not got a way out?
There is one way out, and that is to put the responsibility of deciding whether or not it is possible to leave the machine unattended for the rest interval upon those running the concern. That is being done at the present time, and it is being done when the workers have no statutory right to protect them. The fact is that the whole of that section is conferring, as of right and by law, upon workers certain limitations upon the conditions of their employment which a number of workers enjoy at the present time because of voluntary agreement between their employers and the representatives of the employees. In future that will be a matter of law, and it is necessary, in future, that one should have these statutory provisions ringed round with the necessary safeguards to ensure that the machinery of industrial production will work and that, in relation to machines which must run continuously and must run under proper supervision, it is not possible to allow these workers to leave the premises. It is not done at the present time and it has never been done.
This section has a marked difference from sections of a similar nature in another Bill. We were then dealing with continuous processes in industries and it seems that we are now dealing with industrial workers. There are types of workers engaged in continuous processes, such as railwaymen, who have to deal with the safety of the line. The men I am referring to might be, perhaps, 40 miles away at the time they are supposed to get this 15 minutes' rest. If a man of the type I am referring to is to get his 15 minutes' rest, is it intended that he must sit down under the eye of his employer or his foreman? What would be meant by "the premises" in a case of that kind? Should there not be some discretion with regard to this question of the 15 minutes? I hold that there ought to be some elasticity if you are going to give the worker 15 minutes. If you are going to give the man 15 minutes' rest, it should not be done under a rigorous code.
The 15 minutes' period is the minimum. It is the statutory minimum.
That is what is set down here, but my point is that he has to be under supervision in order to have that relaxation, and, if he is so many miles away, that would not be possible.
So far as Section 27 is concerned, no work shall be taken into account unless a licence is issued in regard to it.
I do not see the relevance of that point. You cannot grant a licence until it is shown that the employer has not contravened any condition contained in the licence authorising the licensed shift work concerned, under certain conditions.
The section we are discussing—Section 27—relates to licensing shift work which need not necessarily be carried on by shift work; but the issue of that licence cannot take place until the representatives of the workers have been taken into consultation.
I agree; but take the case of a railway company which wants to build a bridge which can only be built by a continuous shift process. My impression was that such work must be done and that, where the workers concerned are away some distance they would not be entitled to this 15 minutes' period of rest, unless they are under the eye of the foreman. I hold that the measure is not going to confer a benefit on such workers, if that is the case. The man wants a period of relaxation and rest and, according to this, it would appear that he has to walk a distance from his place of occupation. Who can construe what are the premises?
It is defined in the Bill.
And, presumably, on a railway bridge the premises would be the bridge?
Wherever the work was being carried on.
And there would be no question, I presume, of which side of the bridge?
It would be no different from the practice at the present time.
There is one question that has emerged from the discussion on this amendment and on the previous amendment on the same section, and that is that the amendment, apparently, is designed to meet certain exigencies in certain industries. The cases of sugar cookers and the watchers of gauges in gas companies have been mentioned. When I saw the Minister and Deputy Norton billing and cooing on this matter, I thought there was some agreement, but it seems to me that, in order to avoid further divisions, I should like to point out that there are relatively very few things to decide. Would it not be better, in view of that fact, to legislate for the few occupations to which this amendment would apply— which are, relatively, very few, in relation to other occupations for which the Minister caters. I suggest that the Minister should agree to add, at the end of the section, some such words as "save and except these occupations and trades"—and then to name the cases to which the section should or should not apply. I suggest that this is a way out of the difficulty. The Minister has been good enough, on many occasions, to consider the views put forward by members of all Parties and I hope that, in the same spirit, in this case he will give this suggestion the same consideration. I think that very good suggestions were put forward by Deputy Norton and other members of the Labour Party. While there is so much good in the Bill I do not want to see a whole lot of controversy over some sections, and I think some via media might be arrived at whereby these difficulties might be got over. I know that the Minister has become rattled by the rather schoolmasterly style in which Deputy Norton proceeded to lecture him and I am sure it is because of that that we cannot now proceed in the peaceful and helpful attitude under which we were previously discussing the Bill. I put it to the Minister that he should accept this qualification to his amendment—“save and except the following occupations or industries”—which could be set out.
I do not think that is a practical suggestion. The determination must be left to the employer. The whole thing we are dealing with here is a statutory obligation.
I do not want to call a division on the amendment but I am against it.
Amendment No. 57 agreed to.
I move amendment No. 58:—
In page 12, Section 29, line 45, before the word "grant" to insert the words "after consultation with representatives of employers interested in the relevant form of industrial work and with representatives of workers so interested."
This merely provides for a consultation with the representatives of the employers and the representatives of the workers.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 59:—
In page 12, at the end of Section 30, to add a new sub-section as follows:—
Nothing contained in a shift-work licence granted in accordance with the provisions of this Act shall operate so as to disturb any agreement either expressed or implied relating to the hours of work, rates of pay or conditions of employment subsisting between the person to whom such licence is granted and the workers employed by such person.
This amendment was discussed on the first Committee Stage. I think it is an eminently reasonable amendment. It does not prevent the person obtaining a shift-work licence and it will not prevent the working under a shift-work licence. All it does is to endeavour to ensure that shift work licences cannot be issued in such a way as to constitute an infraction of agreements relating to hours of work, rates of pay or conditions of employment. On the first Committee Stage the Minister undertook to look into this amendment.
This amendment cannot be accepted. The granting of a shift-work licence will not or need not affect the rates of pay. There is nothing in the Bill which suggests that these should be affected. But it will almost certainly affect the hours of work and the conditions of employment. If the industry is one that for any purpose is to be transformed into a shift-work industry then there are going to be alterations in the hours of work, and so on. These are matters that will have to be considered before the licence is issued and it is to provide that the representatives of the workers shall have ample opportunities of putting forward their case that I moved a previous amendment. A shift-work licence will alter the hours of work. It will actually increase the hours. Workers under the Bill as it stands may be worked for longer hours than in the case of an industry which can only be divided into a certain number of shifts. There may be variation of the working hours if a man is given a shift-work licence. We cannot provide automatically that there will be no alteration of the hours. There may be alterations upwards or downwards but all these matters will be taken into consideration before the licence is issued.
Has the Minister visualised this section as cutting across existing agreements?
It will not do so. The shift-work licence may upset existing agreements where it results in improvements in the conditions of work. But so far as this particular question of a licence for shift work is concerned, there is no doubt that if an industry which has been working on the day system is transformed into a shift-work industry, there is going to be variation in the existing agreements whether that is done voluntarily or under licence. What we are providing for is that a change-over cannot be effected unless the licence is issued and the licence will be issued only after all the parties are consulted. If such a change takes place whatever alterations are involved in the conditions of employment will be known beforehand. It is after that knowledge that conditions in the issuing of the licence will be laid down.
Somebody comes along to make application for a licence for shift work, and if shift work is to be done the workers' representative will have to admit that that work must be done and the licence must be issued by the Minister. If he has regard to reason and commonsense, the conditions laid down in this Bill will have to apply——
No. Any conditions at all can be laid down. The Bill says "subject to such conditions as the Minister may think fit to impose and to insert in such licence."
The Minister will have power by regulations. He will be tied by the section.
He will not be tied.
In amendment No. 82 the Minister is cutting across this by the proposed sub-section (1) (d) which gives power to except industrial work. The workers' representatives will not have power to vary that unless they appear unreasonable.
The Minister can lay down whatever conditions are considered necessary. These can be imposed on the licence.
What does the Minister contemplate as to these conditions?
I do not know.
If there is an agreement in existence between the workers and employers should not that subsist after the granting of the licence?
Both sides may agree to alter the conditions?
I am not so sure that if this section stands as it is that the Minister will not change the conditions after hearing the employers.
He will hear the workers also.
If an agreement is made between them and they have not waived the conditions already arrived at, what will prevail?
My answer is that this Government has brought in this Bill and the Bill is designed to improve conditions of employment. The Deputy seems to think that the object of the Government is to make the conditions worse.
True, the Bill is being brought in by this Government. But this Government, no more than the last, has no title deeds to these benches.
But this is a Bill to improve the conditions of employment.
I think it would be very much better if the Minister would be reasonable about this and make sure that, in granting a licence, there is no loophole left for tearing up an existing agreement between employers and the representatives of the workers.
The existing agreement may be a bad agreement, and perhaps the best thing that could be done with it would be to tear it up.
I would like to hear the workers on that. Let the workers, if necessary, make representations to have an agreement varied. But surely the Minister does not want to grant a shift work licence merely for the purpose of tearing up a bad agreement. A shift work licence can be granted for other reasons, but I hope he is not going to grant one so that he can tear up a bad agreement.
It would not be necessary to go that roundabout way to do it.
Of course not. I think the Minister should give some assurance that it is not intended to interfere with existing agreements merely because he gets an application for a licence.
If the Deputy says that no such licence must alter the conditions of employment or hours of work, then it is not possible to do that because the licence may alter the conditions of employment and hours of work.
It ought not to worsen them.
It may result in longer hours of work for the period during which the licence operates.
How would it do that? I would ask the Minister to read Section 27.
Under Section 27, if workers who are at present working a 48-hour week have, for any reason, to work on shift work and that a three-shift system is operated, a 56-hour week may have to be worked for a period.
What about paragraph (d) of Section 27?
That deals with the limitation. The case I gave was simply by way of illustration.
But it was wrong.
No. Under paragraph (d) the average numbers of hours worked may not exceed 48. That may be in the existing agreement that the Deputy has talked about. This is to permit of a longer week than a 48-hour week to deal with the changes that may have to be made in existing agreements in order to meet the change-over. I cannot see what danger the Deputy apprehends in view of the fact that, presumably, both sides will have to agree to the change before it can be effected.
How will they?
There is no compulsion on an employer to keep a factory open or on a worker to work.
There is the obvious illustration for this that a four-shift arrangement has been put into operation in certain cases. Obviously, if a four-shift system is going to be worked, then of course old-fashioned conditions will have to be readjusted.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 60:—
In page 13, Section 31 (1), in line 4, to delete the word "to" and in line 5, before the word "commence" to insert the words "if a woman, to".
The effect of this amendment is to keep in this limitation upon the commencing hour of work only in so far as it concerns women workers. I do not think there is any necessity to have the limitation in respect of male workers. I think women should not commence work before 8 a.m. If we had such a limitation there would have to be a large number of exemptions from it because, in respect of a certain class of work those engaged on it must commence before that hour, and they may prefer to maintain the practice of starting earlier and finishing earlier. So far as women are concerned, however, the International Convention concerning the employment of women at night does put this limitation on their commencing hour, and it is necessary to preserve that in order to conform to the Convention. It is not necessary to maintain that restriction in so far as it affects men.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 61:—
In page 13, Section 31 (1), line 7, before the word "to" to insert the words "whether a man or a woman."
This is consequential.
Would the Minister say what is the effect of clause 3 of paragraph (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 31, which reads:
The time on any ordinary working day when such adult worker has completed nine hours' work on that day.
Would travelling time be regarded as time worked for the purpose of computing what time a worker had worked? I take it that this section is intended to cover in future all ordinary employment that has not been specially exempted, and while 48 hours is quite long enough, at the same time I think that these working hours for any one day are not sufficiently flexible. On the Committee Stage of the Bill instanced the case of a worker who had to catch the mail train in the morning. I agree that under paragraph (a) a male worker can now catch the mail train in the morning, but at the same time there are instances in which, on a particular day, there would be a very long period of travelling to and from, and, possibly, a very short period of work. For the sake of argument, let us say that there might be six hours spent travelling to and six hours travelling back again, with two hours of work. Would the Minister say how that is to be accomplished in a single day? I do not suppose the Minister wants to legislate for every case of an employer who has a very small and highly skilled job in which case the work has to be done a very long way from his base. Would the Minister say what is to happen at 8 p.m. if the workman has not returned home? Has he to stop a motor car or a train to get out?
I am willing to answer any reasonable questions the Deputy puts, but in case his speech should be regarded as a precedent, I suggest to the Chair that it is out of order.
The Deputy would be in order in raising that question on the Report Stage.
Would the Minister tell me if travelling time is to be considered as time worked?
Work, where mentioned in the section, is industrial work as defined in Section 3. Travelling in a train is not industrial work.
Then it is only the industrial work that he is engaged on that will count?
On work as defined in Section 3.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 62:—
In pages 13 and 14, to delete Section 32, lines 21 to 58 inclusive, page 13, and lines 1 to 5 inclusive, page 14.
Amendments Nos. 62, 63, 69, 70, 72 and 73 are interrelated. These are proposals dealing with the uncontrolled or additional permitted overtime in certain cases. These new proposals involve the deletion of two sections to which sections amendments have been moved. Obviously, if the sections are deleted the amendments may not be moved. I suggest that the question of overtime be discussed on amendment No. 62, and if that section is deleted the other consequences follow.
In connection with this amendment, during the discussion on the Committee Stage I indicated that it was my intention to propose a general recasting of the provisions of the Bill relating to overtime. Arising out of that statement, I think there was practically no discussion of this section in Committee. The original proposals, as set out in Section 32, were framed for the purpose of keeping our legislation in conformity with the international convention. The international convention provided for the control of overtime working by regulation. We were anxious to keep as close as we could to the convention but we found, when we went into the matter in great detail, that it was undesirable to do so in so far as the making of regulations was going to create considerable difficulty and, therefore, we decided to depart from the terms of the convention and bring forward our own proposals for dealing with overtime. These proposals are set out in amendments Nos. 69 and 73.
The proposals are practically these. We propose to fix a certain percentage of normal working which can be worked by way of overtime without seeking specific sanction for the doing of it. That is called for the purpose of identification in these amendments "uncontrolled overtime." It is proposed to set out how many hours in the day or how many hours in the week may be worked at overtime, automatically, at the discretion of the employer, subject to the payment of overtime wages and also to provide for the granting of permission in special cases, after due application has been made and due consideration has been given to the matter, to work in excess of the uncontrolled overtime while at the same time taking power by regulation to abolish uncontrolled overtime or to limit uncontrolled overtime in any particular trade. The position, therefore is, that when the Bill becomes law there will be power to work overtime as set out in amendment No. 69—a power, however, which may be limited by regulations made subsequently, after consultation with the representatives of employers and employees in any particular trade, or which may be abolished in relation to that particular trade. On the other hand, there will be power in exceptional cases to extend the amount of overtime work. That is in my opinion the most satisfactory way of meeting this particular problem.
There may be some question as to the amount of uncontrolled overtime that may be worked. The proposal in the Bill is, roughly, 10 per cent. of the normal working time, that is with certain outside limits with respect to each day, each week or the whole year, but having regard to the fact that that section is going to have general application to all industries, irrespective of circumstances, and that in some industries the working of overtime, and even a considerable amount of overtime is almost inevitable at certain times of the year, I think it is advisable to leave that general percentage there, seeing that we have power, if the concession should be abused, to limit it by regulation after these consultations and also having advertence to the fact that if it is necessary in particular cases of an exceptional kind, to work longer than the overtime permitted in the uncontrolled overtime section, we can issue a permit for that purpose also. It is the system which will create least administrative difficulties and impose least hardship on either workers or employers in the matter of overtime.
So far as we are concerned, we wish to discourage the working of overtime as a regular policy and if the proposals here regarding uncontrolled time in relation to any industry, result in overtime being worked regularly, when an increase in normal staffs should be effected, then I would propose to use the powers which we are taking to limit the uncontrolled overtime in such cases, or even if necessary to abolish it altogether, permanently or temporarily. It is desirable that it should be known that I intend these powers to be used for the purpose of discouraging and preventing the working of overtime except in exceptional circumstances or in relation to such industries where, because of the seasonal nature of the business to be done, overtime working cannot be avoided.
I should like to understand further the Minister's proposals on the question of overtime, both uncontrolled overtime and the overtime which might be worked after the period of uncontrolled overtime had been exceeded. I think most people would desire that a pretty ruthless measure should be adopted to eliminate the evil of some persons working overtime while others are unable to find any employment whatsoever. Any powers which the Minister takes in the second portion of amendment No. 69 to intervene in the case of industries which are working overtime regularly, or which are abusing the uncontrolled overtime provisions of the amendment, will, I think, have the hearty support of everybody who desires to eliminate the evil of overtime in any shape or form so long as or in cases where it is possible to grapple effectively with that evil. I think, however, that in amendment No. 69 the amount of uncontrolled overtime which the Minister will permit to be worked without any licence or any control is somewhat excessive. Two hours a day may not be very much in an emergency. Conceivably 240 hours in a year, which is about 10 per cent. of the normal year's working, may not be excessive, but 12 hours in a week is excessive. It is another day and a half in the week. Twelve hours in the week is too long to permit as uncontrolled overtime because in that trade while you are giving an average of 10 per cent. in respect of the whole year, you are running up 20 per cent. in respect of the week. I think 20 per cent. is too high in respect to a particular week. If that is true, as I believe it is, in respect to sub-section (a) of the amendment, it is increasingly true in respect to young persons who are to be permitted ten hours' overtime in any week—that is 25 per cent. of the normal working week.
Of course that could not go on every week.
I agree, but it could go on unchecked under the first portion of this amendment until 200 hours in the year had been reached, and unless the case were then brought to the notice of the Minister and he put in operation the machinery provided in the second portion of the amendment. I would suggest to the Minister that he ought to reduce the 12 hours in the week. I am not complaining about the general 10 per cent. If he must have overtime it is not an unreasonable percentage, though we would like to eliminate the evil as far as possible. Two hours in a day are not, in an emergency, a great evil either, although one would like to be able to eliminate that completely. But running overtime for a young person for ten hours a week, which represents 25 per cent. of a normal day, is, in my opinion, excessive and it infringes the overriding average of 10 per cent. for the whole year. You might conceivably, under this amendment, and in perfect conformity with the amendment, have the case where an adult worker might work the normal 48 hours and another 12 hours, making a total of 60 hours a week, and he might do that until such time as the 240 hours had been reached for the year, and then they might be passed on to some other worker in the same employment. This overtime may not apply to all workers at the same time. By a series of relays, employing different workers on overtime, considerable abuse might be possible, although there might be no infraction of the amendment. I think the Minister should consider this matter with the object of reducing the amount of uncontrolled weekly overtime. In the case of the adult worker and the young person it is 25 per cent., whereas the Minister is aiming at a national average of 10 per cent. A good case can be made for the reduction of overtime in a week, but a specially strong case can be made in the case of young persons.
I do not know that there is much objection to having 12 hours in the week. If you permit two hours in the day it is conceivable that overtime might be worked for the whole week, making a total of 12 hours. One of the difficulties in this matter is, of course, that it is very frequently the case that the worker as well as the employer wishes the overtime to be worked. That is the evil of it and that is why it is necessary to have limitations imposed, otherwise the workers would probably never complain about being asked to work overtime, particularly when they are secured by law in future in regard to the overtime rate. The question is what is the wisest allowance to make that will apply to all industrial concerns. We must have some general provision and that is what is set out in amendment No. 69. If that general provision is too great, having regard to the circumstances of particular industries, we can reduce it. If it is not sufficient to deal with the circumstances of other industries, it can be extended under the proposed new section, amendment No. 73. I do not think there will be many cases where it will be necessary to extend it, except to deal with entirely abnormal circumstances which might necessitate an abnormal amount of work in some trade for a limited period, perhaps a period that might never recur.
For ordinary overtime work so as to allow employers that liberty of action which is essential to enable work to be completed and occasional rush orders to be met and contracts to be completed on time, the 10 per cent. margin is, I think, reasonable enough, provided the yearly 10 per cent. can be made a larger percentage for particular periods where extra work has to be done. Ten per cent. of a 48 hour week, 4½ hours, would be of very little advantage if that was all the overtime that could be worked. It is necessary to allow a much higher percentage in the week, knowing, however, that as regards each week in which the full permitted overtime is worked, each such week brings earlier the period in which no overtime can be worked. Employers will, on the whole, I think, endeavour to economise on uncontrolled overtime. It is only rarely that there is an inducement to an employer to arrange overtime. In the majority of trades in which overtime is worked occasionally there is no advantage to the employer except in so far as he completes a contract or avoids penalties by getting the work done in the time arranged. It is only rarely the economy of capital equipment which the working of overtime permits is of sufficient advantage to the employer to offset the higher rate of wages. In these circumstances, I do not think the power of uncontrolled overtime will be used unreasonably. If it should be, we have adequate powers under sub-section 2 of the proposed new section to limit it.
Is the Minister not willing to reduce the period in the week?
I would not think so. It is not unusual in certain industries to do two hours each day.
There is also a point in connection with the Christmas trade, for instance. At that period of the year traders have to deal with perishable goods. There is a rush coming up to Christmas time and people place orders at the last moment. Following the Christmas period there is a lull, in which time the workers get a rest.
Will the Minister agree to reduce the period in the case of young persons?
It is ten hours.
It ought not to be more than six. Ten hours would be altogether too high for young persons.
But they are doing only a 40 hour week under this Bill.
It is enough for them, and the remuneration they get is almost negligible. It would be better for them if they get recreation.
Deputy Beckett referred to the Christmas season. I know that last year and the previous year certain people engaged in the confectionery trade were working overtime in order to deal with the particular rush of business at that time, and they worked that overtime even though they were being prosecuted for it and they paid the fines that were imposed upon them on prosecution. They could not avoid working overtime if their contracts were to be completed. That circumstance will arise in such industries from time to time almost inevitably. We should try to prevent it and make these employers plan their activities and operations in a way which will prevent unusual overtime having to be worked. But when the circumstances do arise, there must be power for the particular week or two in which the abnormal circumstances arise to deal with them. I do not think ten or 12 hours in a week, uncontrolled overtime, is unduly high. If it should prove to be, we have power to reduce it. For a general overriding limit applying to all industries, I think it is safe enough.
The Minister has power to reduce the weekly overtime in that case, and he has other powers under amendment No. 73.
If we make a reduction in sub-section (2) of amendment No. 69, that alters the uncontrolled overtime generally. In so far as amendment No. 73 is concerned, we are giving a permit limiting the time to an individual concerned to work permitted overtime for the period of the permit. But the permit has not general application; it has application only to the firm that gets the permit.
My point is that if the Minister does reduce the weekly period of overtime provided in amendment No. 69, he can, if any firm represents special difficulties to him, grant that firm a permit under amendment No. 73. True, it has only application to a particular firm, but if a particular firm feels that there is an emergency in the matter of staff which requires to be met by permitted overtime, there is not very much difficulty in making an application for a permit, and still the Minister would be maintaining the reasonable maximum overtime in amendment No. 69. The Minister has power in amendment No. 73 on a good case being shown to allow the maximum to go up to ten or 12 hours. Under amendment No. 69, the difficult case could then be provided for.
But by the time the employer makes the application to the Minister, the occasion for overtime may have passed.
It appears to me that there might be a compromise as between Deputy Norton and the Minister. Deputy Norton's main point, I take it, is that if ten hours a week overtime is worked by a young person and a further ten hours period in the next week, it puts an undue strain on the constitution of a young person. If the Minister put in the ten hours period in the first week and then said that for the second week, while working consecutively, not more than six hours overtime or something of the kind were to be worked, it might bring Deputy Norton and himself together.
There cannot be more than 10 per cent. in the year anyway.
There could still be 25 per cent. overtime worked.
There could be full overtime for ten weeks and it would then stop for the rest of the year.
What I meant was that the second consecutive week might be limited in length.
I do not think the circumstances are likely to arise in which these powers will be considerably abused. I said earlier that employers will be influenced by self interest in the majority of cases and it is very rarely in the interests of an employer to work overtime. It is in the interests of the worker. In these matters, it is the worker who wants to work because of the additional earnings he gets; the employer usually only does it when he has to, and he does it knowing that his costs of production arc going to be increased merely to enable him to fulfil a contract.
Of course, the employer docs not want overtime because he is then paying higher rates, but what struck me about Deputy Norton's argument is that a young person may be anxious, and probably always very anxious, to get overtime and possibly a young person working for two consecutive weeks at overtime may be impairing his health. For that reason, I thought a compromise might be reached between the Minister and Deputy Norton, in the shape of a provision that he or she should not be allowed to work the maximum overtime for two consecutive weeks.
I think the Minister should look into the matter. The maximum in the week is too high. I am not complaining about the annual or the daily average.
I do not know that the case is so serious in view of the fact that the maximum working week of the juvenile has been decreased to 40 hours, and at the very most it is a 50-hour week, even with full overtime being worked.
A juvenile is a very young person under this Bill.
A lot of them are working at the moment.
Will the Minister agree to look into it?
I think that it is necessary to allow an exceptional amount of work to be done at exceptional periods.
That can be done under amendment No. 73 in respect of a particular firm.
Only where it is possible to foresee well in advance that the circumstances are going to arise.
It is not possible to apply in advance. That is my objection. We get an order suddenly; some circumstance has arisen which entails working overtime. If you have to apply to the Minister, as the Deputy knows, it will take some considerable time for the Minister to have the matter inquired into and get his assent.
I think that the case in respect to seasonal trades would probably be met if you inserted a clause setting out that the maximum overtime for a juvenile was not to be worked for longer than three consecutive weeks.
It would have to be more than two weeks, I think. If you take the seasonal trades, like the confectionery trades, one week would not be much use.
One week would not be any use and I doubt if two weeks would be sufficient but three weeks would probably meet all the cases.
We might be able to do that. There is power, of course, to do it by regulation.
That is the aggravated case.
I think Deputy Norton is right in saying that there ought not to be maximum overtime over a number of weeks indefinitely, one after another, but I think you could meet the case by saying that it should not be worked for more than three consecutive weeks.
I will look into that but I am not so sure that it is necessary to provide it in the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 63 not moved.
I move amendment No. 64:—
In page 14, Section 33 (1), line 12, to delete the word "to".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 65:—
In page 14, Section 34 (1), line 32, after the word "persons" to insert the words "or young persons who have attained a specified age."
This is, I think, an improved revision in relation to Section 34. Section 34 gives the Minister power to authorise young persons, who are employed as assistants to adult workers, and without whose assistance those adult workers could not carry on their work, to be regarded as adult workers for the purpose of the maximum working week. It is proposed to amend the section so that the powers of the Minister can be exercised, not merely in relation to young persons as a class, but in relation to young persons who have attained a specific age. Thus, the Minister could limit a permit to young persons between the ages of 17 and 18 or the ages of 16 and 18 years instead of merely to young persons generally.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendments Nos. 66 and 67:—
In page 14, Section 34 (2), line 36, to delete the words "persons who in his opinion are representative", and substitute the word "representatives".
In page 14, Section 34 (2), line 38, to delete the words "persons who in his opinion are representative", and substitute the word "representatives".
These are consequential.
Amendments agreed to.
I move amendment No. 68:—
In page 14, to add at the end of Section 34 (2) the following words "and in any event no such regulation shall have effect in respect of any industrial undertaking if the number of young persons employed to do industrial work in such undertaking bears to the number of other workers so employed in such undertaking a proportion greater than 20 per cent."
The object of this amendment is to deal with the position which is created where the Minister, on being satisfied that young persons are necessary as assistants to adult workers and that the work could not proceed without their being employed, may by Order make regulations, in accordance with the section, directing that young persons while employed on such form of industrial work shall be deemed to be adult workers for the purposes of the Act. There may be cases where it is necessary to say that a certain kind of operation which is being done by adult workers and on which a young person is assisting cannot effectively be done if the young person ceased employment through the operation of the provisions of Section 33.
One of the objects of this Bill is to endeavour to restrict the number of young persons in industry and to get a better balance as between men and women and youths and adults and, while I think some case can be made for examining a case where the fact that a young person left off work earlier than the adult might cause inconvenience and dislocation, I think that firms who are given facilities to retain young workers in such circumstances ought to be able to show that they are not employing a predominantly large number of young workers. In order to qualify for whatever benefits they will get under Section 34, they ought to be able to convince the Minister that all their workers, or a substantial number of them, are not. in the category of young workers.
An amendment, therefore, which limited the benefits of Section 34 to such firms as employed a substantial proportion of adult workers would, I think, encourage the employment of adult workers and, at the same time, eliminate the difficulties which will inevitably be caused where applications under this section are received from firms who employ a very substantial number of young workers. In order to qualify for benefits under Section 34, the firm should be able to show that it has no greater proportion of young workers than one to five. If it has one to ten, it should be treated very differently from a firm which has only one to five. Under the section as it stands, it is possible for a firm employing a very large number of young workers to make this application and present the Minister with difficulty in refusing it, whereas the amendment, if accepted, would recognise the special difficulties in the case of a firm which had young workers in no greater proportion than one to five. I think the Minister should examine that point.
I do not think that this amendment should be accepted. I dislike Very much inserting limiting provisions of this kind when nobody knows precisely what the effect of them will be. I could not say straight off what the effect of the amendment would be in relation to particular industries. I can imagine circumstances in which it might be desirable to grant the concession contemplated by Section 34 in a case in which the percentage of young workers to adult workers was higher than 20—say 25 per cent. That might be the case where, for every three adults there was a young worker employed, the employment of that young worker being necessary to enable the work of the adults to proceed. What we provide is that each individual case be examined by the Minister on its merits. Before he makes any decision he must consult the interested parties—representatives of the employers in the industry concerned and representatives of the workers—and obtain their views. It is only after hearing their views and considering the application on its merits that he will make his decision. I think that it is much better to leave the matter like that than to impose in the statute an overriding limitation on the Minister's powers when you cannot say exactly how the imposition of that overriding limitation will work out in practice.
The principle of the amendment is, I think, important if we are going to have, as, unfortunately, we have to-day, a large number of industries employing a considerable number of juveniles. It would be most unfair if they were to introduce one or two adult workers and say that it was necessary to have all these young persons in order to feed with work the couple of adult workers. Instead of working for 40 hours, the employers may say that they will make application to have these juveniles deemed adult workers and work them up to 48 hours. The excuse will be that the juveniles are necessary to the work of the adults and the employment of a couple of adults will bring the employer within the scope of this section. I think that that would be most unfair. The Minister may say that he objects to the proportion of one to five, but he should fix some proportion. Otherwise, this section may be used as an excuse by firms employing a few adults and a large number of juveniles for extending the hours of work of the juveniles.
Another question arises on this amendment. There is increasing difficulty in finding employment for young persons in the City of Dublin. I happen to be connected with the juvenile department of the labour exchange, and we have some 6,000 applications every year from juveniles. We have an increasing difficulty in finding employment for them. In fact, we cannot find employment for half the number who apply. If we are to have a large number of young persons out of employment, we shall have difficulties in other connections. Tradesmen have told me, over and over again, that one of the reasons why Dublin is so expensive for men with large families is that they cannot get employment for the members of their families, as they can in industrial centres. If employment cannot be obtained for the young people, naturally it is more expensive for the head of the family to support them. That aspect of the question does not, I am afraid, get the consideration in the Dáil that it deserves. On all sides, at present, we find young persons unemployed. We have difficulties of all sorts arising out of that unemployment. That is a question which will become very serious in the near future. I ask the Minister to be very careful as to what he does in the way of restricting employment for young persons for the reasons I have given.
I should like to know from the Minister what the unit is for which the regulations are to be made. Is the unit to be a particular industry or a particular firm engaged in an industry? If it is to be an industry, it seems to me that it would be very difficult to decide the number of persons—juveniles or others—to be engaged in that industry. One firm engaged in the industry might have a certain proportion of juveniles and another might have a different proportion. I should like the Minister to make plain what the unit will be.
The unit will be forms of industrial work. For practical purposes, that means industries. It will not apply to individual concerns. We may exempt, say, iron foundries, flour mills, or some other class of industry but, once the regulation is made, it will apply to everybody engaged in the industry.
Question put.
The Committee divi ded: Tá, 18; Níl, 58.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Corbett, Edmond.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Dolan, James Nicholas.
- Flinn, Hugo. V.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Good, John.
- Goulding, John.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 69:—
In page 15, before Section 35, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and subject also to the restrictions imposed by this Act on the employment of women and young persons at night but notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an employer may employ a worker to do industrial work in an industrial undertaking for a longer period on any particular day than the period permitted in that behalf by this Act (other than this section), but subject to the limitation that the length of time by which such longer period exceeds the said period so permitted as aforesaid shall not exceed:—
(a) in respect of any adult worker, two hours on any day, or 12 hours in any week, or 240 hours in any year, or
(b) in respect of any young person, two hours on any ordinary day or one hour on any short day, or 10 hours in any week, or 200 hours in any year.
(2) The Minister may at any time if he thinks fit by order, made after consultation with representatives of employers interested in the relevant form of industrial work and with representatives of workers so interested, make regulations for either or both of the following purposes, that is to say:—
(a) prohibiting the employment, under the next preceding sub-section of this section, of workers or any specified class or classes of workers to do any particular form of industrial work in an industrial undertaking for a longer period than the period permitted by this Act (other than this section);
(b) reducing the length of time during which workers or any specified class or classes of workers, may, by virtue of the next preceding sub-section of this section, be employed to do any particular form of industrial work in an industrial undertaking in excess of the period permitted by this Act (other than this section).
(3) Whenever and so long as regulations made under the next preceding sub-section of this section are in force, sub-section (1) of this section shall have effect subject to such regulations.
This matter has been discussed on No. 62.
The Minister will consider that point?
Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 70:—
In page 15, to delete Section 35, lines 1 to 41 inclusive.
This is a consequential amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 71 and 72 not moved.
I move amendment No. 73:—
In page 15, before Section 36, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) The Minister may, if and whenever he so thinks fit on the application in accordance with this section of an employer who employs workers to do industrial work in an industrial undertaking, grant to such employer a permit in writing to employ, during a specified period beginning not less than seven days after the date of such application, workers or any specified class or classes of workers to do industrial work in the said industrial undertaking for a specified longer period on each day than the period permitted in that behalf by this Act.
(2) The Minister may attach to the permission granted by a permit under this section such conditions as he shall think proper and shall specify in such permit.
(3) The Minister may at any time revoke a permit granted by him under this section.
(4) Whenever a permit has been granted under this section to an employer it shall be lawful for such employer, subject to any revocation of such permit, to employ workers in accordance with such permit notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act.
This is governed by a previous decision.
Would the Minister say whether he has any particular maximum period in mind?
The power there is really power to deal with what I might describe as emergency circumstances. The circumstances of each particular case would have to be considered on their merits before a permit is given.
I take it that it is intended only for an emergency, and is not intended to regularise the employment of persons on overtime for three or six months?
It is definitely to deal only with emergency circumstances.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 74:—
In page 16, before Section 37, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) It shall not be lawful for an employer to employ a worker to do any form of industrial work on any day on which such worker has done any form of industrial work for another employer, except where the aggregate of the periods for which such worker does industrial work for each of such employers respectively on that day does not exceed the period (exclusive of overtime) for which such worker could lawfully be employed to do industrial work for one employer on that day.
(2) Whenever an employer employs a worker in contravention of this section, such employer shall be guilty of an offence under this section, and such worker shall also be guilty of an offence under this section.
On the Committee Stage, I think it was fairly generally suggested from all parts of the House that it should not be lawful for an employer to employ a worker to do any form of industrial work on a day on which that worker had done industrial work for another employer in circumstances which would bring the total amount of the work done in excess of the total amount permitted by the Bill, and that it should be made an offence on the part of the worker or the employer thus to exceed that limit.
There is just one point which I would like to raise, just merely in regard to the drafting of sub-section (2). It says here:
Whenever an employer employs a worker in contravention of this section
Should not that be:
Where an employer knowingly employs a worker....?
No. I am afraid we would have to put the obligation on the employer.
It is very difficult for an employer always to know whether the man he is employing has been working for somebody else earlier on that same day. Suppose the employer is told "I have not worked for anybody else to-day" and on that undertaking the employer gives him employment. As the section stands the employer will be liable. It is entirely against the general principle of the law that a man should be deemed to commit an offence unless he has had an opportunity of really knowing it. I suggest to the Minister that he would meet that point by putting in the word "knowingly".
The putting in of that word "knowingly" would place upon the Minister, or his officers concerned, the obligation of proving that it was done knowingly. The plea that it was done unknowingly would undoubtedly be the grounds for the defence. It would be a very difficult matter to prove that it was done knowingly, as distinct from proving that it was done.
Could not the Minister meet it to some extent by saying something to the effect "Unless the employer shows that he did not know," thus putting the onus on the employer? It does not appear to be equitable to make the employer absolutely responsible in a case like this where he himself might have been deceived. I am sure the intention is that a man shall not be deemed to have committed an offence unless he has in fact broken the law knowingly?
Quite.
It is really a matter of dealing with the evidence. If the Minister will tell the House that he will consider what suitable alteration might be made in the wording in order to meet that point I shall be perfectly satisfied. I do not like the idea that a man who acted in perfect innocence should discover that he has committed an offence.
In those days it is impossible for an employer legally to employ a man for portion of a day unless he provides for insurance and all those things. I take it that what the Minister wants to ensure is that a tradesman who has been working for a legitimate employer during the day-time should be prevented from doing work for other people at night?
Quite.
The clause is intended to prevent him being employed by persons who are not in any way entitled to employ him; who do not cover him for unemployment insurance, or do not fully cover him for national health insurance. They merely call him in as a handy man.
That is undoubtedly the case. As Deputies who were present at the discussion on the Committee Stage are aware, I am not very enthusiastic about this provision, because I see considerable difficulties in its enforcement. There is apparently a general opinion that the power should be there to prevent this type of employment, which interferes with the normal working of certain businesses. Probably the building trade, the motor-repairing trade, and one or two others, are particularly affected. The intention is to prevent a worker who has been employed during the day from doing for a private employer at night work which would ordinarily be done by his day-time employer in the ordinary commercial way. There is a point, undoubtedly, in what Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney has said. I do not know how we can meet that point, but I will consider the matter.
Take Deputy Beckett's case. Suppose a man comes to the employer and says: "I am unemployed. Will you give me this job?" and he is given the job. Now, if he is in fact out of work, the man who employs him has committed no offence; if in fact he has been working that day the man who employs him will, under this section have committed an offence. If he has genuinely deceived the person who gives him work it seems to me to be rather hard that the person whom he has deceived should be convicted. However, if the Minister will think the matter over I will be satisfied.
I should be glad if the Minister would think it over in such a way as not to let outside the scope of the Act the person who takes employment after his ordinary day's work.
I am with the Deputy in that.
So far as the worker is concerned there is no difficulty. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney's point is that the employer may not know he is breaking the law.
There is a very easy test for anybody who knows anything about the conditions under which employment may be given. He has simply to ask: "Where is your card?" If the man has not got his card, it is obvious that he is in employment; the man who is put off gets his stamped card.
There is another test which is equally efficacious, and which I think would apply in 90 per cent. of those cases. The worker should be asked: "Are you prepared to come back and finish the job to-morrow during the normal working hours?" To my mind that is the acid test.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 75:—
In page 16, Section 37 (2), line 14, after the word "section" to add the words "and such young person shall also be guilty of an offence under this section."
This is similar to a number of amendments which we have inserted in the Bill. It puts on the worker as well as on the employer the obligation of observing those provisions.
As regards prohibition, would there be an offence on the part of the employee? Is that provided for in all similar sections?
It is.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 76:—
In page 16, Section 38 (1), line 15, to delete the word "other" and after the word "Act" to insert the words "other than the provision empowering the Minister to make exclusion regulations."
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 77:—
In page 16, Section 39 (1), line 25, to delete the word "other" and after the word "Act" to insert the words "other than the provision empowering the Minister to make exclusion regulations."
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 78:—
In page 17, Section 40 (1), line 4, to delete the word "one" and substitute the words "half an."
I indicated on the Committee Stage that I intended to move this amendment. As the Bill stands it provides for a luncheon interval of one hour. It was pointed out that that might be a hardship on workers in certain places, working some distance from their homes, where it would not be convenient for them to go home, where they took luncheon on or convenient to the job, and that they would prefer to have a shorter luncheon interval. Consequently it is desirable, while there should be a statutory obligation to give time for luncheon, to insert the words in the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 79:—
In page 17, Section 40 (2), line 7, after the word "overtime" to insert the words "for more than one and one-half hours."
This is somewhat similar. The section provides for an interval before working overtime. It was pointed out that if the amount of overtime to be worked was only one hour, or half an hour, the worker might prefer to go right through and then go home in comfort for a meal. The provision is that the section will not operate unless one and a half hours' overtime has to be worked.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 80:—
In page 17, before Section 40 (5), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(5) Every worker employed on industrial work who is present on the premises of his employer while industrial work is being done on such premises shall, unless he is so present on such premises in contravention of the orders of such employer, be deemed for the purposes of this section to be present on such premises for the purposes of doing the industrial work on which he is so employed.
This amendment was suggested by Deputy Norton, and I think it is desirable. It provides, where a worker is found present on the premises of an employer while industrial work is being done, that he shall be deemed to be there for the purpose of doing that industrial work. It will facilitate the working of the Act and also the Workshops and Factories Acts.
How is it possible to assume that if a man goes into the workshop? We have all sorts and conditions of men coming in who are not employed on the premises.
If they are not employed there the question does not arise. It is possible that if an inspector went into factory premises after the working hours and found workers present while they might not be actually working, the employer could say that they were not working and thus evade the obligation to cease work at a particular hour. The purpose of the amendment is to give the inspector the right to assume that if workers employed to do a particular form of industrial work are found on the premises at any time, they are deemed to be there for the purpose of doing work, unless the employer says they are there in contravention of his instructions.
In fact he has to instruct them not to be there.
He has to instruct them when the day's work is done to leave the premises.
You are putting it on the employer to see that these men are not on the premises.
No, I am putting it on the employer to see that they leave the premises at the end of the maximum working day.
It was never necessary in my time to tell men to go home.
What does happen is that workers are employed over the regular hours in certain factories, and when the inspector goes in they are told they can go and they put on their hats and coats. The employer says they are not working; that they have been talking about social affairs on the factory premises. That is a common method of evasion. This amendment will prevent that happening.
I am afraid the Minister will want to look into this matter. An employee might remain on the premises for a considerable time after work was over, waiting out of a shower of rain or to see someone. It would be very unfortunate if anything happened to that person, say half an hour after the works were closed, and all the other men had left, and if employers would be held liable for an accident. There will have to be some limitation.
This amendment only applies while work is being done on the premises.
That is a very wide application. Work might not be done on the premises at that moment.
The amendment only deems the worker to be present doing work for the purpose of this section. It would not deem him to be doing work for the purposes of the Workmen's Compensation Acts. These Acts are not affected by this amendment.
The words of the amendment are "employed on industrial work". I am afraid they will have wider application.
Take the example given by the Minister, of an inspector coming along and finding the workers on the premises with their hats and coats on. An employer could not possibly be caught under this section, for the reason that it says the work must actually be going on when he arrives. The Minister did not contemplate that work was going on in the example he gave.
It might not be illegal to employ certain classes of workers at the time of the inspector's visit, but it might be illegal to employ others. The usual case is that where juveniles are kept working until an hour which is quite legitimate for adult workers but illegal for the others. That would be the usual type of case, employing juveniles beyond the legal hour. It is in such cases these circumstances might arise. The section is not of practical effect except as a means of enforcing the obligations of this and other statutes of the factories and workshops code.
Will the Minister have the matter looked into, with regard to the liability that falls on employers?
I think there is no doubt about that. They are only deemed to be at such work for the purposes of the section.
That may be the intention, but I am afraid you will find liability follows.
I will look into it.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 81:—
In page 17, Section 41 (1), before pragraph (b) to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
(b) licensed shift work.
This is really a drafting amendment. It is clear that if shift work is licensed in a particular industry it may be necessary to continue the work continuously over Sunday and Sunday work might be permitted. Therefore it is desirable to have licensed shift work mentioned in the section.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 82:—
In page 17, Section 41 (1), to add at the end of the sub-section a new paragraph as follows:—
(d) industrial work excepted from this sub-section by regulations made by the Minister after consultation with representatives of employers interested in such industrial work and with representatives of workers so interested.
I think it is desirable to have this provision. As the section stands, workers are permitted to work on Sundays and holidays when engaged in continuous process shift work, such as printing newspapers or working in creameries. There may be other industries of which we have no cognisance at present, or there may be industries established, in respect of which work on Sundays and public holidays may be as necessary as in the case of the industries mentioned. Consequently, there should be some section which would enable an order to be made extending the scope of these industries after consulting with the workers and the employers concerned. Otherwise we would have to promote amending legislation and that is, I think, not desirable when the possibility can be provided against by an amendment of this kind. I cannot at the moment mention any such industry. If I could mention the industry that might be brought under this amendment, I would insert an amendment in the Bill to cover it. I do not know that there are any such in respect of which this power will have to be used at present, but there is always the possibility of some new industrial development taking place of a kind which would justify the making of an order under the proposed amendment to unable work on Sundays and public holidays to be done, subject, of course, to the usual provision in respect of another day off, etc.
I can give the Minister one of the cases he is thinking of. Apart from continuous process and licensed shift work, there is work that has to be done on Sundays and holidays in relaying the line. That is done on Sunday for a period of eight or nine hours, and it is additional to the working week of the operatives, who in their agreement have a guaranteed week of six days. Occasionally they have to do this relaying, or work in connection with bridges, and they are paid at the rate of time and a quarter. That is not in conflict with their agreement for the 48-hour week. I want to know if the concluding portion of the section will be applicable to these men, that they will have to be laid off for 24 hours before the Sunday, in case they could not do this work of relaying on any other day, and that the result will be that they will work on Sunday for time and a quarter and be laid off on some other day of the week, so that they will have to work on the Sunday for just the extra quarter time. That will mean a hardship on the workers and dislocation of the company's organisation. These staffs are not drawn from the particular area where the operation is taking place, and having to make arrangements for the laying off of these men for a day is going to cause considerable dislocation. The point arises whether the Minister contemplates that they should be paid for the day they are laid off. If the effect is to be as I have stated, it is going to cause hardship to the men concerned and great dislocation to the organisation of the company's work, because these are regular employees who cannot be replaced from outside as they are semiskilled men trained for this work. I should like to know from the Minister if my interpretation is correct.
In fact that particular class of work was brought to my notice by representatives of the railway companies. I indicated here before, I think, when some reference was made to it that it would have to be met by an exclusion order under Section 22. It would mean that that class of work would be excluded from the operation of this section. But there may be classes of work which we would permit to be done on Sundays, but in respect of which we would like to attach the obligation to give a day off in lieu of Sunday. If we did not make this amendment, the only thing we could do in relation to such classes of work would be the same thing which we contemplate doing for the class to which Deputy Keyes refers—to exclude them from the section, in which case the obligation to give a day off would not arise. It might be preferable in these cases, instead of excluding them from the section, to include them in sub-section (1) by an order under the amendment, in which case the obligation of sub-section (2) would be attached and the day off would have to be given.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 83:—
In page 17, before Section 41 (2), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the next preceding sub-section of this section, an employer may employ an adult male worker to do, on any Sunday, for a period not exceeding three hours or for two or more periods not exceeding in the aggregate three hours, any industrial work to which the prohibition effected by the said next preceding sub-section applies.
I mentioned that it was represented that in certain trades it is necessary for a worker or two to attend at the factory premises on the Sunday for a short period, perhaps an hour or two hours, to do certain necessary work where chemical processes, etc., are in progress, and that in such a case it was not in the interests of the worker that that attendance upon Sunday for an hour or two should operate to require that he should get a complete day off during the week. Consequently, I am proposing to insert a section to make this prohibition apply only in respect of work exceeding three hours in duration. That will permit of these casual supervision jobs, which it is necessary to do upon Sundays, being executed without dislocation in respect of the organisation of the work, or without hardship to the worker in the matter of reducing his weekly earnings.
Is the Minister putting in three hours advisedly to meet the circumstances of the case?
Yes.
What has the Minister in mind in respect of the reduction of the earnings of the workers?
At the present time the worker does six days in the week, plus two hours on Sunday, and he is paid for that. If we did not make the amendment, he would only do five days in the week, plus two hours on Sundays, and if he is paid at piece work or day rate his earnings would be less.
He would be paid a weekly rate.
If paid a weekly rate it would be the same.
What about Deputy Keyes' case?
Deputy Keyes is, I think, dealing with an entirely different matter. That is where workers are brought together from a number of areas to do a particular job and they prefer to be left at that job until finished, rather than have their time broken. We would meet that case by taking it outside the section. The only class of work dealt with in the section is a regular normal practice.
Deputy Keyes is interested in the case of men who work on six week-days and also on Sunday for which they get time and a quarter. They must, unless they are excluded under Section 22, get a day off. Deputy Keyes' problem is this: What is the financial position of the men after working six week-days and one Sunday? Are they going to be paid for five week-days and one Sunday or six week-days and one Sunday?
If the working of seven days in the week is a regular practice. I think it should be stopped.
Amendment put and agreed to.
The following amendment was agreed to:—
84. In page 17, Section 41 (2), lines 38 and 39, to delete the words "which such worker may be lawfully permitted to do on a Sunday," and substitute the words "to which the prohibition effected by sub-section (1) of this section does not apply".—Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.
I move amendment No. 85:—
In page 17, before Section 41 (3), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) Where an employer is prohibited by this section from permitting workers in his employment to do industrial work for him on a public holiday, such employer shall pay in respect of every public holiday one day's pay (calculated at the rate which would be applicable if such public holiday were a day of annual leave) to every worker who—
(a) is a worker to whom such prohibition applies, and
(b) is in the employment of such employer on the working day next before such public holiday, and
(c) has been continuously in such employment during the whole of the period of four weeks ending on the said working day, and
(d) has worked in such employment not less than one hundred and fifty hours during the said period of four weeks, and
(e) has worked in such employment not less than twenty hours during the six working days next preceding such public holiday.
I do not think that this amendment is quite clear for one section of the workers. The amendment does not bring you any further in one respect because when you come to amendment No. 86 it deals with the case of a worker "whose ordinary remuneration is calculated by reference to time, at such rate per day as shall be the average earnings of such worker for the last six working days immediately preceding such public holiday."
And then it proceeds to deal with piece-work. Now, there is another class of workers who are paid nominally by the hour, and who work 44 or 48 hours per week at an agreed rate. The practice, in most of these trades, is to work five days at a longer period and, on the Saturday, at a shorter period. Now, if the bank holiday falls on a Saturday, at what rate is the pay to be calculated? I would say that it was to be calculated at the number of hours that would be normally worked on a Saturday, but the employee might contend that he should receive payment on the basis of the longer day's pay, namely, at the rate of the ordinary working day of the week. I would like the Minister to clear that point up. I take it that, in the case of that class of employee, no difficulty will arise about what his pay for the week will be, because he will get 44 hours; but, in the case of the bank holiday falling on a Saturday, is it to be calculated as if he were working on a Saturday or as if he were working on an ordinary day of the week?
I am not quite clear whether the Deputy is dealing with amendment No. 85 or amendment No. 86.
I am dealing with amendment No. 85.
I am afraid that I could not follow entirely what Deputy Dockrell was getting at.
Perhaps the Minister will give us his own explanation.
Amendment No. 85 gives the statutory minimum.
What about the question of overtime?
The payment of overtime is not prohibited.
Would the Minister elaborate that a little further and tell us whether, when a bank holiday falls on a Saturday, and a worker who is paid at the rate of 44 hours per week for a full working week, the worker should receive five hours' pay for that bank holiday which fell on the Saturday, or eight hours' pay? I contend that he should only receive five hours' pay.
He would receive the average day's pay.
But that is just the point. What is the average day's pay in this connection? Perhaps Deputy Norton will tell us what he calls an average day.
Will Deputy Dockrell look at amendment No. 86 (a)?
It will not help us. I am referring to the case where a worker works five days at eight hours and for four hours on Saturday.
It is a sixth of his week's pay,
My only point is that there will be confusion. My contention is that four hours' pay should be substituted for what appears in the amendment. It does not say "per hour" in the amendment.
It says that the day's pay shall be calculated at the rate which would be applicable if the public holiday concerned were a day of annual leave, and the method of calculating the days for annual leave is set out precisely and it is averaged over the last six working days immediately preceding the public holiday concerned.
It seems to me that Deputy Dockrell's point is that if a public holiday falls on a Friday it would be calculated in the ordinary way, but that, if the public holiday falls on a Saturday it should be calculated in the same way. His contention is, as it appears to me, that that is not just to the employer, because, if it were not a public holiday, the worker would be kept on. It is not specified in the Act what should be done in the case of a public holiday falling on a Saturday instead of an ordinary week-day. Is that your point, Deputy Dockrell?
It is complicated by the worker working on an occasional rating. If the Minister's contention is to stand, and if it is a question of an average rate, it will then be a case of what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and, instead of getting eight hours' pay for a full bank holiday, the worker will only get a somewhat lower fraction. I think that it would be better if the Minister would clear that point up.
Amendment No. 49, which was passed earlier, provides for the calculation of annual leave, and the calculation there provided for is the annual leave in respect of each day. The same rate has to be paid in respect of public holidays.
Even though the holiday is on a Saturday?
Yes.
That is no help, because we can shorten the period and say there is no contention or dispute as to what the weekly rate is—it is 44 hours—but when it comes down to daily pay, that is where the difficulty will arise, in the case of a worker who works five long days and one short day. I should like the Minister to elucidate that point.
For every public holiday, no matter whether it be Saturday or Friday he gets one day's pay, calculated at the rate, and in the manner, set out in three paragraphs of amendment No. 49. That is the average daily rate of his earnings in the period in which he is allowed annual leave.
Will the Minister say is this an, amendment that compels the employer to pay for public holidays?
It is.
The Minister introduced a Bill to give holidays of six days with pay. Now in this amendment you are providing for at least 12 days pay for non-work. In a very large number of employments in this country at present bank holidays are at the workers' expense. In very few cases are these holidays at the employers' expense. This amendment provides for the payment of the workers for every bank holiday. I think that is a mistake. To introduce this section now for the payment of public holidays is, I think, unwise. It may happen in this country that at various times the Government may decide to proclaim other public holidays, and then the question will always arise whether they are to be paid for or not. That sort of thing creates friction, and friction is not a matter that should be allowed to enter into this thing at all. When the Bill was introduced it was amongst other things a Bill providing for a definite number of holidays. But now this amendment alters that.
When the Bill was before us in Committee this question as to whether public holidays should be paid for or not was discussed at considerable length. The Bill, as introduced, does not provide for the payment of public holidays, and it was urged here from all sides of the House that it was a doubtful benefit to give the workers additional public holidays throughout the year unless provision was made for payment. I found myself in the position of having no argument that I considered really effective against the argument advanced, and after due deliberation I decided to introduce this amendment. It provides that the workers covered by the Bill should have their holidays paid for. That, I admit, is imposing an extra charge upon the industries in which they are employed. It is not a very heavy charge.
In some cases it is.
It may be more heavy in some cases than in others, but it is difficult to suggest reasons against it, otherwise than the one argument that it effects an increase in industrial cost. This obviously is a matter upon which differences of opinion will exist according to the outlook of the individual. But it is justified. It does not put any individual employer at a disadvantage as against his competitor. That is because of its general application. It might put the nation as a whole at a disadvantage against competitors in external markets, but the percentage of increase in cost in relation to any industry is not of sufficient importance to create really an adverse effect upon the national trade. The proposal was one which would have come forward at some stage. I contemplated originally the development in the industrial holiday idea would come in two stages. The first was to be provided for in the Bill as introduced in which the obligation to provide a statutory weekly holiday in the year would be imposed for the first time, and the second one in which the obligation to pay for public holidays would be imposed. However, having regard to the representations that were made, and apparently having regard to the general opinion which existed throughout the House and which was expressed by spokesmen of all Parties, this obligation to pay in respect of public holidays was imposed. My own feeling was that it was a reasonable thing to do and a difficult thing to oppose and I brought forward this amendment. I think it is one which has been fairly generally welcomed, and it is likely to commend itself to the House. I did not myself intend that this provision should operate when framing the Bill originally. The introduction of the amendment is, I think, an improvement in the Bill. It is an improvement which it is easier to effect in so far as it appears to be one which is generally desirable.
The operation of this will come in in a rather difficult way. Suppose there is a question of special employment during the holiday season. The Minister may take it that a firm is going to put on extra men for a week. The question will at once arise as to whether there is a holiday in that week. Difficulties unfavourable to the workers will be created. I think this should be done in some other way. If a firm wants to put on an additional staff of men to do a certain amount of work, say, on the Thursday before Good Friday, until the following Tuesday, they will have to pay a certain additional amount of money. An extra day will have to be paid for the four days. It would be far better, I think, to make provision otherwise. The Government may proclaim a day a public holiday at any time. It is not that I grudge the men payment for the day, but I can foresee how it is going to work to their disadvantage. It is going to create very large difficulties. Public holidays have for long been established. In some parts of Ireland public holidays are bank holidays, while in other parts they are Church holy days. I take it that this amendment, as the Bill stands at the moment, will not provide for Church holy days to be paid for in country districts unless the employer elects beforehand that these will be public holidays. Even I question then that they will be paid for. The workers in the country are on a different basis from those in the city. I take it that Church holy days will not come under this Bill.
There are only six holidays at any rate. There cannot be more than six in respect of which this obligation to pay will exist.
In the country you will have to elect for one or the other— elect for the Church holy days or the bank holidays.
Who is to settle the point?
The employer.
You might provide for 12 holidays on this basis.
There will not be an obligation to pay for more than six.
But if the President or the Government proclaim another holiday?
That is already provided for. If it is a public holiday in substitution of the existing holiday, it is provided for by amendment No. 18.
All the workers do not get the same bank holidays, and there will be considerable overlapping.
In any event the total number of public holidays in respect of which the obligation to pay exists is six, and there cannot be more than six.
I would like the Minister to justify this section a little more than he has done. First of all, it seems that if there is no holiday on a Saturday a man will get paid for four hours. Why, if there is a public holiday on the same day, should he get paid for seven and one-third hours? In other words, why should he get more if he is not working than if he were working? I do not begrudge the man what he will get, but I would like the Minister to justify the section more than he has done.
What the Deputy has stated would be the case if Saturday were a normal short day for a particular worker. It is for the majority of workers, but it may not be for all.
But if Saturday is a public holiday he will get paid for seven three-quarter hours.
Yes. We have to make a general provision. There are six public holidays which may occur on any day of the week. We say, in relation to these days, that payment has to be made on the same basis as payment is calculated for the purpose of the annual leave. That may work out to the advantage of the worker when the holiday falls on a Saturday, and it may not. The worker may be employed in an industry in which the short day is on some other day of the week, in which case he gets the advantage if the holiday is on that other day of the week and not on Saturday. Taking the average for seven years, there will be no great advantage to anyone.
You must assume that the worker always, has a slight advantage because he is not working at all on a public holiday.
He gets that additional advantage undoubtedly.
Is the Minister's ruling that, in the case of a worker who is paid by the hour, his average day's pay is to be the number of hours that he worked in the week divided by six?
The day's pay is calculated for the purposes of the annual leave. That is his average daily earnings over the period concerned.
Then he is going to receive less than the day's pay if the holiday falls on an ordinary day and more if the bank holiday falls on a Saturday. According to the Minister's argument, apparently the day's pay in calculating his leave would be not eight hours but seven and one-third hours. I think that many workers will begin to scratch their heads and wonder why they receive less than a day's pay for a day's pay. I think it would be well if the Minister made the position a little bit more clear in the Bill because I fear this is going to lead to a good deal of friction.
If he gets an average day's pay it will work out the same in the long run.
It may, but he is going to get less than what he considers his day's pay for eight hours, and he is going to get that every time this question of leave arises. Perhaps the Minister's way of dealing with this is the better way, but I fear it will lead to a great deal of friction. According to the inexorable arithmetic laid down by this section it does not deal with the worker who is paid by the hour. At least, it does not mention him specifically. It is going to be seven one-third hours or the number of hours worked divided by six.
In this Bill we are introducing a new principle, and I am anxious that the discussion on Deputy Dockrell's point should not obscure the main purpose of the section which is to introduce, for the first time, the principle of payment for public holidays.
You propose in this amendment to pay for public holidays. I think we should vote on that.
The Minister says that he is introducing a new principle in this Bill. He is also introducing a new principle in the case of many large industries. There are agreements at present existing in those industries relating to public holidays and in connection with which the men are not paid. They have never been paid for those public holidays in some of those industries. In the case of those industries what is to be the position in the future? Are the agreements or the provisions of this Bill to be followed?
So far as that is concerned, this is a legal obligation to pay for the holiday and it cannot be evaded.
The wage agreements in those industries have been made on the basis that the worker was to have holidays at his own expense.
I understood that the position was to be that if agreements were in force in certain trades, then those agreements were to be registered and that the conditions embodied in them were to be observed. According to the Minister, the provisions in this Bill are now to take precedence of those agreements.
Only in so far as they relate to wages.
The Agreements Register relates only to rates of wages. The Bill does not propose to register anything else, and the object of that is to ensure uniformity of payment in the rates of wages in industry. It is not proposed to enforce agreements relating to conditions of employment.
If those registered agreements are only to be made applicable so far as wages are concerned, how are we to get the special clauses, that specialised trades require, agreed upon?
There is nothing to prevent that. The purpose of the Agreements Register is to ensure that where agreements are made between a majority of employers and representatives of the workers the minority of employers will have to conform to them. That is the purpose of the register. It relates only to rates of wages and not to conditions of employment, which would be a more difficult thing to enforce.
But where in the Bill does it limit the registration of agreements to the particular items that the Minister mentions?
In Section 42.
My objection to this was not on the grounds put forward by Deputy Beckett that a man should not be paid for a public holiday at all. I concerned myself chiefly with the position with regard to Saturday, because it does occur to me as rather strange that if a man were at work on a Saturday he would only get paid for a four-hour day, whereas if he is not at work he will get paid at the rate of seven and one-third hours.
It is not correct to say that the man is not at work. To qualify for this he must be in employment. He is not unemployed.
He is employed all right but he is not actually at work. He is drawing more wages than if he were at work.
If the holiday is a Saturday holiday then over seven years he is going to get seven ordinary days' pay. It will average out.
It is six to one against the worker.
But the one makes up for the six.
I asked the Minister with regard to Section 42, what was to be done with existing agreements in future?
Whatever agreements have been made between organisations of employers and employees can be made in future. We are not preventing the making of agreements dealing with conditions of employment. We provide machinery by which these agreements, in so far as they relate to rates of wages, can be made statutorily enforceable and if both parties desire the agreement can be registered.
Where is there permission in this Bill to make such agreements, if you tell me that Section 42 only refers to wages?
There is nothing in the Bill which prevents the making of such agreements.
What are they to be governed by? Authority must exist somewhere to govern the trade. What is it to be governed by?
By agreements.
Where are they?
So far as the Bill is concerned there is no reference to them. They are agreements which will be made voluntarily or made at any rate by mutual consent between the parties and they will be enforceable in so far as the parties agree mutually to enforce them on themselves.
You get into a difficulty under Section 42. These agreements are referred to in Section 42——
That is agreements referring to wages?
Yes. You say that the legislation only governs the rate of wages. There is only legislation governing that clause of the agreements, otherwise they go by the board.
No agreement comes under the scope of Section 42 until there is a joint application by both parties to it for the registration of it and until the Minister has agreed to accept it as suitable for registration. In the event of a certain situation arising, as the Bill stands, that does not impose any obligations on the Department of Industry and Commerce, but it gives the workers who are concerned in the industry to which the agreement relates certain rights against the employers if the employers should not observe the agreement.
I should like to get clear on this. The point has been raised that there are at present operating certain agreements with regard to wages under which public holidays were not paid for. Now that provision has been made that there will be a statutory obligation to pay workers in respect to public holidays, do I understand that some of these agreements in regard to wages will have to be reopened because the principle of payment for public holidays has been established?
That is so.
This establishes a minimum which must be applied in regard to these agreements. In other words, if there is no agreement providing for holidays, this Bill gives holidays.
The suggestion is made that the acceptance of this particular principle is going to upset certain wages agreements.
Who said that?
The whole Bill may have that effect in so far as it reduces hours of work or in some other way affects conditions of employment. We hope that we shall get all these problems in relation to industry considered as a whole and agreements recorded which will be implemented through the various sections of the Bill, by the different regulations or by the registration of agreements. The Bill does not come automatically into operation. It can be applied part by part, or it can be brought into operation in relation to particular classes of work. Generally speaking, it does not effect any substantial change in the prevailing conditions except in certain cases. The changes will really come when the regulations under the Bill are made. One of the changes that will come automatically into operation is this one relating to payment for public holidays or the provision for annual holidays. They are automatic in their operation and will apply to all workers operating in activities within the scope of the Bill. They will be enforceable irrespective of what is embodied in existing agreements.
Is the Minister prepared to say that if public holidays are to be paid for, that does not invite the reopening of agreements with regard to wages?
I see no reason why it should involve any, alteration in existing agreements with regard to wages.
A number of Dublin men may have to go to various parts of the country. Supposing they are in a part of the country where the public holidays are altogether different to those observed in Dublin. Is the Dublin practice to be followed or is the country practice to be followed in the case of these men?
That is entirely at the discretion of the men's employers. So far as the Bill is concerned, these statutory holidays operate unless the employers decide to substitute the public holidays for four of them.
Is it not clear that this section does not affect existing wages agreements?
Definitely it does not.
It does not necessarily call for a revision of the agreements?
In my opinion, it does not.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 86 not moved.
Progress reported; the Committee to sit again next week.