Vol. 59 No. 4
I move amendment No. 87:—
In page 17, Section 42 (2), in line 53 and also in line 57, to delete the words "purporting or claiming to be."
This is one of a number of amendments to Section 42 and they all hang together. This is really a drafting amendment.
I move amendment No. 88:—
In page 17, Section 42 (2), line 54, to delete the word "concerned" and substitute the word "interested."
This appears to be an alteration of Section 42. I am really referring to amendment No. 87 but the same remark applies to amendment No. 88. I thought there was an entirely new section coming along.
No, the new amendment relates to sub-section (4) of Section 42.
I have here an amendment—amendment No. 90:—
In page 18, Section 42 (2), line 6, to delete the words "one or more of".
This is to require that any agreement to be registered must be registered at the request of both parties to it. Previously the Bill provided the Minister could register at the request of one of the parties. Arising out of the discussion in Committee, I agreed to amend the section so that the consent of both parties would be required.
What does the Minister say is the purpose of this amendment?
I am quite prepared to withdraw it if there is any objection to it. I am not very keen on it. I introduced it because I thought it was urged.
By whom?
By the Labour Party.
There is no enthusiasm for it.
I think the Bill is better without it.
I think it is.
Then I am prepared to withdraw it.
Does it still mean agreement amongst the parties?
Is the amendment being moved?
I am not moving it.
Then we cannot discuss it. The Minister must have the consent of the House to withdraw it.
Is the amendment withdrawn?
It has not been moved.
I move amendment No. 91a.:—
In page 18, to delete Section 42 (4) and substitute a new sub-section as follows:—
(4) Whenever an agreement is registered in the register, the following provisions shall, on and after the date on which such agreement is so registered and for so long thereafter as it continues to be binding on the parties thereto, have effect in relation to such agreement, that is to say:
(a) such agreement shall be binding on every employer concerned in the form of industrial work in the area to which such agreement relates and on every worker or, where such agreement relates only to a class of workers, every worker in such class employed in the said form of industrial work in the said area;
(b) it shall not be lawful for any such employer to employ or pay any such worker at a rate of salary, wages or other reward which is less than the rate provided by such agreement and applicable to such worker;
(c) if any such employer employs or pays any such worker in contravention to the next preceding paragraph of this sub-section, such employer shall be guilty of an offence under this section;
(d) subject to the provisions of the next following paragraph of this sub-section, every such worker shall, notwithstanding any contract to the contrary, be entitled to demand from and be paid by and to recover from his employer salary, wages, or other reward at the rate provided by such agreement and applicable to such worker;
(e) nothing contained in this sub-section shall operate to prevent any such employer from employing or paying any such worker salary, wages or other reward at a rate greater or more beneficial to such worker than the rate provided by such agreement and applicable to such worker, or operate to prevent any such worker who is so employed at such greater or more beneficial rate of salary, wages, or other reward from recovering from his employer salary, wages or other reward at such greater or more beneficial rate.
The amendment is one which caused considerable difficulty, not merely in the drafting but, also, in the minds of certain people interested who read into the sub-section what was not intended to be there. Whether in fact it was there or not is another question. The purpose of the whole section is to ensure that when an organisation, of employers, representing a majority of the employers, in a particular industry, and an organisation of workers, representing the majority of the workers in the same industry, come to an agreement as to the rates of wages that should operate, then that agreement may be presented to the Minister for Industry and Commerce for registration. If accepted by him and registered, the wages specified in the agreement become enforceable throughout the whole industry; and a minority of employers, not already in the agreement, become liable to pay those rates of wages to their workers, or at any rate liable to pay not less than those rates of wages to their workers. Three attempts have been made to get the agreement into a form to which no objection would be taken. The difficulty, I frankly admit, was due to my desire that the enforcement of the agreed rate of wages should not be the obligation of the Department of Industry and Commerce. All the difficulty in framing the new section was due to the fact that I was anxious to provide that the enforcement of the agreed rate would be something the worker himself would have to undertake without the assistance of the Department.
I have come to the conclusion that it is not practicable and that the ways by which an agreed rate could be evaded are so many, that unless it is made an offence by law, in the ordinary way, the whole scheme could not be operated. The significance of the new amendment is that it proposes to make it an offence for the employer to pay less than the registered rate of wages. There is one possible further amendment required and it is on a matter upon which opinions may differ. The new sub-section (4) proposes to provide that when an agreement was registered the following things may happen: First, all such agreements shall be binding for every employer in the class of work to which the agreement relates, and secondly, binding upon every worker as well. It is in relation to the second paragraph that I think a further amendment would be necessary, because, as Deputies who read the amendment will notice, there is no penalty provided for the worker if he accepts less than the agreed rate. Of course, the prospect of the increased rates of wages being evaded arises from the possibility of collusion between the employer and employee. It is not inconceivable, in certain circumstances. It is considered that it shall not be lawful for any employer in any industry concerned, to pay less than the agreed rate. If he pays lees than the agreed rate he is guilty of an offence, and the worker is entitled, on his own behalf, to go to the courts and recover the amount that he is being underpaid. And it is provided that nothing in the section shall operate to prevent an employer paying a higher rate, or of making it impossible for the worker to recover the agreed higher rates through the courts in the event of the employer not following up his contract. I think this section is now completely operative. I think it gets over the objections which were raised to the original sub-section, and the only query in my mind in that connection is whether it is necessary or desirable that we should have another paragraph providing that it would be an offence for the worker to take less than the agreed rate. I think it would be a safeguard to have that, although it looks rather strange to enforce by legal penalties on the worker his obligation to get the registered rate of wages. At the same time one cannot ignore the possibility of that situation arising in particular circumstances. I think this amendment is a decided improvement on the original sub-section (4), whereas the amendment which I proposed originally, and which is embodied in the sheet of amendments, is open to a possible interpretation which would nullify it altogether in so far as it does not appear to make it invalid or illegal for an employer to pay less than the agreed rate.
The Minister mentioned in his explanation the term, "if accepted and registered." What is the implication of that? Is the Minister going to accept in some cases and not accept in others?
Quite possibly.
On what lines will he exercise his discretion?
I cannot say that now. There may be circumstances in which the Minister would refuse to register an agreement. I will give you an example. Assuming that there was an organisation of employers which was acting in competition with a number of other employers in another part of the country where different circumstances prevailed. The agreed rate, although applicable to the factories of the organisation of employers, and although they were an actual majority of the total number of employers in the industry, might nevertheless be unfair to those outside the association. I do not say that will happen often. The only circumstance in which I can see it might happen is where a prevailing practice to recognise a lower standard rate in rural districts as against city districts was to be wiped out by the proposed agreement, and it was considered desirable to preserve it. That not infrequently happens even under the Trades Board Act at the present time. Very frequently, a trade board unanimously recommends rates of wages for the trade with which it is concerned, and on those recommendations coming to me, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, I refer them back, pointing to particular parts of the proposals to which I take objection, and asking them to reconsider those proposals. Not infrequently the proposals are reconsidered, and sometimes amended, to meet legitimate objections put up to them. Precisely the same circumstances might arise in relation to the agreed rate of wages. The third party coming in might see something objectionable which the parties to the agreement had not observed, but might be prepared to rectify if brought to their attention.
An agreement would not, therefore, be a legitimate agreement until it had the Minister's imprimatur?
An agreement, if made, is an agreement, the same as an agreement between employers and workers at the present time is an agreement which is acted upon. The only difference between the present-day agreement, if I may call it that, and an agreement which is registered, is that the rate of wages specified in the registered agreement becomes legally enforceable upon everybody engaged in that form of work, whether or not they are parties to the agreement.
The Minister stated that he was considering whether he would impose a penalty on the worker for accepting less wages. I do not know when he proposes to come to a decision on that point, because in other parts of the Bill it seems to be the practice that where it is an offence for the employer to do a particular act in conjunction with the worker it is also an offence on the part of the worker. I do not know when he proposes to let us know his decision on that point.
There is another matter about this wages register agreement which is not quite clear from the Minister's remarks. Of course we can all understand that there might be some minor points in the agreement between two bodies to which some exception might be taken by the Minister, possibly very properly, and which might be amended. From the Minister's remarks on this section previously it appears as if he were contemplating merely to take the wages rates out of the existing agreement, and to enforce those. I do not know what he proposes to do with the rest of the agreement. Does he propose to ask the employers and workers, in a case where they have both agreed, or where one of them agreed in other instances, to merely forward an agreement as to wages? When this Bill was previously under discussion the Minister said, as reported at Column 406 of the Official Debates:—
"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."
That, to my mind, opens an extraordinary door to evasions of this section, because the Minister can quite easily conceive that the workers, in return for a concession in one direction, might accept a lower rate of wages, and, in return for some other condition, look for higher wages. To illustrate what I mean, take for instance the various boundaries of the City that the workers have to be on at a certain hour of the morning. Everybody who is conversant with those trade agreements knows that bargaining goes on, in which possibly a smaller boundary might be considered in some way in the wages or some other concession. I should like to ask the Minister whether he proposes merely to take the wages out and abandon everything else, because I think then it will not be very long until he finds that various sections of employers are working under entirely different conditions. Another matter which the Minister will readily understand is that in a trade agreement demarcation lines for various trades are drawn. Does he propose to abandon those, because, if so, he may find himself confronted with a worker who demands a rate of pay in respect of which somebody else would contend "You are not allowed to do that class of work under an agreement"? I cannot see how he is going to pick what he wants out of the agreement and throw the rest there. I can quite understand that there might be some clauses which he will take objection to and ask to have reconsidered, but if he proposes merely to take the wages rates out of an agreement between two bodies, employers and employees, and throw the rest there, I am afraid he will find confusion worse confounded in industry.
I am trying to explain the position to the Deputy. So far as Section 42 is concerned, and it is the only section of the Bill which relates to wage rates, there is this essential difference between it and the other sections of the Bill, that nothing can happen under it on the initiative of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The initiative must be taken by the representatives of the employers and of the workers, and until they have agreed, either to the rates of wages or to request reconsideration of the agreement, nothing happens. It is only when they have, or one of them has, come with an agreement to the Department dealing with rates of wages and it is registered, that anything happens under the section.
So far as the rest of the Bill is concerned, it deals with conditions of employment in respect of which action can be taken on the initiative of the Minister for Industry and Commerce irrespective of whether the parties, one or both, in any trade want him to do it. The desires of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, implemented by regulations, deal with the things specified in the Bill, such as hours, of work, holidays and so forth. There may be other things, and frequently are other things, mentioned in trade agreements between workers and employers which are not dealt with in this Bill and which do not relate to rates of wages. In so far as there are, the position in respect to them is being left unchanged. These agreements are operating at the present time, but they are not legally enforceable and the position in respect of them will be precisely the same in the future as it was in the past. When this Bill is law there will be power to implement agreed rates of wages under Section 42 and power in the Minister for Industry and Commerce to impose conditions relating to all the other things mentioned in the Bill, but no power to interfere with things not mentioned in the Bill.
I am afraid the Minister has not answered my difficulty. I quite agree with him that, as he has pointed out, his functions do not begin until an agreement which has been, in the first instance, come to between employers and employees is presented to him and, very possibly, presented to him jointly by employers and employees, but I should like to point out to the Minister that apparently—and he has not answered tho point—he proposes to take only rates of wages out of those agreements and make them enforceable on other bodies of employers and possibly employees also. I would point out to him that that could be reduced to a farce, if you do not take into consideration the other conditions. I mentioned, for instance, the case of a city boundary. Suppose, for the sake of argument, a body of workers were paid 1/6 per hour on the basis of an agreement reached jointly and that the Minister found that certain other employers were not paying that rate and says, "You will have to pay that rate, 1/6," and then discovered that they had imposed conditions compelling a man to be in Bray at 8.30 in the morning to work for 1/6 an hour. I submit that that would make a farce of the wages rate.
There are a number of other conditions of the same sort, and once the Minister takes the wage rates into consideration, I cannot see how he can avoid taking the other conditions into consideration. Certainly in bargains with regard to rates of wages, one frequently hears that a boundary can be cashed for a halfpenny or a penny and that other considerations have a cash value and I submit to the Minister that if he leaves this section in this state he is going to make a farce of it.
Surely these are all matters that will be dealt with in the agreement presented for registration?
Yes, but are they going to be enforceable on the people to whom the Minister refers—the new comers—or are merely the rates of wages to be enforced?
The Deputy has not mentioned anything that does not seem to me to relate to rates of wages.
I have mentioned a boundary.
Even in respect to that matter, an agreement could provide for the payment of different rates in different areas and in different circumstances and that agreement would be enforceable in that respect.
Will all those conditions of labour be enforceable?
In so far as they have a bearing on the rates of wages, yes.
The Minister will appreciate that those effects on the wages will become more and more shadowy. There are some things which would have a cash value and others which will merely have a bearing. I do not see how the Minister is going to pick a certain set of conditions out of that register and make them enforceable on newcomers and leave the rest out.
If the Minister felt-that an agreement was not sufficiently specific and, therefore, not capable of effective enforcement, he presumably would refuse to register it.
I can assure the Minister that, on the contrary, he will find quite the opposite in a lot of instances, although he may find that some are not very clear. In the case of registers that are perfectly clear, I would suggest to the Minister that his interpretation and his own words on an earlier section are too narrow a definition of this section to make it workable.
I take it that under this section, if it is provided that a rate of wages of 1/6 per hour is to be paid and certain other conditions to be fulfilled, that portion of the agreement relating to wages would be something which must be adverted to in ascertaining whether that rate is being paid by other employers in industry.
Quite.
And while I think that, so long as this section stands in its present form, it would be easier if the rate stood independent of the conditions, you will probably have experience of the section if a position is created where there will be a desire on the part of both workers and employers to make the wage rates as far as possible independent of any other conditions upon which at present these rates are based. I think it is clear from the section that the only thing that would be registered is the portion of the agreement relating to wages and such other conditions as directly relate to the payment of that rate of wages. There may be, of course, as Deputy Dockrell has said, a case for some more extensive codification of conditions which might be registered and be enforceable. But, at all events, this section is limited in its activities to wages, and I think Deputy Dockrell will admit, even looking at the matter from the employer's side, that that is one of the features of industrial activity in which unfair rates of wages imposed by one employer are not only harmful to workers but definitely harmful to employers who endeavour to pay a reasonable rate of wages to their employees.
I congratulate the Minister on producing this amendment and on the conversion which it indicates. He can now look Stalin straight in the face, feeling convinced that he has not enshrined in our legislation here a bourgeois subterfuge of the standard wage which he looked in grave danger of enthroning in our legislation if the section, as previously introduced, stood. My objection to it then was based on the fact that it seemed to tie workers down to a standard rate of wages. Now, I am glad that the Minister is providing that it ties them down just to a minimum rate of wages and the tying is mainly in respect of the employer, not even in respect of the good employer, but in respect of the bad employer, because in the section, as now drafted, there would be an agreement negotiated between the workers on the one hand and the employers on the other. When that agreement is registered, all the employers in that form of industrial activity will be required to pay the rates of wages provided in the agreement as the minimum. There will be nothing in the agreement compelling a worker to accept that rate of wages if he can get a higher rate. That makes the Bill much more beneficial than it would have been if the Minister had not moved in the direction of the terms of his amendment.
I think that the section, as now amended, is a very valuable one. It is a valuable contribution towards making the Bill effective. It is valuable, also, in the sense that it puts into legislation the intentions indicated by the Minister in his Second Reading speech, namely, the intentions underlying Section 42 and, in the main, the whole Bill. I think this amendment will overcome all the objections which, I know, the Minister has heard from the workers' side during the discussion on this Bill. It will also be much easier to administer the Bill as amended.
On the point as to whether a penalty should not be imposed on a worker who conspires with an employer to accept a lower rate of wages than that provided for in the agreement, I think that most people who stand for fair conditions of labour would accept an amendment of that kind. As Deputy Dockrell and Deputy Good probably know, the building industry is one of the industries where, very frequently, small employers employ workers under conditions which do not at all compare favourably with the conditions recognised by big employers in the industry: where there is a certain amount of secrecy imposed upon the workers not to disclose to other workers, even in the same industry, the rates of wages which they are being paid. All that secrecy is enforced not for the purpose of assisting the worker, but rather of concealing from an employer's trade rivals the low rates of wages which are being paid on contracte which, in many cases have been tendered for on the assumption that better rates of wages would be paid. I think anything that would prevent a conspiracy of that undesirable kind between workers and employers is all to the good, and I would encourage the Minister to present an amendment on the Report Stage making it an offence for workers to engage in such a conspiracy.
I think the Minister, on considering the matter further, will see the necessity for dealing on very broad lines with agreements come to between employers and employees. In the trades which have these agreements they are the outcome of long years of negotiation. They have gradually developed down through our own time. In the case of any big trade there is no agreement which does not take in the conditions of employment as well as the question of wages. Deputy Dockrell, when speaking a short time ago, referred to the various provisions in these agreements. You have provisions relating to demarcation and so on. If these provisions are not to be recognised in the registered agreement, diffisulties will arise that it will be no easy matter to settle. New industries may spring up and the demarcation clauses will not be enforceable on them. That will immediately handicap, through unfair competition, those in certain trades who are bound by agreements. At present employers and employees may not depart from the terms of their agreements except by mutual agreement. What is to be the position if a new entity comes into the market, a new employer of labour, and that he is doing the same work under completely different conditions from those bound by the agreements? If the whole agreement was registered that would be impossible. If, however, only the portion of the agreement relating to wages is to be registered, very great difficulties will be created.
I am afraid the Minister has not considered the effect of his reply on certain trades. Deputy Beckett and I know a good deal about particular trade, a trade in which there are quite a number of agreements. I think there are 11 or 12. Those agreements only apply to the City of Dublin, so far as that trade is concerned. Different agreements apply in other districts.
Any area can be specified in the agreement.
The Minister would want to define the area. It has been pointed out already that in the case of those agreements relating to Dublin there is a line drawn around Dublin so that any man working inside that line gets a certain rate of wages. If he is sent to work outside that line he gets walking time, if no other means of locomotion is provided. The Minister, therefore, can see that in a particular area there may be a very considerable difference in the rates of wages paid. The Minister says that he will take wages out. In the case of those agreements if you take wages out of the context they have no meaning. Take, again, the position with regard to the City of Dublin. There is a certain wages paid inside the city and there is a certain wage paid outside the area, which is an agreed area. The further a man goes outside that area a different wage operates. The rate with regard to walking time is different. That, in effect, amounts to a different wage, so that if you take the wages laid down in the agreement out of the context chaos will immediately be created. The only way to get over that difficulty is to register the whole agreement or register none, because all these other points to which I have adverted turn on the question of wages. There are wages of apprentices, depending on the different years in which they are. These will all be important matters. There are tribunals set up for dealing with the point to which Deputy Beckett referred —the demarcation of labour and the encroachment of one trade upon another trade. These arrangements are all essential. Every other day points arise upon them. It is essential to have them for the proper working of the trade. I ask the Minister either to take the agreements as a whole—I do not see any advantage in registering them, but if there be an advantage let them be registered as a whole—or not register them at all. Certainly one part should not be taken out of its context and registered.
The Minister will register the agreement presented to him. If there is a question of splitting up an existing agreement into two parts—one dealing with rates of wages and the other with other conditions—the splitting up has to be done, not by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, but by the parties to the agreement. They may present for registration a complete agreement dealing with wages and matters having a bearing upon wages. As Deputies know, frequently matters are included in agreements which have no relation at all to rates of wages. Probably the most common clause—a very useful one—is that which requires employers to employ only members of named trade unions or of a named group of trade unions. That particular provision in the agreement has nothing whatever to do with rates of wages, but it is not at all uncommon. I do not think we should undertake the obligation of enforcing these clauses by statute. Yet they are part and parcel of many of these agreements. There are frequently other clauses relating to matters which do not bear directly upon wages. A number of these will be covered by regulations made under the Bill. These regulations may deal with hours of work, holidays or any of the other matters mentioned in the Bill. Although these particular items in the agreement may not be implemented under Section 42, it is not merely possible but very probable that when the agreement relating to wages is registered under Section 42 simultaneous registration under the sections dealing with these other matters will be brought into operation, so that the maximum amount of registration desired by the parties concerned in the industry can be effected. I agree that most of the matters you find in these agreements relate to rates of wages, and in so far as they do, they can be covered by the agreement that is registered.
I am afraid the Minister is speaking with want of experience.
I have seen a fairly large number of these agreements— and disagreements.
I have seen a fair number, too. If you take all the items, wages are a very small part of the agreement. I strongly urge that the wages item should not be taken out separately. These agreements are of vast importance. They are essential to the working of the trade and they should be taken as a whole or not at all.
I agree—the wages items.
No, not the wages items. The wages are only part of the agreement.
They are the only part we can enforce. May I mention another type of clause which you get in these agreements—the clause which lays down the procedure to be followed before a man can be dismissed, his appeal from the immediate boss to the factory manager or works manager. Again, I could not undertake the responsibility of seeing that these particular clauses were enforced. That will have to be done in the way it is done at present—by representatives of the unions and employers.
I am endeavouring to assist the Minister to make this Bill workable. The line on which he is now proceeding will create chaos. If you register an agreement, it should be taken as a whole. Then, the different clauses under it will be enforceable. Otherwise, it should not be registered at all.
I am afraid I could not agree to that. I could not undertake to enforce clauses other than clauses relating to rates of wages.
If the Minister will look into the matter, he will, I think, find that what I suggest is essential to the working of the Bill.
If we were to undertake to enforce trade union clauses, the obligations that would arise would be very considerable.
If the Minister is going to take one clause out of an agreement and enforce it, he is going to have trouble.
I am not going to take any clause out of any agreement. The only agreements considered for registration will be those presented complete by the parties. They can have separate agreements on other matters if they like.
Then, the Minister is going to proceed to cut the agreements up?
No. The agreement will be registered as a whole or it will be refused.
What is enforceable on the other employer or what is the object of all this?
Whatever is in the agreement. If the agreement deals with matters other than rates of wages or matters that have a bearing on rates of wages, then it is not capable of registration at all under the section.
I am sure the Minister will find that there is nothing in these agreements but what is of vital interest to the two parties.
They can deal with matters other than rates of wages.
Quite so. I can conceive that there are certain questions with which the Minister may not want to interfere. At the same time, the Minister is leaving this section very much in the air. His own words seem to suggest that wages and nothing else are to be taken into consideration.
Under Section 42, that is correct.
It relates only to rates of wages and not to conditions of employment, which would be more difficult to enforce. There are a lot of other items to be considered—demarcation of the boundary, country money, walking money, and various other matters. I do not see how, if your contention is to prevail, there are not going to be two sets of employers— the employers who are parties to the wages agreement and the employers who respect the agreement, so far as wage rates are concerned, in the spirit only.
Most of the matters the Deputy has mentioned appear to me to relate to rates of wages, even though they may be rates which would prevail only in exceptional circumstances.
Before the Minister comes to a decision I think he should look into the matter. I can clearly see that there will be chaos in the building trade if he goes ahead with his proposal.
Perhaps the Deputy, or Deputy Beckett, would send me samples of the type of clauses which appear in these agreements which they would like to have enforceable in this way. We could then discuss the matter with greater knowledge.
I undertake that we shall bring the whole matter of these agreements before the Minister and show him the difficulties.
That will enable us to understand precisely what the trouble is.
We will give a clause with pleasure right away.
I move amendment No. 93:—
In page 18, Section 42 (6), line 53, after the word "register" to insert the words and letter "the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—(a)", and in line 57, after the word "registered" to add two paragraphs as follows:—
(b) the Minister shall cause notice of the registration of such agreement in the register (with such particulars of such agreement and such registration as the Minister shall think proper) to be published in the Iris Oifigiúil;
(c) any person may obtain from the Minister, on applying therefor in the prescribed manner and paying the prescribed fee, a copy of the copy of such agreement retained by the Minister under this section.
This amendment and the next one hang together and are designed to meet a particular objection voiced on the Committee Stage, that there was some danger that the Minister might accept as an organisation representative of employers, or more particularly of the workers, one which was not properly acceptable as such. Consequently, we are proposing to provide that where the agreement is registered it shall be open to any person to object to its registration in the High Courts, on the ground that the employers' signatories were not substantially representative of the employers, or that the workers' signatories were not substantially representative of the workers. The purpose is to give the right to object in the High Courts to any person who feels that something has been done which should not be done, on the grounds that the parties were not properly representative.
Can the Minister say what fee he has in mind to be paid for a copy of the agreement that has been registered?
It would be hard to say. I think it will not be very much, just sufficient to cover the expenses of providing a copy of the agreement.
I move amendment No. 94:—
In page 19, before Section 42 (8), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(8) Whenever an agreement has been registered in the register, any person may, within one month after the publication in the Iris Oifigiúil of notice of such registration, apply to the High Court in a summary manner for the annulment of such registration, and on the hearing of such application the High Court may, if it is satisfied of either or both of the following matters, that is to say:—
(a) that the employer signatories to such agreement were not, at the date of such agreement, substantially representative of the employers interested in the form of industrial work to which such agreement relates in Saorstát Eireann or, where such agreement applies to part only of Saorstát Eireann, in such part of Saorstát Eireann; or
(b) that the worker signatories to such agreement were not, at the date of such agreement, substantially representative of the workers or the particular class of workers to which such agreement relates employed in the form of industrial work to which such agreement relates in Saorstát Eireann or, where such agreement applies to part only of Saorstát Eireann, in such part of Saoratát Eireann,
the High Court may annul the registration of such agreement in the register.
I move amendment No. 95:—
In page 19, Section 43 (1), paragraph (b), line 35, to delete the words "rate of salary, wages, or other reward payable " and substitute the words "average weekly earnings payable in a normal full working week."
This amendment deals with Section 43 and is designed to correct an error in drafting. The purpose of Section 43 was to provide that where the hours of work were reduced, either automatically on the passing of the Bill or in consequence of regulations, the reduction in hours shall not operate to reduce the earnings of workers. The phrase used in the Bill is "rate of salary, wages, or other reward payable." That is obviously a different thing from what we had in mind in framing the section. What we had in mind was the average weekly earnings rather than the rate. You could have the rate maintained but the actual earnings reduced if the hours were reduced and, consequently, this substitute has been brought forward.
This is taking 48 hours as the standard.
Yes. If a worker has been paid, say, 50/- a week for a 48-hour week and if an order is made reducing the working hours to 44, it is proposed that he will still continue to get 50/- weekly.
I take it that there is no power taken to change the minimum.
For young persons.
There is power in Section 44 to effect reductions in the 48-hour week for particular trades.
Some trades work a longer period in summer than in winter.
That can be provided for.
The Minister understands that workers in these trades do not get the same money in winter as in summer.
We are merely providing that whatever is normal will continue despite a reduction in the normal working hours. That will be taken to include the normal position, having regard to all the circumstances, the time of the year, and so on.
But we will not know the total weekly rate for the summer months or for the winter months.
If there is a reduction I think the normal for that period will determine the calculation under Section 43.
That will be understood, then, in accepting this amendment. On reading it, it would appear that the Minister intended to reduce the hours in winter, but that the wages would be as in summer.
This amendment only relates to the section in which the hours are reduced by an order made in the Bill. If they are reduced for any other reason this section has no relation. It is only when a specific order is made that the section comes into operation, or when the Bill by automatic operation effects a reduction.
I move amendment No. 96:—
In page 19, Section 43 (1), paragraph (b), line 36, to delete the words "remain unchanged" and substitute the words "not be reduced".
I move amendment No. 97:—
In page 20, Section 44 (2), to delete all from the word "rate" in line 36 to the end of the sub-section and substitute the words "average weekly earnings payable in a normal full working week to any person whose hours of work are reduced by such regulations shall not be reduced merely because of such reduction in his hours of work".
This is also a substitute for the same type of phrase that has been referred to in other parts of the Bill.
I move amendment No. 100:—
In page 20, Section 44 (4), line 50, after the word "section" to add the words "and such worker shall also be guilty of an offence under this section."
This section puts an obligation on the worker as well as the employer. It is the same as was effected throughout the Bill.
I move amendment No. 101:—
In page 21, Section 45 (1), line 6, to add at the end of the sub-section a new paragraph as follows:—
(e) notice of every agreement registered in the Wages Agreement Register which affects any workers doing industrial work on such premises.
This is a new provision which provides that among the notices which must be displayed by the employer is the agreement in relation to rates of wages, if such agreement has been registered.
I move amendment No. 102:—
In page 21, Section 46, line 16, to delete the word "by" and substitute the words "or reasonably proper by the actual occurrence or the threat or reasonable anticipation of".
This is an amplification of the definition of emergency circumstances in which a departure from the provisions of the Bill is permitted without a penalty. It was represented that it was not merely sufficient to provide that the provisions of the Bill should be departed from owing to fire, storm, breakdown of machinery or any other emergency, but also that the work done was required. It is agreed that the definition of "emergency" is now sufficiently wide to cover all possible contingencies.
I move amendment No. 103:—
In page 21, Section 46, to add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) A certificate signed by any Minister that an act done by or in relation to any person employed by such Minister was rendered necessary by an emergency shall be conclusive evidence that such act was so rendered necessary.
This is to provide that the certificate of another Minister relating to persons employed by him as to the circumstances of the emergency will be sufficient in order to avoid the spectacle of one Minister having to prosecute another.
I move amendment No. 104:—
In page 21 before Section 48, but in Part IV, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) Where a contract for the execution of any work or the manufacture or production of any article or substance or the doing of any other form of industrial work was entered into before the commencement of this Part of this Act and is at such commencement not fully carried out, and the person liable under such contract to execute such work, manufacture or produce such article or substance or do such other industrial work claims either or both of the following things, that is to say:—
(a) that, by reason of the obligations imposed on employers by this Act, a limitation of time contained in such contract for the doing of any particular thing has become unreasonable and should be extended, or
(b) that, by reason of the said obligations, any particular price or other payment fixed by such contract has become unreasonable and should be increased,
then and in every such case, such claim shall, in default of agreement between the parties concerned, be referred, on the demand of any such party, to arbitration under this section.
(2) Where a claim is referred under this section to arbitration, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) such arbitration shall be heard and determined by one arbitrator who, in default of agreement between the parties concerned, shall be appointed by the Minister on the application of any such party;
(b) in the case of a claim for the extension of a limitation of time, the arbitrator shall determine whether such extension should or should not be made and (if he determines that such extension should be made) the amount of such extension;
(c) in the case of a claim for the increase of a price or other payment, the arbitrator shall determine whether such increase should or should not be made, and (if he determines that such increase should be made) the amount of such increase;
(d) the arbitrator shall be paid such fee for acting as arbitrator as shall, in default of agreement, be fixed by the Minister, and such fee and all other general costs and expenses of the arbitration shall be paid by such one or more of the parties to the arbitration and, if by more than one of such parties, in such proportion as the arbitrator shall direct;
(e) the arbitrator shall determine how the costs and expenses incurred by each of the parties to the arbitration of or incidental to appearing and being heard thereat shall be borne;
(f) if the arbitrator determines that a limitation of time should be extended or that a price should be increased, the arbitrator shall amend the contract which is the subject of the arbitration, in such manner as he shall think proper in order to give effect to such determination;
(g) the determination of the arbitrator shall be final and conclusive and shall be binding on all parties concerned.
This is a new section designed to meet representations which were made as to the possible effect of the Bill on contracts. It provides for the alteration of the terms of the contract either by agreement or by arbitration whenever it is contended by one party thereto that because of the limitations imposed by the Bill either the time in which the contract had to be performed or the price to be paid should be varied.
I move amendment No. 105:—
In page 21, before Section 49, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) The Minister may by order, if and whenever he so thinks fit on the application of an employer carrying on an industrial undertaking, declare that any one or more of the departments, branches, or other parts of such undertaking shall, for all the purposes or any specified purposes of this Act, be deemed to be separate industrial undertakings, and that this Act shall apply and have effect in relation to such undertaking accordingly.
(2) The Minister may by order, whenever he so thinks fit, revoke or amend an order previously made by him under this section, including an order made under this sub-section.
(3) Whenever and so long as an order made under this section is in force in respect of an industrial undertaking, this Act shall apply and have effect in relation to such undertaking subject to and in accordance with such order.
It was suggested and is obviously desirable that there should be power to regard separate parts of industrial undertakings as separate factories in certain circumstances. This amendment proposes to give power to the Minister, by order to declare separate parts of the same undertaking to be separate factories for the purposes of the Act.
I take it that that is not done for the purposes of exclusion but also for the purpose of inclusion?
Quite.
I move amendment No. 106:—
In page 22, Section 51, lines 2/4, to delete the words "on the grounds that they are members of the family of the person carrying on such industrial undertaking or any other grounds."
Is the Minister accepting this?
I prefer the Bill as it stands.
This section provides that "where industrial work in any industrial undertaking is done wholly or partly by persons who, on the grounds that they are members of the family of the person carrying on such industrial undertaking or on any other grounds, do not receive any salary or wages in respect of their work, the person carrying on such industrial undertaking shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be the employer of such persons doing such industrial work and such persons shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be workers in the employment of such persons." I think this section would be immensely better if you did not have these illustrative conditions injected into it. What is the need for putting in the words "on the grounds that they are members of the family of the person carrying on such industrial undertaking or on any other grounds"? If there is any significance in those words at all, it is a limiting significance.
It is, but it limits it to the type of case we contemplate.
What other type of case has the Minister in mind?
None; but there might possibly be something included in the scope of the section of which possibly we are not aware, if the illustrating words are not in. The illustrating words are undoubtedly limited, but they only limit the scope of the section in so far as they illustrate the type of person the section proposes to deal with.
I am rather afraid that the courts may hold, in construing this Bill, that you are tied to the central pivot of "on the grounds that they are members of the family of the person carrying on such industrial undertaking". I think that the other few words, "or on any other ground", may under the well-known legal process of sui generis be regarded as relating to members of the family.
Clearly institutions would be covered?
They are covered specifically in another section. It would be better, I think, to leave out those qualifying words. When this Bill becomes an Act it is not the Minister who is going to interpret it but the courts. I think, firstly, that the section is better without these words, but my objection would be less vigorous if the Minister could say, fortified with legal opinion, that "or on any other grounds" would not be construed in relation to members of the family.
I shall get that opinion if it will satisfy the Deputy.
I move amendment No. 107:—
In page 22, Section 52 (2), line 19, after the word "prison" to insert the words "a borstal institute".
This is a drafting amendment.
I move amendment No. 108:—
In page 22, before Section 53, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) The Minister may by order make regulations for all or any of the following purposes, that is to say:—
(a) requiring persons carrying on industrial undertakings to make and furnish to the Minister statistical returns;
(b) prescribing the class or classes of industrial undertakings in respect of which such returns are to be made;
(c) prescribing the subjects and matters in respect of which such returns are to be made;
(d) prescribing the forms in which and the times at which such returns are to be made.
(2) Every person, required by regulations made under this section to make statistical returns, who fails to make such returns in accordance with such regulations shall be guilty of an offence under this section.
This section is designed to give us power to require statistical returns in relation to the various matters that may be specified from time to time in respect to it. There is no power to require the furnishing of these statistics at the present time. As Deputies are aware, in relation to some matters dealing with industry we are dependent on voluntary information given to us by employers. It is considered more desirable that this Bill should be availed of in order to get power to require by order the making of these statistical returns to the Department.
Are they very onerous returns?
They would be reports relating to persons employed, distinguishing between the sexes—in other words, information that it would be necessary to have in order to enable the obligations of the Department under the Bill to be carried out, wherever such obligations require a limitation in the employment of young persons or in some other way impose restrictions. Obviously, to enable us to review the position, it is desirable that we should have this power to get returns from employers. Generally it is desirable—and I think most Parties in the House have stressed it from time to time—that we should have a more effective method of requiring information as to the employment provided in the different trades than we have at present. At present we are practically dependent on voluntary returns apart from the information secured by the periodical census. The great majority of employers give us these returns at the present time, and for them there will obviously be no difficulty in future. Even in those cases, however, our difficulty at present is that we do not know whether we have got complete returns or not, whereas if this section is passed and the returns are obtained under it, we shall be able to use these statistics with more confidence than at present.
The reason I have asked the question is that the Minister for Finance uses employers for the purpose of collecting the income-tax of employees. That is a considerable burden on employers. I have had lists with as many as 40 names on them directing me to collect certain sums off certain men. If we are going to increase lists of that character we are going to increase the burdens of employers very considerably.
I am not going to take responsibility for the sins of the income tax authorities. All I can say about the returns required under this section is that we are getting them voluntarily at present from most employers. They will not impose any considerable burden on them.
Employers are not without burdens at the moment.
They have advantages, too.
Bill, as further amended, reported to the House. Report agreed to.
I suggest that the Report Stage be taken on next Wednesday.
Could we have the Minister's amendments circulated before that?
I think so.
And in time to enable Deputies to put down further amendments?
I think so. There will not be very many.
I suggest that the Report Stage be left over until Wednesday week. This is not a Bill that any Party in the House wants to rush through. We all desire to make it a good Bill, and the amendments will have to be considered very carefully.
As a matter of fact, most of those that I contemplate bringing forward are already prepared. There will be only few in number, arising out of points put forward on the Second or Committee Stage. I could probably have these in the hands of Deputies by the week-end. I suggest, therefore, that we fix the Report Stage for next week. Having regard to the state of the Dáil programme, we may find it better to take it next week than on the following week, in which the pressure of business may be greater. If, however, any Deputies interested in the Bill raise any objection to taking it on next Wednesday, I would be only too happy to put it back further.
When will the Minister's amendments be in the hands of Deputies?
I shall try to get them into their hands at the week-end. In so far as we have covered the Bill up to date, I think the amendments are ready, but there may be some more arising out of the discussion to-day which may take a little time to prepare.
Shall we have them on Saturday?
I shall try to arrange that.
That will leave us very little time to get in amendments.
Then we can object to the Bill being taken on Wednesday.
I should have said next Monday.
Then you ought to postpone the Bill until Wednesday week.
Postpone it until Thursday.
If we do not get the amendments until Monday there will be very little time to prepare amendments.
There will be perhaps only one amendment out of to-day's discussion.
We will want to read the Bill intelligently when it is reprinted.
All right, we will put it back until Wednesday 20th.
When will we have this Bill as amended?
We will have the Bill as amended to-morrow.
Yes.
Will the Minister still have his amendments ready on Monday?
If we are going to put it back until Wednesday week, I should like to take an extra day myself.
Report Stage fixed for Wednesday, 20th November.
