I move amendment No. 63a:—
In sub-section (4), page 10, line 53, before the word "Where", to insert the words "save as otherwise provided by this section".
Shop Assistants (Conditions of Employment) (No. 2) Bill, 1937—Committee (resumed).
I think amendments Nos. 66a and 105a cover the same points.
Very well.
You are taking these amendments together?
If the Deputy is agreeable.
All right.
The purpose of these amendments is to provide that where a chemist's assistant does not serve more than 96 hours in any period of two weeks he may serve 52 hours in one week without becoming entitled to overtime. There may be something to be said for these amendments, but I do not think that there is. If there is, I think that it would apply to any class of shop assistant as much as to a chemist's assistant, and I should like to hear the Deputy state why he considers an amendment of this kind would be advantageous. I, of course, contemplate the possibility of there being some trades in which the hours of work in one week may necessarily have to be different from the hours of work in another; but, in the ordinary course, I would not regard the business of a chemist as coming within that class. I should imagine that to an extent even greater than in the case of, say, a drapery or clothing shop the hours of work in a chemist's establishment would be the same in one week as in another, and that variations in these hours would not be necessary. The Bill provides for a 48-hours week for chemists' assistants. I have no very strong objection in principle to making that a 96-hour fortnight if there is need for it, but I should like to have that need demonstrated. I do not quite see what the need for it is, and I do not see if there is need for it why it applies only in the case of chemists' assistants. It is purely a matter of meeting the circumstances of each case and not a matter of principle. I do not suppose there will be from any quarter of the House objection to providing for a 96-hour fortnight instead of a 48-hour week, but, from the point of view of administration, the enforcement of the Act, and the checking up of records to secure that the law was being observed, a 48-hour week would be preferable. However, I am prepared to consider the case if it is made, but up to the present I have not been able to understand what particular advantage proprietors of chemists' shops think they would get from a change of this kind.
The Minister has very fairly said that theoretically he does not see any objection to this. He asks what is the difference between a chemist's shop and any other shop. The essential difference is that the chemist has to open on a Sunday. After all, a chemist's shop is not in the category of an ordinary shop in that the chemist sells a number of things which may become absolutely vital necessities for people. I would not think of bringing in the amendment for an ordinary shopkeeper without some extraordinary difference in his trade being revealed.
I think the fact that a chemist has to open on Sunday or leave the people in a very serious plight on that day puts the matter in an entirely different category. Somebody may say: "Yes, but the chemist would be knocked up." If he is not going to be allowed to open on Sunday, or if he does not open on Sunday, he will probably have departed from the premises and the Minister may find that somebody has died by reason of not being able to get the necessary medicine from the chemist. In that way I think chemists are in a special class. The fact that they are serving the community by opening on Sunday, and that they probably can only sell certain things on that day, should evoke favourable consideration for this amendment.
I do not quite see what the Sunday opening has to do with it. Admitting that chemists will open on Sunday while a number of other traders will be permitted to open on Sunday also, what is the advantage to the chemist to have the hours of work of his assistants fixed at a maximum of 96 per fortnight instead of 48 per week? The Deputy did not make that very clear.
The Minister is quite right. I did not attempt to make that clear. The position is that the assistant works a long and a short week. He works on Sunday in one week, and in the other week he does not work on that day. If this idea were adopted, the staff could be divided so that one week an assistant would work on Sunday, which would be the long week, and in the other week he would not work on Sunday.
I have stated I have no objection in principle to the amendment. It seems to me a matter of little importance whether we fix the maximum hours of work of chemists at 96 per fortnight or 48 in the week. If the persons affected consider that it will be a convenience to them, I am prepared to consider it. Perhaps the Deputy might hold over the amendment. I have no objection to the principle whatever. The only objection I can advance at all is that administration and enforcement might be simpler if there were uniform hours of work permitted in each week, but that is not a very serious objection.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 not moved.
On behalf of Deputy Norton, I move amendment No. 66:—
In sub-section 4, line 59, to delete the words "twenty-five" and substitute the word "fifty".
As the Bill stands, it provides that in the event of overtime being worked, the rate to be paid for such overtime shall be increased by not less than 25 per cent. of the rate for ordinary working hours. The idea of the amendment is to substitute 50 per cent. for 25 per cent. In the parlance of the man in the street, it is simply equivalent to paying time and a half for overtime. I suggest that is not an unreasonable amendment. I think it has been the practice in a good many other trades to pay time and a half for overtime. I suggest that that rate should be provided for in this Bill. I think—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that under the Conditions of Employment Act, in which overtime was calculated at weekly and daily rates, the effect was that the rate would be time and a half.
Time and a quarter.
In view of the fact that the rates of wages in shops are very low, I think it is not unreasonable to ask that for overtime 50 per cent. should be added to the rate paid for normal working hours. If the rate of wages were higher in shops, it might, perhaps, be unreasonable to make such a demand, but, taking into consideration the general standard of wages paid in shops, I think it is not unreasonable to suggest that time and a half should be paid for overtime. Hence the amendment.
I am not prepared to agree to the amendment. I think the minimum statutory requirement that overtime should be paid at time and a quarter is reasonable enough. A further reason why I could not agree to the amendment is the fact that the Conditions of Employment Act of 1936 provides that time and a quarter shall be paid for overtime, and any amendment of this Bill in the direction suggested by the Deputy would inevitably lead to an amendment of that Act also. There is, of course, nothing in the legislation to prevent an employer paying more if he wants to, or entering into an agreement with his employees to pay more. So far as the law is concerned, I think we will have effected our purpose if we provide that overtime shall be paid for at the rate of time and a quarter.
Under the Conditions of Employment Act, overtime was calculated in such a way, at daily and weekly rates that if the number of hours worked in the week exceeded 48, the rate paid worked out in effect at time and a half.
Oh, no. The purpose of the provision in the Conditions of Employment Act is to ensure that if a person works overtime on any day, he is entitled to be paid overtime at the overtime rate even though he is working within the maximum hours per week permitted by the Act. Although he may not work more than 48 hours in the week, if he works in excess of nine hours per day, he will be paid at the overtime rate in respect of these excess hours but the rate is time and a quarter.
In effect it works out at time and a half.
I should be surprised to hear that it does. That was not the intention, at any rate.
It is possible.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 66a not moved.
Amendment No. 67 not moved.
Deputies have the same difficulty in understanding what this amendment means as I have. It is an amendment that is entirely unnecessary, in my opinion.
I move amendment No. 68:—
At the end of the section, page 11, to add the following sub-section:—
Save for the purpose of computing the total number of hours worked in any year by a member of the staff of a shop which is a refreshment house, this section shall not apply to the proprietor of such a shop during the months of May to September inclusive.
I do not know what relation this amendment bears to amendment No. 51, but it is for the Deputy to show that it is not quite the same amendment.
I suppose it has, Sir, a blood relationship to the former amendment, but certainly the question arises of a period in the year during which it may be very difficult to obtain labour in certain parts of the country where such establishments as are referred to in the amendment have to cope with rush conditions. The Minister has said that he would resist any amendment dealing with refreshment houses working over 48 hours normally. Would be consider the question of a rush period? I do not know how far the Minister considers that they are two separate questions.
I think the exemption which the Deputy proposes here is much too wide and sweeping. he is, however, attempting to deal with a problem which requires attention, and I am not yet satisfied in my own mind how best to deal with it. Hotels and refreshment houses in tourist centres during the comparatively short tourist season may require exemptions which would not ordinarily apply to establishments of the same kind in other parts of the country. There is, of course, power in sub-section (5) to make certain exemption orders, but I should like to have an opportunity to consider the matter further in order to see whether it is necessary to go beyond that and give a more specific exemption in respect of houses of the particular kind and in the particular localities I have in mind. I intend to consider that further. I would not be prepared to agree to the rather complete exemption which the Deputy proposes, but we might go some distance to meet the particular problem with which he is aiming to deal.
Amendment No. 68, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 69:
At the end of the section, page 11, to add a new sub-section as follows:
This section shall not apply to the proprietor of a shop which is licensed premises.
I would submit to the House that this Bill as it stands is not really applicable to the licensed trade, and cannot be worked successfully in connection with that trade. Licensed houses have been regarded in English legislation, as I am sure the Minister is aware, as on a different footing to other houses, and one of the main reasons is that they are under a statutory obligation to remain open for a certain number of hours. The hours, of course, vary in different cases. In county boroughs they remain open for 68½ hours per week. In urban areas they have to be open for 71½ hours, and in country districts, in addition, where there is a seven-day licence, they have to do their bona-fide business. They are bound to supply to the public during those hours. In a great part of the country there is no very definite arrangement, as far as I know, between the owners of licensed premises and the employees of licensed premises as to the number of hours during which they should work. In Dublin there is an arrangement, I am informed, by which the employees now work for a period of 56 hours per week, but that is exclusive of two hours cleaning-up time, which are necessary in a licensed premises. The result of this Bill coming into force as it stands would be that that 56 hours would be cut down not merely to 48 hours but below 48 hours, because it is necessary for those assistants to come before opening time to get the shop ready and cleaned up, and to remain also for cleaning-up purposes after closing time. Therefore as far as actually serving the public is concerned, the 48 hours would not be 48 hours.
Let us take the present 56 hours as the figure, leaving out for the moment the question of cleaning-up time. If that is cut down to 48 hours, it will mean the employment of another assistant, because I think it must be fairly obvious that in a licensed premises, where the business must be on a cash basis, it would be an impossible risk to take in a casual employee to carry on for a few hours per week. That would be utterly impossible. You could not trust a casual person, who was just taken in for a few hours a week, with the receipt of money, there being only the slight check which the ordinary cash register provides. If the 56 hours is cut down to 48 hours, that means eight hours off. If you take on an extra hand, unless you already had six employees you will have one man doing less than the others. He will be paid, but he will not have the full work to do. For instance, suppose you are employing three men, and the 56 hours are cut down to 48; that means that 24 hours are taken off the working time of the three assistants. There must be another whole-time hand. In other words, there will have to be a man for doing 48 hours' work in the week, whereas there are only 24 hours' work for him to do.
It seems to me that this legislation, as it stands, cannot be applied to licensed premises without very grave dislocation of the entire trade. In the country districts, of course, there is a great number of shops which do not employ any assistants at all, and this Bill does not touch them, but if you take a shop in a small town, which employs only one or two assistants, it seems to make it impossible for them to keep open, as they are bound to keep open, and at the same time have those shorter working hours. I understand that there is a move amongst some licensed traders to have the number of hours' compulsory trading considerably shortened to meet the terms of this Bill. I do not know if the Minister has considered that question, or whether he has made representations to the appropriate Department. Of course, I know it is not the Minister's Department that would deal with an alteration in the licensing laws; it would be the Department of Justice. I wonder whether the Minister is considering or has considered making representations to that Department as to the cutting down of licensing hours, certainly in the urban areas. My arguments on this matter have been put rather concisely. From what the Minister has said about hotels, I have a fair idea of what he is going to say about the licensed trade. I have put my arguments as concisely as I can, without developing them, but I hope that I have brought the major features to the Minister's attention.
I do not think any of the arguments advanced by the Deputy can be regarded as applying to the licensed trade exclusively. I think precisely the same case could be made in respect of any class of establishment where the hours of trading are considerably in excess of the 48 hours permitted by this Bill in regard to the employment of assistants. All the difficulties which the Deputy foresees as arising in regard to licensed premises are due entirely to the fact that the trading hours will be longer than the maximum working week permitted. If those arguments are valid in respect of the licensed trade, they are equally valid in respect of tobacconists' shops, or chemists' shops, or refreshment houses or other shops in respect of which the hours of trading are longer than the maximum working week.
There is a difference. The licensed house has to keep open.
That is only a theoretical difference. The Deputy says a licensed house must keep open; in fact, a tobacconist shop will keep open. It may not be required by law to keep open, but it will still keep open. Perhaps the force of economic necessity will prove just as effective as the force of a Statute. Therefore, we might say that a tobacconist's shop must keep open also. That may or may not be true. Perhaps it is not true. I do not anticipate that the licensed traders as a whole will experience any particular difficulty in operating a 48-hour week for their assistants. I have discussed this matter with the representatives of the licensed trade, and heard their views. It is true that they intimated the possibility of their making representations to the Department of Justice to have the hours of trading restricted, but whatever case there may be for that—I do not know what the attitude of the Department is likely to be—I do not think it is necessitated entirely by the provisions of this Bill.
In very few licensed houses is it a fact that business is brisk all through the day. in a great majority of licensed houses there are certain busy hours and a very large number of slack hours. In, possibly, a majority of licensed houses, the busy hours are in the evening. But that is not always the case. In the case of some licensed houses the busy hours would be during the morning—that is, licensed houses in, say, the vicinity of the cattle market in Dublin or in the vicinity of Glasnevin where funerals congregate. In the case of such houses, their busy hours are in the morning, while in the case of other houses the busy hours are in the evening. It is precisely on that account that I do not think an alteration of the hours by law would meet the difficulty of all the traders, nor do I think it would be welcome by them. In any event, however, I do not think there will be the difficulty that the Deputy seems to anticipate in adjusting the working hours so as to meet the requirements of this Bill. So far as Dublin is concerned, the licensed traders are experienced in the problems involved in operating the working hours during the period in which trading is permitted. That may not apply throughout the country, but in the country, more particularly than in the city, it can be said that trade is only brisk at special times during the day or on special days in the week, and there need not be any insuperable difficulty in adjusting the hours of work so as to ensure that the assistant will be present when the pressure of business would require his presence and that he would have his hours off at a time when the establishment does not require his presence.
But as far as I understand it, the hours must be definitely fixed. For instance, you cannot say at any time to an assistant: "I am likely to be short to-day" or "I am only going to work you for three hours to day." Surely, you must have a more permanent arrangement than that, and, as I understand it, a notice with regard to the hours must be put up in the shop.
Yes, but in ordinary circumstances the conditions will be the same. If it is a matter of special conditions, then it would come under the overtime provisions.
What I am trying to get at is this: Let us take the case of the ordinary publichouse in a country town. That publichouse will do the bulk of its trading after six o'clock in the evening, that is to say, after people have come home from their work. That is the most likely time at which they will come into the publichouse and spend their money. Then, however, you have something special coming along for some particular occasion, such as a fair or a market, and different conditions will obtain on a fair day or a market day. The Minister talks about overtime in connection with the special conditions, but the fair day or the market day may more than exhaust the overtime, and if the working arrangements were from 6 o'clock until 9 o'clock, or whatever the hours might be, with a blank in the middle, if their overtime was exhausted on the one particular day, they would be completely lost when some other occasion came along in the town.
I do not think that would be so. Of course, in the case of a proprietor of a shop himself, it would be natural enough.
I am sure the Minister will acknowledge that in a country town the conditions are very variable. People come in on the days when business is done, and it must be remembered that the publicans in an ordinary country town of 2,000 to 3,000 inhabitants do not live on the population of that town, but on the population of the surrounding country.
Is the Deputy withdrawing the amendment?
Perhaps the Minister could give me certain hopes with regard to this?
I am afraid I could not accept the amendment.
Well, I trust that between this and the next Committee Stage the Minister will be more hopeful, and, therefore, I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 69a:—
At the end of the section to add a new sub-section as follows:—
The Minister may by order made in respect of the week in which Christmas Day falls extend the hours mentioned in this section during which it may be lawful for the proprietor of a shop to permit the staff of that shop to do shop work.
The purpose of this amendment is to give the Minister power, if representations are made to him, to extend the hours of work for Christmas week. After all, there is a very considerable rush period around Christmas in certain trades. Not only has the public to be served, but the stock has to be kept in some sort of order. At any rate. I should like the Minister to take these powers. If he does not consider the representations made to him to be proper, then he need not grant the extension, but I think he ought to have power to grant an extension for that period.
I think it was intended to take such powers as are being suggested by the Deputy under sub-section (5) of Section 18. I think we might find it desirable to alter the provisions of sub-section (5) so as to make it possible to make one order which will automatically expire. As I read sub-section (5), it is necessary for the Minister to make an order granting exemption for a special period and then to make another order revoking that at the end of the period. The only other thing, if it were necessary at all, would be to provide for a special period also, and if that change is effected then the Deputy's amendment is unnecessary, because the power would be there already.
I do not see the necessity for the change indicated in this amendment. At the present time, as the Bill stands, the employer has the right to avail of the overtime provisions, and I take it that the extra work that is involved in the Christmas trade can be met by the overtime provisions. If there is increased trade at Christmas time, the shopkeeper, by reason of that increased trade, is making more money, and I do not see why his increased profit should not also go towards increased wages for his staff for overtime work.
Of course, there is the overriding maximum of 60 hours anyway.
Is not that sufficient for Christmas week? Generally speaking, overtime is not worked in shops in practice. There is, of course, the work done during the opening hours of the shop, or just before opening, and there is, possibly, a half an hour or so after closing time for cleaning-up purposes and so on; but normally the time for overtime is when there is stocktaking going on or at some period such as the Christmas period.
In respect of certain classes of shops, it may be necessary to work even more than 60 hours in special circumstances. I do not know whether the circumstances of 1937, just immediately before Christmas, would come within that category. I have in mind provision shops of one kind or another during, not merely a bank holiday, but three holidays in succession, where in order to meet the convenience of the public and enable orders received to be disposed of, very exceptional hours were worked. I am sure that was the case in most of the provision shops in Dublin in the days immediately preceding Christmas. It might be necessary to have power to deal with such cases. It is quite true the majority of shop proprietors would have no objection to making an additional payment to their assistants in respect of the long hours they work immediately prior to a bank holiday of that kind. I think an addition of 25 per cent. in respect of the overtime would not be regarded as unreasonable.
I may be unduly apprehensive as to the difficulties we are going to meet, but I know that under the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936, we ran into circumstances that we had not visualised and it was necessary to use our powers fairly liberally in order to adjust the requirements of the law to the circumstances of the particular trade. I do think the same thing may arise in relation to special trades under this Bill and, therefore, I think it is desirable that sub-section (5) of Section 18 should be as wide as possible, bearing in mind there is the provision for consultation. In any event, the general policy is made clear in the Bill and the extensive use of the powers under sub-section (5) would be contrary to that policy. I do not think any Minister is likely to use the powers of sub-section (5), but the powers should be there. I am quite satisfied that when we come to administer this measure we will, time and again, come up against circumstances in which we will have joint representations from the workers and the employers for the making of Orders. That was our experience under the 1936 Act and I am sure it will be the experience again. The only change I propose to make is one to convenience administration. As I read it, the Order can be made and revoked and it can apply to specified shops in a specified area. We should have power for a specified period so that the making of a second Order may become unnecessary.
Are we to take it that the Deputy means that it is during the few days before Christmas, in Christmas week, that shop assistants should be allowed to work overtime?
The week in which Christmas Day falls.
This amendment does not fill the bill. If it is the week during which Christmas falls, what would be the position if Christmas Day fell on a Monday? It would mean that the shops could open only after Christmas, not before it.
That is really a drafting point. The Deputy means the week preceding Christmas Day.
Not necessarily. Christmas Day might come in the middle of the week.
Then the six days preceding Christmas.
Yes.
Amendment No. 69a, by leave, withdrawn.
On Section 18, I want to know if the Minister will consider including under sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) the question of relatives. This is a matter which I have raised consistently in going through this Bill at every possible opportunity and the Minister very generously agreed, I will not say to meet me, but to consider my suggestions favourably. I suggest that he should reconsider sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) from the aspect of relatives. I cannot see that there are any serious administrative difficulties in making them apply to relatives.
I do not think it would be practicable to do it. I have no objection. The only point I see is that it would be impossible to enforce it, and if it is, it is better not to attempt it.
There is a provision, I think, for the keeping of records, and surely it is as easy to enforce the keeping of records in the case of relatives as in the case of a paid employee.
Relatives living in the house?
The Deputy knows the type of shop which is worked by the proprietor. There is generally a living room behind the shop, and the people come out to serve a customer. In that type of establishment it is not easy to enforce regulations as to hours of work and keeping of records, which must be done in the case of a large type of establishment. I have abandoned the idea of trying to regulate employment of that kind; I think it is completely impracticable.
I want to raise a question, and I am surprised it has not cropped up on Section 18. The maximum time is 11 hours. If we come down to paragraph (a), relating to overtime for the week, it is 60 hours, and paragraphs (b) and (c) follow. I think paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are very fair, and I do not think that the employer would like to work people for extraordinary periods or beyond these hours. I would like to put before the Minister the position of an employer who finds that he has got a certain number of assistants in his establishment and it is necessary to catch up some arrears of work. I agree with a good deal of what has been said from the Labour Benches about overtime—that the employees should be properly remunerated for working overtime. At the same time, in most cases it is not the employer's fault that overtime has to be worked, and the employer need not be scalped. I am not making any point about the addition of 25 per cent. for the overtime.
What I want to compare is the amount of work that is permitted on one day. Take a shop that is working 48 hours a week. They are probably working 8½ hours a day for five days and the balance on a short day on Saturday. When the employer finds that he wants overtime worked he will consult the staff. If the job is not urgent and merely requires to be done he will say to the staff: "There is an accumulation of work, and we will have to stay in next week, and what day will suit you?" Immediately employee A will say, "I have something on on Monday," and employee B will say, "I have something on on Tuesday," and employee C will say he has something on on Wednesday. The employer then will probably say, "Choose between yourselves, but I want the overtime worked on one or possibly two days in the week." Having arrived at that point, the employer is allowed to work 60 hours a week. The difference between 48 and 60 hours is 12 hours. He is allowed to work the 12 hours in the week, but he is only allowed to work 2½ hours each evening. That means that if he wanted to work the 60 hours he would have to work overtime on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. I suggest to the Minister that the overtime allowed, the maximum working hours, are too short, and under the special circumstances that may arise the employer ought to be able to work a half day extra.
Now, that would run to probably 13 hours, and I would like to suggest to the Minister that that would suit the proprietor and probably his assistants much better, that they should work a half-day on one day or possibly two days in the week and then have the other hours free for whatever leisure they would require. I would like to suggest that this system of only working 2½ hours each night is really too little, having regard to the fact that crises of a minor character may occur. We know the Minister may say to me that storm, flood and fire are excepted, but in a retail establishment everything that knocks a business out of gear is a crisis, and I would like to suggest that a period of one hour overtime is too short, having regard to the fact that in a lot of cases they work 8½ hours.
Deputy Dockrell made a very good case, and I am impressed by it. I am not sure, however, that if he carries his calculations a little further he will not find a certain flaw in them. If an employer wants 60 hours from an employee in the week— that is, to work the employee the maximum lot, subject to the payment of overtime, right up to a 12-hour day period—then in the two days which the Deputy has in mind he might work 15 hours a day, and that would be an excessive period. If he wants the employee to work a 60-hour week the overtime will have to be worked on more than two days a week. On the whole I am inclined to meet the Deputy's point. The 11 hours, which is exclusive of the time spent at meals, is an unreasonable period. It means that a man starts at 9 o'clock in the morning, with an hour for lunch and half an hour for tea, and continues to work until 9.30 that evening. On the face of it that seems a long period. I know it has been the practice in some establishments to work longer hours than that. I am not sure that it is desirable to permit it. We could deal with the particular point the Deputy has raised by increasing the number of hours permitted in sub-section (1) and put into sub-section (3) the number of hours for constituting a normal day. The time worked over and above these normal hours is, of course, at overtime rates. I am not sure that the Deputy's point is as strong as he made it appear. I think, in the ordinary course, in the majority of establishments the hours of work from 9 a.m. to 9.30 p.m. in the evening will be the maximum. I am not sure that it is wise to permit long hours with overtime pay or otherwise. It is a matter on which I would like to hear the views of other Parties in the House.
When the Minister spoke of working three nights I think that probably, unless something extraordinary occurred, one night as a half-day would settle it.
What does the Deputy mean by working one night as a half-day?
Working 4¼ hours at night. I quite agree with the Minister that that is a very long spell. At the same time it is usual in an emergency of a minor character. I would be prepared to hear what the Labour Benches have to say to it—as to whether employees would prefer to work one or two nights in the week as against working five nights.
We have already had a certain amount of Opposition views to the 11 hours stated in sub-section (1). That was due in a sense to a misunderstanding. What was intended to be provided there was that 11 hours was to be the maximum. I do not know whether, if we were to consider an alternative of the number of hours provided for in sub-section (1), it would not be better to delete the section altogether and to deal with it by the provisions in sub-section (3). There will be difficulties in doing it. One of the objections which would not apply in the trade which the Deputy has indicated would apply in certain trades. It is possible that the section might not work out in a reduction of working hours for assistants, but in increased rates of pay. It is not clear that in some establishments they would not continue to work the same number of hours as at present and merely provide for increased remuneration. It is a matter which I should like to consider further.
I am prepared to leave it to the Minister.
Section 18 put and agreed to.
SECTION 19.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act relating to intervals for meals, the hours of employment of a member of the staff of a shop shall not on any day be divided into more than two spells, and the period between any such spells shall not be less than four hours in duration.
(2) If in respect of any member of the staff of a shop there is a contravention of this section, the proprietor of such shop shall be guilty of an offence under this section.
I move amendment No. 70:—
In sub-section (1), line 29, to delete the word "shop" and substitute the words "refreshment house".
This section permits the working day to be done in two spells with a minimum interval of four hours. We do not see that there is a case for all employers to have these privileged spells. This amendment proposes to limit the privileges to certain classes of shops, namely, hotels, restaurants and refreshment houses. We do not think it is a case for every class of shop having this division of the working day.
I do not quite get Deputy O'Brien's point. The object of Section 19 is to ensure that there shall not be an undue break by the employer in order to ensure that the provisions of the Act will be complied with while the service of the assistant will be retained when required. What is provided here is that it will not be possible for an employer to say to his assistant: "Come in at 9 o'clock and work till 10; then take an hour off until 11; come back then and work until 12; then take an hour off until 1 and work until 2; come back at 4 and then at 5 o'clock take another hour off and come back in the evening." The idea of the section is to make that sort of thing impossible. What we provide for, therefore, is that the hours of work shall not be divided into more than two spells and that between each spell there must be a period of not less than four hours. That is designed to make impossible the spasmodic type of work which might be resorted to when the 48-hour week becomes a statutory provision. The effect of the Deputy's amendment would be to confine that safeguard to refreshment houses. The Deputy has, however, lost sight of the difficulty that the section, as it stands, cannot conveniently be applied to refreshment houses at all. Deputy Dockrell, in the next amendment, is proposing to ensure that this section shall not apply to refreshment houses, whereas Deputy O'Brien is proposing that it shall apply only to refreshment houses. I have had representations from the trade union concerned that power should be taken to exempt refreshment houses from the operation of this section. They say that it would interfere considerably with the method of working in hotels, particularly, if this provision applied, that it is not unusual for a waiter to be employed during the breakfast period, which is generally regarded as ending about 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock, for him to come on again for the lunch period, which commences about 1 o'clock and ends at 3.30 or 4 o'clock, and then to come on again for the dinner period. The union representatives I met are anxious to continue that arrangement, and suggested that we should amend this section so as to permit of its being continued. The section has to be reconsidered in relation to employment in hotels, in any event, but I think it should be preserved as it stands in relation to shops.
In view of the explanation I have given, perhaps Deputy O'Brien would reconsider his amendment. In relation to the ordinary shop, it is desirable to ensure that there will be some barrier to the breaking up of the period of employment. If we exempt the ordinary shop from the section, something else will have to be substituted, because, if we were to take Deputy O'Brien's amendment, we would be removing employment in the ordinary shops entirely from the safeguard of this section and leaving it possible for an employer to work his assistants an hour on and an hour off, or two hours on and two hours off. We want to prevent that, and to ensure that no period of employment will be divided into more than two spells, and, if divided into two spells, that there will be not less than four hours between them. That may not be the most effective type of safeguard, but it is the one that occurred to me, and I think it is generally agreed by the parties who are interested in it that it will be effective. The representation that came to me from the Trade Union Congress urged the exemption of hotels from this section or the adoption of a provision which would enable some different regulation to be made in the case of hotels where the intervals between spells are likely to be more than four hours and the spells themselves to be more than two.
That may be all right as regards hotels but what case is there to be made for the ordinary shop? Does it not mean that there could be a very long spread-over? You might have a break of four or five hours. It must be not less than four but it might be five or six, and you might have the working day staggering over 15 or 16 hours.
The section is designed to prevent that. Of course, that may happen. In the case of licensed premises, which have already been discussed, an assistant might be employed during the morning, get the afternoon off and come in after tea. I am not at all sure that they do not work that system in a number of licensed premises in Dublin at present in order to secure the effectiveness of the 56-hour week agreement. What we have really in mind in this section is to ensure that, if there are intervals, they will not be less than four hours and that spells will not exceed two, so that the much more objectionable system of working can not be operated—that is, an employee getting an hour off during the slack period in order that he may work an hour later in the evening. The effect of Deputy O'Brien's amendment—I do not think he saw this— would be to remove all safeguards in respect of the periods of employment because it would confine those safeguards to refreshment houses.
What is the case for having it in respect of ordinary shops, apart from refreshment houses?
Particularly in view of the Hours of Trading Bill?
The difficulty will not arise in the case of the ordinary shop —the shop that is likely to be subject to an Hours of Trading Order. A spell of four hours could not arise in that case. The only shop in which it could arise would be an establishment of the licensed-house type or refreshment-house type or some other class of premises which are not likely to be subject to Hours of Trading Orders.
I agree that the amendment would allow of employment in various spells. The effect of it would not be to make employment continuous which, I think is what Deputy O'Brien wished to have carried out. It seems to me that the Minister is quite right in dividing the day into two spells only. But I wonder if as a matter of universal application, the four hours will always work satisfactorily.
We have to modify that in respect of hotels.
And, I think, in respect of other businesses, too.
What I was proposing to do, as the simplest way, was to take power to modify it. It was only after the Trade Union Congress representatives brought to my notice the peculiar position of certain classes of employees in hotels that I realised that the section, as it stands, would not do. The question is whether we should bring in an amendment to deal with the one case we know of or whether we should take the precaution of assuming that there may be other cases and make our power somewhat wider.
I think I could mention one case offhand though I am not sure that I would be right as regards all the circumstances. I have in mind the case of a waiter employed on a railway restaurant car.
He is a waiter, at all events.
If he were in a terminus for two hours, he could not be let off during those those two hours because the spell would have to be four hours.
He would be on duty during those two hours.
Then, he could not go back by the next train which is his shop.
Railway men work a 48-hour week without coming up against many difficulties regarding time-tables.
I merely give this as an example. I have not worked it out.
The Deputy overlooks the fact that the Bill does not require this 4-hour break to take place at all.
I think the wiser course is to insert another sub-section in Section 19, taking power to modify by Order the provisions of the section in relation to specified trades, because it is quite possible that some other type of occupation will be brought to our notice in which similar conditions prevail. In the ordinary course, I would have taken the line that whatever the working practice up to the present has been has to be modified to fit into the Bill now, but the circumstances affecting the type of employment to which I have referred were such that, clearly, it would not suit anybody's convenience, and, as a matter of fact, as I have said, the representations came from the Labour side.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
With regard to my next amendment, No. 71, I take it that the Minister understands the position. He has mentioned the precise case I have in mind, namely, the case of a waiter. The four hours would just leave him in the position of missing one of the sets of meals.
I will have an amendment to Section 19 in some form on the next Stage.
Amendment No. 71 not moved.
Amendment No. 72 not moved.
I move amendment No. 73:—
Before sub-section (2) to insert the following new sub-section:—
Where the last of the two spells mentioned in the next preceding sub-section commences before 5 o'clock in the afternoon, nothing contained in this Act shall authorise the proprietor of a shop to permit any juvenile employed to do shop work, to do such shop work after 8 p.m. on any day.
This also refers to the question of spells, but it does not deal with them as such. It is designed to provide that where a spell of work commences before 5 p.m., a juvenile employee will not be required to work later than 8 p.m. I think everybody will agree that one of the purposes, and, possibly, the main purpose, of this legislation is to protect juveniles in shops, because, in small shops in particular, there is a great deal of exploitation of juvenile labour, and it seems to me to be reasonable that advantage should not be taken of the spell system to keep young girls in small shops working until all hours of the night. Under the Bill as it stands, I suggest that a girl or boy in a shop might be required to work in two spells, one commencing at 7 in the morning and finishing at 12 noon, and another commencing at 5 in the evening and finishing at 11 at night, so that in fact the working day would last from 7 a.m. until 11 p.m., with one break of 4 hours in the evening. I do not think that is desirable and I think the Minister should accept this provision, that where a spell commences before 5 p.m., in the case of juveniles, it should end not later than 8 p.m.
Is it not a rather fanciful set of circumstances the Deputy has in mind? I have been trying to think of any type of occupation in which hours of work of that kind might be resorted to and I have not been able to think of any. The Bill permits the employment of juveniles until 10 p.m. and that, of course, is subject to the 48-hour week, and to certain exceptions set out in sub-section (2) of Section 17. Unless I have some specific case brought to my notice, I would not be disposed to modify that provision, nor is it necessary to alter the final hour up to which work can be done in order to deal with the precise type of case to which the Deputy referred. If there is any danger of juveniles being worked in the particular manner suggested by the Deputy, I think we could insert some provision which would definitely exclude it, but the Deputy's amendment is merely to prevent juveniles who work in spells being employed after 8 p.m. That does not meet entirely the difficulty to which he has referred. I do not know that it is necessary to legislate against the employment of juveniles after 8 p.m. under any circumstances. I think that having regard to the circumstances of particular types of occupation, we can permit the employment of juveniles until 10 p.m. as we propose. I am speaking somewhat in the dark because I cannot visualise circumstances under which the dangers which the Deputy foresees will arise, or the types of occupation in relation to which they might arise, but so far as I can see, it is not necessary to go beyond the proposals in the Bill.
Might I suggest that in Dublin, and, I presume, in all cities, there are a large number of small shops employing juvenile staffs. Many of those shops stay open almost 24 hours. Some of them open at 6 or 7 o'clock in the morning and stay open until 2 o'clock, or, at any rate, until 1 o'clock the next morning. There are a large number of such shops, particularly in the suburbs of the cities, and I suggest that in those shops there is some need to provide that juvenile employees will not be kept working until late hours at night. They should get a working day which will enable them to have a reasonable amount of time off at a reasonable time.
The operation of the 48-hour week will effectively ensure that for them, I think. I do not quite see that there is any danger of juveniles, or anybody else, being employed from 7 o'clock in the morning until 2 the next morning. It cannot happen under the Bill because there is a maximum of 11 hours and that can be worked only for a limited number of days in the week. However, I shall look into the point, but I am anxious to have the regulations under the Bill confined to what is absolutely necessary. The more unnecessary regulations we have, the greater will be the difficulty of enforcing them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 74 not moved.
With regard to my next amendment, I take it that the Minister promises to look into this question?
Yes. This matter will have to be reconsidered and I should like the Deputy to leave this amendment over.
Amendment No. 75 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 19 stand part of the Bill."
I had some amendments dealing with railway book stalls. I think they are in the same category, and I take it the Minister will consider them in the light of other special businesses? They require some exemption, too.
I am not quite sure that they do, but I shall look into it.
Question put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 20 stand part of the Bill."
I take it that on Section 20 we do not discuss the Schedule?
I have only one remark to make, and possibly I might make it now. The Second Schedule, paragraph 3, says:—
Without prejudice to Rule 1, where the hours of work include the hours from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m., an interval of not less than half-an-hour shall be allowed between those hours for tea.
I do not know the habits of the persons who work in shops in Dublin, and I cannot say whether it is their habit to take afternoon tea, but I know that in the country towns, it is not. I do not think that any shop assistant would like very much to be turned out for half an hour to spend quarter of an hour going home for the purpose of gulping down a cup of tea. As a matter of fact, he or she would stand outside during the half hour. That assistant would rather work three hours and then go home for his tea and have his evening entirely to himself. I have no amendment down and am merely drawing the Minister's attention to it with a view to his considering whether he should make that applicable only to county boroughs.
I think the Deputy's point is this, that an assistant, instead of getting half an hour between 4 and 7, might prefer to work from 4 to 6.30 and then go home.
I think a similar point was raised on the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936. We could meet that by providing that where an assistant is employed later than 6.30 or 7 an interval for tea must be given. While it might be more clearly expressed, that was the intention here.
I think that is really what shop assistants would like. The Minister said that if they were employed later than 8 o'clock they would like to have tea.
If employed later than 7 o'clock there should be an interval for tea. I will look into the matter.
I am told that the ordinary supper is 7.30 or 8.
I dealt already with the interval for meals at bookstalls. As some absurd regulation might arise, I want the Minister to take power that it will be altered to suit the requirements of everyone concerned. I am not suggesting that only the arrival of trains should be considered.
Some interval must be given, and if the Deputy refers to the section, I think he will see that there is fairly considerable latitude allowed. Between 11.30 and 2.30 even employees in bookstalls require something to eat.
Section agreed to.
SECTION 21.
I move amendment No. 75a:—
At the end of sub-section (1), line 52, to add the following proviso:—
Provided however that it shall be lawful for the proprietor of a shop to make such changes in the hours to be worked by and the intervals for rest and meals to be allowed to such members of the staff of that shop as may from time to time become necessary by reason of the illness or absence of any such member or the occurrence of any emergency.
The Deputy referred to the change of hours of workers due to illness and I was prepared to discuss that matter with him. I hope that he will give more reasons than he gave then. While something might be said for the amendment, I see very considerable difficulty in the way of accepting it, in that the enforcement of the provisions of the Act would be very considerably impeded if these rapid changes in the notice as to hours of work were permitted. In fact, if this amendment were accepted in its present form, it would make the whole provision prescribing that notice should be displayed of very little value, and practically inoperative. I do not know what type of emergency the Deputy has in mind. I do not think it could arise in the case of an ordinary shop. There might be some type of establishment where the illness or the absence of some member might necessitate changing the hours of work of members of the staff. In such cases, some provision should be made for that, but in the great majority of shops, the hours of work and the hours of opening will coincide, and there will be no very great difficulty in meeting the type of case the Deputy has in mind. In some types of establishment that will not be the case, and in these the illness or absence of one member might require changing the hours of another member, other than the employment of another member on overtime rates for hours in excess of those in the Bill.
At the same time, I do not see quite clearly why there should be a special provision for that, and I would be glad if the Deputy would elaborate the point. I would prefer not to accept the amendment in its present form, or in any form, as it destroys very largely the effect of the section. The effect of the section is desirable for the purpose of ensuring the effective enforcement and display of the notice contemplated by the section. It will also facilitate the inspector in ensuring that the provisions of the Act are being carried out. If such a notice could be changed in the manner contemplated by the Deputy, obviously it would be of little value.
I do not want to open up loopholes for evading the Act. Perhaps if the Minister could say that if such an occasion arose, or if there were special circumstances, there was power to deal with them, that would meet it. I see what the Minister means, that he does not want to have the illness of an employee advanced for every breach of the section.
Do I understand from the reading of the sub-section that once a notice is posted it is irrevocable?
No.
It does not say that it is; neither does it say that it is not. I should like to see the wording of the sub-section improved in some way. It would be a hardship if, once a notice was posted, it could not be easily changed. I do not suggest that it should be possible to change it at every opportunity.
I will look into it. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent changing of hours.
No. That being so, as the sub-section stands, a person could post one notice to-day, a fresh one to-morrow, and another one the day after, if he felt so disposed.
So long as the notice is up and is operating, the inspector has no difficulty. There is a defence there.
The matter is one that the Minister might look into.
I will look into it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 76:—
Before sub-section (2) to insert the following new sub-section:—
It shall be a proper defence by a proprietor of a shop which is a refreshment house, to a breach of the regulations prescribed in this section to show that an emergency had arisen.
As the Minister can readily understand, a sudden call might be made on a refreshment house, for instance, by the arrival of an excursion train, and some provision ought to be made to vary the conditions. At certain seaside places there have been complaints that people who arrived by an excursion boat found that there was not even a cup of tea to be had in the district.
Was that due to the scarcity of tea or the day of the week?
I am sure the Minister does not want to say that it was due to Government regulations.
I would be surprised to hear that an excursion boat caused a scarcity of tea.
The shops were not open.
It was due to where the excursion boat came from.
I should like the Minister to consider how far he could go to meet the special circumstances that occur in refreshment houses when there are excursions or when there is a sudden change of plans in connection with these houses.
I think the overtime provisions are quite ample to cover the contingency the Deputy has in mind. There is nothing to prevent the proprietors of such establishments employing assistants above the normal working hours, up to the limit of overtime provided, subject to payment of overtime rates. That is precisely the type of overtime that is being dealt with. If that is the emergency the Deputy has in mind, I do not think it is necessary to make any special provision.
Supposing a number of persons come to a hotel in which there is only one cook. If they rush in at a time when it is the cook's hour off for dinner, she cannot work to supply them with a meal if a notice is up saying that she takes her dinner between 2 and 3 o'clock—that is, supposing they rush in at five minutes past 2 o'clock. In a case such as that the cook could not postpone her dinner until after 3 o'clock, because the notice is there, and it is unalterable like the laws of the Medes and the Persians.
Perhaps the point raised by the Deputy could be met under a previous sub-section by the proprietor of the hotel hastily preparing a fresh notice and posting it up.
I think that even a cook in a hotel, if there is only one, is entitled to a fixed hour for her meals. The proprietor would have to arrange that hour within the limits of the Bill with due regard to all the possibilities.
It is most undesirable that there should be any legislation which would be a temptation to have its provisions broken.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 21 agreed to.
SECTION 22.
(1) Where, in order to comply with this Part of this Act, the hours of work prevailing immediately before the commencement of this Part of this Act in regard to any member of the staff of a shop are reduced or otherwise altered, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) the rate of salary, wages, or other reward payable to such member immediately before such commencement shall not be reduced or be otherwise altered to the detriment of such member merely because of the said reduction or alteration in the hours of work of such member;
I move amendment No. 77:—
In sub-section (1) (a), line 9, after the word "reward" to insert the brackets and words "(excluding overtime and any payments made for commencing work earlier or finishing work later than other similar members of the staff)".
This is an amendment framed to meet a case which, I think, is very common —that is, where extra services have been agreed to and incorporated in an increased rate of pay. For instance, there may be two assistants working side by side in a shop, and one of them is paid extra money for performing extra services. The idea is that if this section is agreed to as it is worded, it might be argued that the wages for the extra services were standardised at the increased rate of pay, and that the assistant would have to be remunerated again for those extra services according to overtime rates. This is a case of taking into account the fact that an agreement has been made to perform extra services by an addition to the assistant's ordinary rate of pay.
I desire to support the amendment. I do not know whether a similar one was moved to the Conditions of Employment Act when it was going through the House. Certainly, in many cases people who had, so to speak, compounded overtime payments to various classes of workers were, for their generosity in the past, heavily mulcted for the future because, under the Conditions of Employment Act, the wages the workers were receiving were taken as the standard rate, and on that overtime had to be paid although their actual wages were originally fixed to include overtime.
I think the proposal is a reasonable one. I am prepared to have an amendment moved on the next Stage embodying what is proposed here. The same applies to amendment No. 78.
Amendment No. 77, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 78 not moved.
On behalf of Deputy Norton, I move amendment No. 79:—
In page 13 at the end of the section to add the following new sub-section:—
(4) If the proprietor of a shop shall terminate the employment of a person to whom this Act applies merely because of the operation of this section, such proprietor shall be guilty of an offence under this section.
The purpose of the amendment is to have inserted a provision that the dismissal of an employee, merely by reason of the operation of this section, will be an offence under the Act. The Minister, I am sure, will recognise the fact that evasion is a very usual thing under Acts of this kind. There will be a fairly large number of employers who, no doubt, will try to evade the provisions of the Act by dismissing employees. You will have a number of bad employers who, by reason of the restriction of hours and the necessity of paying overtime if the hours worked are longer than the hours provided, will dismiss their employees in order to evade the provisions of the Act. It is suggested that conduct of that kind should be made an offence. I can see that the Minister may raise the point that there will be difficulty in establishing the reason for dismissal in such cases. While admitting that difficulty, I think that the insertion of an amendment such as this would in itself safeguard the position of at least a certain number of employees.
A provision of this kind would be perfectly futile. The Deputy himself practically admits that. He thinks that it might act as a deterrent on employers. If he cannot make the provision effective there is no use in putting it in. If you put that section in you will never get a prosecution because no employer will ostensibly dismiss an employee for the reason stated. He may give any other reason —that he does not like the colour of the assistant's eyes or hair or something else, and immediately he does that a prosecution does not lie.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 22 agreed to.
SECTION 23.
I move amendment No. 80:—
Before Section 23 but in Part III of the Bill to insert a new section as follows:—
It shall be a good defence to any proceedings taken against any person for breach of any of the provisions of this Part of this Act if such person shows to the satisfaction of the court before which such proceedings are brought that any act occasioning such breach was rendered necessary or reasonably proper by the actual occurrence or the threat or reasonable anticipation of fire, flood, storm, violence, or any other emergency.
While the object aimed at in this amendment is not quite as important as it was under the Conditions of Employment Act, still I think we should have the same provision in this measure and I recommend the amendment to the favourable consideration of the Minister.
I do not think it makes much difference whether the amendment goes in or not. I doubt very much if the circumstances anticipated are likely to arise, circumstances under which a proprietor would, in fact, be prosecuted and be in a position to make the defence indicated in the amendment. I have no objection to the amendment being inserted, but perhaps the Deputy would leave it over to give me an opportunity of having it examined.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 23 agreed to.
Section 24 agreed to.
SECTION 25.
Where the employment of a member of the staff of a shop with the proprietor of such a shop is interrupted by reason of the illness of such a member, the temporary cessation of the work on which he is so employed, the temporary reduction of the weekly quantity of such work, or any other temporary cause not due to the act or default of such member, such member shall, for the purpose of reckoning any period of continuous employment with such proprietor within the meaning of any section of this Part of this Act, be deemed to have been in the employment of such proprietor during such interruption if, but only if, the following conditions are complied with, that is to say:—
(a) at the end of such interruption, such member returns to employment with such proprietor, and
(b) such member is not employed in any form of shop work during such interruption, and
(c) the duration of such interruption does not exceed one month.
I move amendment No. 81: In page 14, line 43, to delete the word "a".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 82: In paragraph (b), line 55, to delete the words "any form of" and substitute the word "doing".
If the Deputy agrees to leave the amendment over, I undertake to have it considered.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 83:—
In paragraph (c), lines 57 and 58, to delete the words "one month" and substitute the words "two consecutive months".
As the present section stands, a person absent from employment owing to illness or any other reason over which he has no control for any period exceeding one month would be debarred from certain benefits under the Bill, the principal one being annual leave. The purpose of the amendment is that one month should be extended to two months. In a good many instances a person who is ill or absent through no fault of his own is not paid for that period, so that he is therefore not inflicting any great hardship on the employer, and I think it would be for the benefit of everybody concerned if that period of one month was extended to two months. There might be an odd employer who might perhaps lay a person off for a certain period each year which would bring him beyond the period of one month by, say, a couple of days and thereby deprive the employee of his right to have his annual leave. I do not think this is unreasonable, and I ask the Minister to accept the amendment.
Section 25 of this Bill is similar to the corresponding section of the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936. In fact, that applies in great measure to the whole of Part IV of this Bill. I do not like pleading the 1936 Act as a reason for not having amendments here, but there is an obvious advantage in having the least possible variation between the provisions of both Acts which are designed to provide exactly the same things for two different classes of workers. On its merits, however, I think that the provision in this Bill as it stands is reasonable and that it is undesirable to extend beyond a month the period of absence which will not be regarded as an interruption of continuous employment for the purpose of that part of the Bill. This provision for payment for holidays is, of course, less onerous on proprietors of shops than it is on proprietors of factories both by reason of the fact that the number of persons employed in shops is much smaller and that quite a number gave paid holidays to their assistants in the past. Therefore, it might be argued that a more lenient provision in relation to matters of this kind could be adopted. But, when one considers all the circumstances, one will see that it is possible to go too far in such matters.
Here we are dealing with the question of spasmodic employment. The Deputy, of course, has referred to cases where the absence of an employee is due to illness. That, of course, was not the principal type of case we had in mind in farming the section in relation to the 1936 Act or this Bill. The principal type of case we had in mind was the person who is employed fairly continuously but has occasional breaks, where it was felt these breaks will operate to prevent such a person from getting paid for his annual holiday on the ground that his employment was not continuous. We, therefore, had to get a definition of continuous employment which would bridge these gaps in employment due to temporary cessation of work, temporary reduction in the weekly quantity of work, and other temporary causes, including illness. There, however, the question arose as to what period of gap should be bridged, and it seemed that one month was not an unreasonable provision. There are, of course, other conditions—the condition that the person whose employment is interrupted does not get employment elsewhere, that is a new contract of employment with another employer, and that at the end of the interruption he returns to the original employer, the employer who becomes liable to pay for his holiday.
These all indicate the type of cases we have in mind. If a person is employed in a shop and for some reason the shop closes, or because of some temporary cause the employment of the worker is interrupted, then, subject to these conditions, and to the interruption of the employment not being more than a month, we regard him as having been continuously employed and consequently entitled to his full rights in respect of holidays. If, however, the period goes beyond a month, I think it becomes a hardship on the proprietor, and I would be disposed to resist the amendment both on these grounds and by reason of the fact that it is, from the point of view of administration, a very substantial advantage to keep the provisions of this Bill and of the 1936 Act in conformity.
Will the Minister consider dealing with the question of sickness separately from the other considerations he mentioned? In fact, at present it is the custom in a very large number of retail businesses to pay employees in full and to retain their posts for them during periods of sickness very much longer than one month.
Is it in the interest of the employee? Will the Deputy look at it in the other way? Here we are dealing with the case of an employer who is willing to take back an employee who has been absent by reason of sickness. If the employer terminates the employment he can get out of this obligation altogether. It is only if he takes back the employee into his employment at the end of the period of sickness that he becomes liable to make this payment in respect of annual holidays. An employer will do that in the case of an employee if the period of illness is not too long. But if it becomes too long, I think that whatever attachment there may be for the particular assistant will be worn thin and he will get out of the obligation by refusing to take back the employee into his service. Therefore, I do not think it is altogether in the interest of the assistant to make the period too long.
Is the month mentioned continuous?
There could be more than a month in the year.
He could be ill for three weeks and get well again——
And then be ill for another three weeks.
They are not cumulative?
That is so. The specific point we had in mind was not the man who was ill, but the building trade worker who does a job, is laid off for a couple of weeks, goes to another job, is laid off for a couple of weeks, and then goes to another job. We wanted to make his employment continuous despite the period he is laid off. That type of interruption rarely occurs in the retail distribution trade, but it might occur, and we are putting the same provision in here. If you are dealing with the case of illness, it is necessary to bear in mind the point I made that it is only where an employee returns to the employment of his employer that this arises at all, and I think the wisdom of extending the period beyond a month is very doubtful from any point of view, and I urge that on Deputies opposite.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 84:—
In paragraph (c), lines 57 and 58, to delete the words "one month" and substitute the words "a continuous period of not less than five weeks".
The amendment is to ensure that the break in the employment must be continuous. I think the Minister has already mentioned that.
There might be more than one interruption. I think the Deputy's amendment is not necessary if that is the intention. There could be more than one interruption in the year and still the employment would be continuous, provided no interruption is for more than a month.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 25 as amended stand part of the Bill."
On the section I should like to ask the Minister, does he not think that in the case of illness of an employee, the employer should be advised? The Minister has said that, of course, the employer can make the point that he does not require his services. I think in certain cases it might be very difficult for the employer to find out whether the employee is sick or has gone away. The employee might return and contend that he had been sick and that he was willing to resume work. In that case, I think where illness is going to be claimed, the employer should be given notice.
There is nothing in the Bill to compel the employer to take such an employee back into the service. I imagine that an employee who absented himself from employment without explanation has very little chance of employment on presenting himself again for work of this kind.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 26.
(3) In this section the expression "the appointed time" means—
(a) in relation to a member of the staff of a shop which is a refreshment house, the hour of 3 p.m. or the expiration of the fifth hour after the time at which such person commenced work on the relevant day in such shop, whichever is the earlier, and
(b) in relation to a member of the staff of any other shop, the hour of 1.30 p.m.
I move amendment No. 85:—
In sub-section (3), line 14, to delete the figure "3" and substitute the figures "1.30."
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that employees of shops which are refreshment houses will get a half-holiday commencing at 1.30 instead of at 3 o'clock as provided by the Bill. The generally established view of a half-holiday is that it should permit one to take the whole afternoon free from work, and a half-holiday commencing at 3 o'clock could hardly be regarded as a half-holiday at all. I might mention in this connection that it is the practice at present in many places to give the half-holiday at 1 o'clock or at 1.30. It is, I think, actually the practice in the licensed trade in Dublin, for instance, at the present time. I feel that a half-holiday commencing at a later hour than 1.30 for employees who had started to work in the forenoon does not conform to what is generally understood to be a half-holiday. The Minister might meet the point by agreeing to insert 1.30 instead of 3 o'clock in this sub-section.
I do not think I could agree to this amendment, nor do I think that the illustration of the licensed house meets the case.
They are refreshment houses.
Oh, no. These are restaurants and hotels where the busiest hours are probably the hours between 12 and 3. I think it is necessary to preserve 3 o'clock there. The Deputy should remember that it is 3 o'clock or five hours after the work commences, whichever is the earlier. If he starts at 9 o'clock the half-holiday must be given at 2 o'clock, and if he starts at 8 o'clock it must be given at 1 o'clock. I think it would be unreasonable to require that waiters and similar employees in hotels should get their half-holiday at 1.30. I think 3 o'clock is a reasonable provision in their case.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 26 stand part of the Bill."
There is one provision in this section which strikes me as rather peculiar in its wording, namely, "but only if such proprietor does not permit such member to do on that day any work for him." I would suggest to the Minister that he should insert some such words as "any substantial work," because even if the employee deals with a till, or with something which he forgot to do the night before—if he lodges, for instance, a little money—he has done some work. It might give rise to some considerable difficulty. An employer may come down to his shop and suddenly see that an employee has done some very trifling service for the day on which the employee is to have his whole holiday. I should like if some such word as "substantial" were inserted. I have not put down an amendment but the Minister might look into the matter.
I have a natural reluctance to inserting such words in legislation, if it can be avoided, because they lead to contention and litigation. I think it is necessary to provide fairly clearly that if the employee does any work on a particular day for an employer, that is not a holiday. I am not sure, but I think that is the corresponding provision in the existing law. I do not think it will cause any substantial difficulty in interpretation.
It might. If he does something trifling everybody may ignore it, but a "pernickety" chap may say: "I was off yesterday, but I did such-and-such a thing. I unrolled a bale of cloth yesterday and you looked on at my doing it. I must have another holiday to-day."
Of course there is another way of dealing with that. The proprietor may say: "This is your half-day from the shop, but you can milk the cows this evening."
Question put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 86 not moved.
Section 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 87 and 88 not moved.
SECTION 28.
Question proposed: "That Section 28 stand part of the Bill."
On this section, I should like to know from the Minister whether it is held that the words in line 41, "salary or wages," are regarded as referring only to the ordinary remuneration or whether it may be necessary to insert the words "excluding overtime." I think this point cropped up on the Conditions of Employment Act, but possibly that was dealing with piece-work. I know that the words were added in some section of that Act.
I take it the Deputy has in mind the same point which Deputy Dockrell raised in relation to Section 22, that it is the normal rate of wages that shall apply.
Yes, that overtime shall not be taken into account.
It may be necessary to make that clear, that wages should be paid at the normal rate and that that should not include any extra remuneration paid for overtime to the employee.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 29.
(1) The proprietor of a shop which is either a non-special-trade shop or a Sunday trading shop, shall allow to each member of the staff of that shop a half-holiday on one weekday (which shall not if such shop is a non-special-trade shop be a day which is a public holiday) in each week (other than a week included in the Christmas fortnight) and in the Christmas fortnight.
On behalf of Deputy Norton I move amendment No. 89:
In sub-section (1), lines 5 and 6, to delete the words "which is either a non-special-trade shop or a Sunday trading shop.
Section 29 imposes on the proprietors of certain shops the obligation to grant a weekly half-holiday to their employees. This obligation, however, does not extend to the proprietor of special-trade shops, such as refreshment houses, licensed premises, and so forth. This amendment simply seeks to remove the limiting words in sub-section (1). Its adoption would ensure a half-holiday for all these workers. It is simply bringing these employees on a par with other employees.
I do not see that this amendment is necessary. I do not know if Deputy Norton fully appreciated that where certain classes of employees receive no half-holiday, they are given the right to two whole holidays in the month, two whole holidays which may be given in half-holidays if it suits the convenience of the employer. In those classes of shops it is considered more convenient to provide for the giving of those holidays to those employees in that way, rather than to give them one half-holiday in each week. That is the practice at present. It is the existing law. I have had no representations from anybody that it is desirable to change it, and consequently we are providing for its continuation here. An employee is entitled to two whole holidays in the month in lieu of the half-holidays—two whole holidays which may, at the discretion of the employer, be given in half-holidays. I think it is desirable to leave that provision. It has worked fairly well. I have no recollection of anybody making any representations in favour of the changing of it. Consequently I think it is desirable to leave it as it stands.
Amendment No. 89, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 90:
In sub-section (1), line 7, after the word "shop," to insert the words "except during the annual leave of such member."
The idea is that it should be made quite clear that an employee cannot contend that he was entitled to holidays during the periods of his annual leave.
He could not have two holidays on the same day. I see the point that the Deputy is getting at, but I do not think the amendment is necessary. I think it is quite clear that a person cannot be given a half-holiday on a day on which he has a whole holiday.
Would it consist of going to work?
On the principle of "a change is as good as a rest"!
It would be like the magistrates: "Sentences to run concurrently."
The point is that he may claim he is entitled to the half-day which he should have got when he was taking a whole day.
I do not think the section is open to that interpretation, but I will have it examined if Deputies have any doubt about it. It is provided here that he must be allowed a half-holiday on one day in each week. If he does not take it during that week it cannot be taken over to another week. Obviously he cannot get it in the week during which he is on annual leave.
Amendment No. 90, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 91:—
In sub-section (1), line 8, to delete the words "if such shop is a non-special-trade shop".
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that a Sunday-trading shop, like a non-special-trade shop, will be compelled to give a half-holiday on a day which is not a public holiday. The Sunday-trading shop, as the Bill stands, has an advantage in that respect over the non-special-trade shop.
I did not quite get the Deputy's point.
The amendment seeks to ensure that the Sunday-trading shop will be compelled to give a half-holiday on a day which is not a public holiday. As the Bill stands they can give the half-holiday on a public holiday.
I do not see what the objection is. Those Sunday-trading shops are shops which presumably also open on public holidays. This succession of negatives makes it very difficult to follow precisely what the Deputy is getting at. There are two classes of shops concerned here. One is described as a non-special-trade shop and the other as a Sunday-trading shop. The words in brackets are designed to secure that in the case of the non-special-trade shop the half-holiday shall not be on a public holiday. In the case of a Sunday-trading shop the position is somewhat difficult. The Sunday-trading shop can also trade on a public holiday, and if that be so I do not see why it is necessary to provide that the proprietor of that shop cannot give his assistants a half-holiday on a public holiday, because the shop will be open on that public holiday.
Amendment No. 91, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 not moved.
Section 29 put and agreed to.
SECTION 30.
(1) (b) less than twenty-six whole holidays on week-days in each period of twelve months, commencing on the first day of January, during which such member has been continuously employed by him.
Amendments Nos. 94 and 95 not moved.
I move amendment No. 96:—
In sub-section (1) (b), line 45, to delete the words "twenty-six" and substitute the words "twenty-five".
This is the same idea in another form. This is holidays during holiday period again.
I think amendment No. 98 in my name deals with the point which the Deputy has in mind.
Amendment No. 96, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 97:—
At the end of sub-section (1) to add the following proviso:—
"Provided that if the proprietor of a shop to which this section applies allows to each member of the staff of such shop a half-holiday not later than 1.30 p.m. on one weekday in each week, the foregoing provisions of this sub-section shall not apply in any such case."
This, again, is on the question of the half-holiday commencing at 1.30 p.m.
I think that is similar to the Deputy's previous amendment.
Amendment No. 97, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 98:—
Before sub-section (3) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) Where annual leave is allowed to a member of the staff of a shop, which is either a refreshment house or licensed premises, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) the proprietor of such shop shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to have allowed such member one whole holiday in the month in which such annual leave commences;
(b) no part of a day falling within such annual leave shall be deemed to be a half-holiday for the purposes of sub-section (2) of this section.
The purpose of this amendment is obvious. It is to provide that the proprietor of any class of shop mentioned will be deemed to have allowed an assistant a whole holiday in the month in which that assistant's annual leave commences, and that no part of a day falling within such annual leave shall be deemed to be a half-holiday for the purposes of the section. I think that is a reasonable provision. It is designed to meet the points which Deputy Dockrell also had in mind in framing his amendment.
Amendment No. 98 agreed.
Amendment No. 99 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 30, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
On the section, I should like to ask the Minister what number of hours an employee is supposed to work in the remaining days of a week in which the proprietor allows him a whole holiday?
I think we will have to make clear what is precisely in mind. What is intended, of course, is that the holidays shall count for the purpose of calculating the number of hours worked in the week. Otherwise, there would be no point in having a provision with regard to a holiday at all. I am not sure that it is necessary to have such a provision, but I think it is better to have it in order to prevent any doubt on the matter. If a person gets a whole holiday or a half-holiday in the week, then the maximum number of hours that person should work must be regulated accordingly.
If that is so, why put in the provision for 48 hours in the Bill at all, since everybody must get a half-holiday? If a half-holiday is provided for, then it is only in connection with a whole holiday that such a provision should be made.
Yes, that is a fair presentation, I think. It is not clear, however, and I should like the matter to be left over for the present because it is a bit complicated.
Section 30, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 31.
(1) Where the proprietor of a shop does not allow a member of the staff of that shop a whole holiday on a Sunday in any week, such proprietor shall allow to him on some day (not being a day on which such proprietor allows him, in pursuance of any other provision of this Part of this Act, a whole holiday or a half-holiday) within that week—
(a) in case such member does shop work for more than four hours on that Sunday, a whole holiday, or
(b) in any other case, a half-holiday.
(2) If the proprietor of a shop fails, neglects or refuses to comply with the provisions of sub-section (1) of this section, such proprietor shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to the penalties mentioned in the Third Schedule to this Act.
I move amendment No. 100, standing in the name of Deputy Norton:—
Before sub-section (1), to insert the following new sub-section:—
(1) Except as regards shops in which all, or any, of the businesses mentioned in the Fourth Schedule to this Act are carried on, it shall not be lawful for the proprietor of a shop to permit a member of the staff of that shop to work on Sunday.
The sub-section, as it stands, does not prohibit Sunday work, but it allows what one might call compensatory holidays to members of staffs of shops working on Sundays and so on. The purpose of the amendment submitted by Deputy Norton is to prohibit Sunday work except in certain cases as set out in this Fourth Schedule. I do not propose to read out the list of cases set out in that Schedule, as it is a very long list, but it includes shops the business of which is the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors, the sale of meals or refreshments for consumption on the premises, the sale of table waters, sweets, and so on, the sale of newspapers, periodicals or magazines, the sale of milk, cream, bread and so on, and the sale of motor, cycle or aircraft supplies.
I think that this amendment would be more appropriate to the Hours of Trading Bill. The Shops (Hours of Trading) Bill will prohibit the opening of certain classes of shops on a Sunday, and once that is done the question of employment in that case in such shops is automatically fixed. I think that what Deputy Norton was trying to achieve by an amendment to this Bill would more properly arise on the Shops (Hours of Trading) Bill.
I think the same applies to the Schedule.
Yes.
Amendment No. 100, by leave, withdrawn.
That covers amendment No. 128, of course.
Yes, that covers the Schedule.
I move amendment No. 101:—
In sub-section (1), line 5, after the word "shop" to insert the words "not being a refreshment house".
I am afraid I could not accept this amendment, because it would be contrary to the whole intention of the Bill. The effect of it would be to deprive shop assistants of that which the Bill intended to provide.
Amendment No. 101, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 102 not moved.
I move amendment No. 103, standing in Deputy Norton's name:—
In sub-section (1), line 10, to delete the word "four" and substitute the word "three".
This arises out of the same thing about compensatory days, and the idea is to change the number of hours mentioned from four hours to three hours and to entitle an employee, who works for three hours on a Sunday, to a compensatory holiday. In certain towns in Ireland, such as Dublin, Cork and Limerick, certain assistants in licensed premises work from two to five o'clock and, according to the present wording of the section, they would not fulfil the conditions of the Bill so as to entitle them to a compensatory holiday. The idea of this amendment is to bring them in and grant them a compensatory day in lieu of the hours worked on Sunday.
The amendment looks very innocent, but I am afraid it would effect a very great change in what is intended by the Bill. As the Bill stands, an assistant who works three hours on a Sunday is entitled to a half-holiday, and if he works for more than four hours on a Sunday he is entitled to a whole holiday. I am afraid I could not accept the amendment because it would effect changes which would be too much to contemplate, and, in fact, it is more than has been asked for.
Amendment No. 103, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 104 not moved.
I move amendment No. 105, standing in Deputy Norton's name:
Before sub-section (2), to insert the following new sub-section:—
(2) The proprietor of a shop shall not permit any person not a member of the staff of that shop, who by virtue of this section may not be employed on a whole day or on a half-holiday (as the case may be) in a shop if he is a member of the staff of such last mentioned shop to do shop work for him on such day or half-holiday (as the case may be).
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the provisions of the Bill will not be availed of by an employee working in a shop other than the shop in which he is normally employed. Its purpose is to ensure that that would be made impossible. It may be said that there is already a provision dealing with that situation in the case of the annual holidays, but the purpose of the amendment is simply to provide that, in respect of hours of work, the same protection will be given as is given in the case of annual holidays, and that a person cannot be on duty in a shop other than the shop in which he is normally employed and thus evade the hours provisions.
I am not sure that that is necessary, and in any event I am not quite sure that it is the best way to do it. I think that what the Deputy has in mind is that a person who is entitled to a holiday from one employer must not be permitted to spend that holiday in working for another employer. The way to deal with that situation would be to deal with it as we dealt with similar cases in the Conditions of Employment Act, and that is to make it illegal for the employee to take such employment. Instead of making it illegal for the employer to employ the person concerned, I think the best thing would be to make it illegal for such a person to take that employment. If you deal with it in the other way, it might prove to be unfair to the employer, who might not be aware of the circumstances. The employee, however, knows what he is doing and, if he commits the offence, he should be punished. The employer would always have the defence that he employed this person as an extra hand for a day or a half-day, not knowing that in doing so he was committing an offence, but the person who takes the employment does so knowing full well what he is doing. That is the way we dealt with it under the Conditions of Employment Act—not merely making it illegal for the employer, but also making it illegal for the employee to take the work. It was the only effective way to do it. Of course, there is not so much danger of that kind of thing arising in this connection. It might arise in some cases, but it is not very likely that, in any particular district, a shop assistant will get a holiday on a day when trade will be so considerable that other shop proprietors will be considering the employment of additional staff. I think that the danger of that type of practice developing is remote. Apparently, however, there is some danger—the danger I mention is confined to the licensed trade—and because of that danger I am prepared to consider a provision of that kind, but it would be a provision designed against the employee himself and would be designed to see that he took a holiday when he got it.
I should like to know from the Minister whether he would also deal with the question of the voluntary worker as distinct from the person who takes employment. I am referring to the person who gets, say, a half-day off, and who is a brother or a cousin and comes in and works in the other man's place for him. I was told some years ago, at a time when, in fact, every public-house in Dublin, even though the law allowed them to keep open until 11 o'clock, had to shut at 9 o'clock because the employees would not work after 9 o'clock. As the law then stood, every public-house could remain open till 11. The law did not compel them to shut, but they had to shut at 9 o'clock because the employees all went home, or at least left the shop. I was told that there were many houses, however, which were owned by individuals who kept open until 11 o'clock because they were working themselves. Shop assistants from other shops, having left the place in which they were employed, used to come down and help their friends, not for money, but simply because they wanted to do a good turn to a friend. That condition of affairs may never occur again, but at the same time I think the Minister ought to deal with voluntary as well as paid labour.
I think the provision of the 1936 Act is that any person on holiday is precluded from doing any form of industrial work. The provision in this Bill may have to be that any person on holiday will be prevented from doing shop work or industrial work.
I take it that it will cover annual holidays, too.
It will have to.
I am not concerned about how this practice is prevented. I understand the Minister is to look into the matter and do something to obviate the practice. I am quite satisfied with that and I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I desire to move amendment No. 105a:—
Before sub-section (2) to insert the following sub-section:—
The provisions of this section shall not apply to the proprietor of a shop legally engaged in keeping open shop under the Pharmacy Act (Ireland), 1875, and the Pharmacy Act, (Ireland), 1875, Amendment Act, 1890.
If I might interrupt the Deputy, is not this the case where the Minister promised to look into the matter?
Not quite. I promised to look into the proposal of Deputy Dockrell that, instead of working 48 hours in the week, chemists' assistants might be limited to 96 hours in the fortnight. That was probably designed to meet somewhat the point Deputy Keogh is now making. I take it that Deputy Keogh has in mind the case that, where a chemist's assistant works on a Sunday, the chemist will be excluded from the obligation of giving the extra half-day in the week in lieu of the Sunday work.
It is tantamount to that. Speaking generally, this Bill is welcomed by me as a definite advance in the social legislation of this country. The public understand that the services of pharmaceutical chemists on Sundays and bank holidays are as important for the welfare of the sick as are the services of the medical profession. Many cases are found to be sufficiently serious to warrant the calling in of medical aid on Sundays and this is invariably accompanied by the need for obtaining medicines suitable for the particular malady. It is essential, therefore, that facilities for the dispensing of such medicines should be made available. The agreement between the association and the Irish Union of Distributive Workers and Clerks is considered very satisfactory. It provides that the assistants may be worked on alternate Sundays without receiving any special time off in lieu.
Pharmaceutical chemists are distinguished from chemists and druggists; they can only compound under the Pharmacy Act. There are many in Dublin and throughout the country. There is usually the master man and his qualified assistant, his legally qualified assistant as distinct from the fully qualified man. Let us assume that he does 120 hours' duty in the city or the country and he gets the alternate Sunday. The master will say to him, "You will be on duty this Sunday and I will be on duty next Sunday." If that man is to be let away for the whole day the master will have to get in another person. It would be necessary for him to have someone qualified behind the counter. If he needs a man he cannot ring up the labour exchange to get such a man. There is no such thing here as a Pharmaceutical Assistants' Bureau, where a man can be obtained for the day at 10/- or 15/-, or whatever the rate may be. If he has to pay that man it may not be a case of the cost of living going up, but of the cost of dying going up, because it may mean more for your prescriptions.
That is a terrible reflection on the chemists.
In this matter I hold a brief something similar to that of Deputy Cole, inasmuch as he and I, out of the 138 Deputies here, find ourselves the only registered pharmaceutical chemists, though, fortunately or unfortunately, we are not engaged in the shop business. It is the public we have in mind in connection with this thing. It is possible that a man might want a little digitalis or some of the other things that are essential in the medical profession. The shops engaged in this business are mostly lock-up shops and it is possible that a man would sooner close up the shop, as it might be more convenient from a business point of view or as an economic proposition. For instance, the chemist might prefer to shut up the shop and give his man the day off. I am not now touching the side of the business dealing with the sale of hairbrushes, lipstick or port wine; I am not entering into that portion of the business. I have more in mind prescriptions and things of that sort.
It should be remembered that there are certain privileges given to students who desire to become pharmaceutical chemists. If they put in a certain number of years in the chemists' shops they are let off for lectures. The work is different to that of the man who has to tot up figures or cut linen behind a counter. Perhaps the Minister could see his way to accept the amendment I have tabled. The Minister knows all about this, and so do the Labour Party. I am perfectly satisfied that the combination of both makes one too many for me. I think they ought to admit that the chemist should get a look in.
I think that Deputy Keogh has gone somewhat outside the terms of his amendment. We think that if the Bill becomes law in its present form it will seriously impair the essential public service which the Pharmaceutical Society renders. Pharmacy is part of the medical and health service and if you restrict its practice you might as well restrict the medical profession altogether. It would be impossible, notwithstanding the facilities of the tabloid concerns with which we are so much acquainted now—it would be impossible, even with the assistance of those combinations, for a medical man to carry on. I have known cases in the country when we were called up in the middle of the night to telephone for serum, which it would be impossible for the medical man to carry, because these things must be kept fresh. If we restrict altogether the members of the Pharmaceutical Society or restrict interference with them it would be better. If this Bill is passed as it stands it will be a very serious matter not only for pharmaceutical chemists but for the general public. I think it will be a relief to many pharmaceutical chemists who are called to act on various emergencies. It would be a serious inconvenience and loss to the public at large for people will not be able to get their requirements. They cannot get medicines in unexpected cases. I think this Bill should not interfere at all with the qualified pharmaceutical chemists who should be exempted from it altogether irrespective of the sort of work they do.
As Deputy Keogh has said, the pharmaceutical assistants are different altogether from the ordinary shop assistants. To begin with, the pharmaceutical chemist must keep a qualified assistant. If he leaves his place of business he must leave a qualified man behind him. Now, if these restrictions are put on, what will happen? The qualified man will not be employed. It would be very difficult for such men then to get employment and there will be a big addition of a new class of man on your unemployed list. Deputy Keogh said that although the pharmaceutical chemist has certain grievances he has not nearly as much now as in the old days when he had to work from 8 in the morning until 11 at night. Even after leaving the shop he had to make up his books and then perhaps read up for an examination that was coming off. These days are now past. The pharmaceutical assistant agrees that the services now required of him are moderate and agreeable. A young man going in for that business has a long course. Sometimes he has to board and lodge away from home; he has lectures to take out. He has to get a certain amount of time in which to do that and that is not allowed for in the Bill. He has to attend those lectures during the day and sometimes during the evening.
Do they ever get any sleep at all?
Not much sleep. We are often called up three or four times during the night. There is now a certain amount of latitude in the association. The union have agreed to terms that are quite reasonable. If the Bill is to remain as it is, it will mean that the services performed by members of the Pharmaceutical Society will be very seriously impaired. I would ask the Minister to reconsider this matter. At the time when the Juries Bill was going through the House we had some negotiations with the late Kevin O'Higgins. We wanted the Pharmaceutical Society exempted, and eventually the Minister for Justice reconsidered the matter and exempted them. If the Minister now realises the responsibility he is taking on, he will, after consideration, see that pharmaceutical chemists are exempted from this Bill.
We have no objection to pharmaceutical chemists opening on Sunday to carry on business purely and simply as pharmaceutical chemists. We are quite aware of what it costs to become a qualified chemist. We know the chemist has to attend lectures, and we know the amount of money that has to be spent on his education. We do not know that the chemist or his assistant has to go to the university and pass examinations in order that he may be qualified to sell white-wash brushes, face powder, sheep dip, or things of that sort. That is our difficulty. If a chemist would open on Sunday and confine his activities purely and simply to selling the things within his own line, there would be no objection. But there is a very strong objection to their doing what we all know they have been doing in the past ten years—transgressing into selling other things, and opening their premises on Sundays to sell them. Their sales activities extend now to cameras, face powders, sheep dip, and in fact it is difficult to say what particular article of merchandise is immune from the activities of the chemist. We would have no objection if they confined themselves to selling medicines and drugs. Everybody with a sick head on a Sunday morning should be entitled to go into a chemist's shop to get something to cure it; but nobody wants to buy white-wash brushes, sheep dip, or face powders on a Sunday. I do not know why they should be permitted any exemption for selling these things.
The question of Sunday opening is not the only question that arises here. I think Deputy Cole has made a very good case for the inclusion of the chemists' assistants under the terms of the Bill. We are not now dealing with the Shops (Hours of Trading) Bill. We are dealing with the Bill that is limiting the hours of work for shop assistants, and if shop assistants in the drug trade are working 14 hours a day, and half the night as well, it seems to me that that is the best possible case for bringing them under the provisions of this Bill.
I did not say they were working 14 hours a day now. I said that was so in the old days. There is a 48 hours week arranged now with the union.
Then if they are working only 48 hours a week now, where is the objection? It is not necessary that they should be exempted. Is it not a 48-hour week now?
Yes.
Well, if there is such an arrangement this Bill is in no way interfering with it. What, then, is the trouble about?
The trouble is that the chemist cannot, by ringing up the exchange, get another man. The rule that generally obtains is that the chemist has one assistant. The chemist himself manages to put in some hours one Sunday and his assistant does it the following Sunday. The Bill will work in such a way that the chemist, because of an hour or two on Sunday, must have a third man. If that is so, then the cost of dying will go up.
I think the chemists have some sort of a case to argue, but in the present instance both Deputies Cole and Keogh have pressed the case so unduly that they would prejudice anyone against their proposal. The only question here is whether the existing agreement between the chemist and his assistants, which provides for the assistant working two hours on alternative Sundays, should be allowed unchanged or whether the previous Bill should operate which necessitated giving half a day during the week to the assistant employed on Sunday. That is all. What it has to do with the cost of dying or this sudden demand for serum for which special trains have to be chartered and dispatched is a thing I cannot understand.
I think Deputy Keogh was speaking of the cost of dyeing, not in the sense of the usual spelling of the word.
If a person gets sick at 10 o'clock on a Sunday morning after this Bill is passed, he would be in the same position as at present. The voluntary arrangement made by the chemists and their assistants has nothing to do with the Bill. There is no provision in the Bill requiring the chemist to close at any time. All the Bill does require is that the 48-hour week should operate, and that certain provisions as to half-holidays, restrictions upon Sunday work and leave should apply. The point made by Deputies Cole and Keogh is that the present arrangement with pharmaceutical chemists who work on Sundays for two hours and then only on alternate Sundays, subject to the preservation of a 48-hour week, should be sufficient without imposing upon the chemist this further liability of giving a half-day as compensation for the two hours on the Sunday. The amendment is to exempt them from this provision entirely, irrespective of what changes may take place in the practice or what the practice may be in particular parts of the country. There is no legal validity behind the agreement between chemists and their assistants in Dublin, and I do not know that that agreement applies nationally.
It does not.
If the intention is to ensure that a chemist's assistant who works 2 hours on Sunday need not get a half-day in lieu of those two hours, then I am prepared to provide for that, subject to the maximum of 48 hours in the week. That, however, is different from what the Deputy's amendment proposes, and it is, I think, in fact, the practice. If that will meet the point of the chemists, then their point is met, but I got the impression that, upon a slender basis, they have been trying to build a case for exemption from the Bill as a whole. They cannot get that, nor have they made any case for it.
The idea would be 96 hours over two weeks—50 hours in one week and 46 hours in the next.
There would have to be a special provision in respect of Sunday in any event.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 106:—
At the end of the section to add a new sub-section as follows:—
This section shall not apply to the proprietor of a shop which is licensed premises.
I put the case for this amendment before the Minister already. The Minister would not accept my argument on a similar amendment, and I shall not argue this one.
I am not prepared to agree to the amendment. In respect of all classes of workers, we are providing that if they work on Sundays they must get time off during the week in lieu of the time so worked.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On the section, I ask the Minister to consider the question of allowing one whole holiday in the case of Sunday workers instead of two half-holidays. If a person works less than 4 hours on Sunday he is entitled to a compensatory half-holiday. He is also entitled to a half-holiday during the week under the ordinary provisions of the Act. I ask the Minister to make it permissible to amalgamate these two half-holidays into one whole holiday. Of course, if an employee works for more than 4 hours on Sunday, he must get 1½ days' holiday. I do not ask the Minister for an immediate answer, but I ask him to consider the matter and, when the Bill is recommitted, to put in an amendment to give effect to my suggestion.
I shall consider that.
Section agreed to.
SECTION 32.
Amendment No. 107 not moved.
Section 32 agreed to.
SECTION 33.
(1) The proprietor of a shop shall allow to each member of the staff of such shop in every complete employment year of such member during which he has been continuously in the employment of such proprietor and has worked in such employment for not less than eighteen hundred hours—
(a) if such shop is a special-trade shop, fourteen consecutive whole holidays (in this Act referred to as annual leave), or
(b) if such shop is a non-special trade shop, six consecutive whole holidays (in this Act also referred to as annual leave).
(3) Where a person employed as a member of the staff of a shop ceases, at any time other than the end of an employment year of such person, to be in the employment of the proprietor of such shop as a member of the staff of such shop and such person has been in the employment of such proprietor during not less than one complete month in such employment year and has worked for not less than one hundred and fifty hours in such month, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(b) in case such shop is a non-special-trade shop and such proprietor has not allowed such person before such cesser six consecutive whole holidays in respect of the portion of such employment year during which he was so employed, such proprietor shall pay to such person at such cesser—
(i) one day's pay (calculated as aforesaid) in respect of every complete period of two months in the said portion of such employment year during which he has worked not less than three hundred hours, and
(ii) one day's pay (calculated as aforesaid) in respect of the period (if any) in the said portion of such employment year which is less than two months but not less than one month and during which he has worked for not less than one hundred and fifty hours.
(4) The Minister may, whenever and so often as he so thinks proper, make regulations, varying in respect of all or any particular class or classes of members of staffs of shops all or any of the periods of eighteen hundred hours, three hundred hours, and one hundred and fifty hours mentioned in sub-sections (1) and (3) of this section by substituting for such periods or period such other periods or period as the Minister shall think proper, and whenever any such regulations are in force the said sub-sections shall have effect, in respect of the members of staffs of shops or the class or classes of the members of staffs of shops to which such regulations apply, as if the said periods or such of them as are affected by such regulations were varied in the manner stated in such regulations.
(9) This section shall apply to the employment year current at the commencement of this Act of every person who is a member of the staff of a shop at such commencement, and this section shall have effect in respect of such employment year and such person as if this section had been in force at the beginning of such employment year, but subject to the modifications, that—
I move amendment No. 107 (a):—
Before Section 33 to insert a new section as follows:—
The provisions of the two preceding sections shall not apply to any shop where the following businesses shall be carried on, that is to say:—
(a) the business of selling newspapers, periodicals, stationery, cheap books, novels and magazines;
(b) the business of selling tobacco or smokers' requisites;
(c) the business of confectioners.
I could not agree to this amendment. The object of the amendment is to exempt the businesses named from the provisions concerning compensatory holidays for Sundays and public holidays. That would be contrary to the intention of the Bill and the amendment, as worded, goes much further than that, because the Deputy seeks to exempt from the scope of this section any shop where these businesses might be carried on even if other businesses are carried on as well. I do not know if that was what he intended. In any event, I should not be prepared to accept the amendment.
Not even in its narrower sense?
No. I think that the same provisions in respect of holidays should apply to workers in these shops as well as to workers in other shops which open on Sundays.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 109 and 113 may, I think, be considered in connection with amendment No. 108.
I move amendment No. 108 on behalf of Deputy Lawlor:—
In sub-section (1), line 50, to delete the word "six" and substitute the word "fourteen."
Under Section 33, employees in special-trade shops are entitled to 14 days' annual leave, but employees in non-special-trade shops, such as hardware shops, are entitled only to 6 days' leave. The purpose of this amendment is to secure that there will be no distinction between special-trade shops and non-special-trade shops as regards annual leave—in other words, that the employee in hardware premises should get the same leave as an employee in licensed premises. I do not think that any case can be made against that proposal. In recent times, arrangements have been arrived at between employers and trade unions with the result that, in a great many trades in Dublin and other cities and towns, employees are granted 12 days' leave per annum, plus Sundays and bank holidays when they occur within that period. The purpose of this amendment is simply to give legislative sanction to what has already been agreed upon by trade unions with decent employers in Dublin and elsewhere. It is rather unfair to penalise decent employers who have agreed with trade unions to grant their employees 14 days' leave per annum by allowing other employers who are not quite as decent to get away with a leave allowance of six days per annum. This amendment will be pressed by the Labour Party.
I am not prepared to accept the proposal for 14 days' leave in these cases. The reason for the difference between special-trade shops and non-special-trade shops is that employees in special-trade shops are not given the right to six holidays on public holidays during the year.
The employees in the non-special-trade shops get six public holidays with pay, and, in addition, six consecutive days' holiday with pay. The employees in special-trade shops do not get the six public holidays, but, as compensation, their annual holiday period is fixed at 14 consecutive days. They are, therefore, similarly situated and there is no necessity to amend the section to secure for one section terms as good as those given to another. The intention is to ensure that, and it is believed that the arrangement here does in fact provide that the employees in both classes of shops have, in essence, the same provision made for them. We are, however, here providing for a minimum statutory provision in respect of annual holidays for shop workers. We set out that the minimum holidays, other than the annual holidays, shall be six consecutive days. That is the same provision as was made for industrial workers under the Act of 1936. It is, of course, not so framed as to preclude the possibility of an employer giving more holidays, or entering into an agreement with an organisation of workers to provide a longer period of holidays. We are setting out here what the legal minimum will be and I do not think it is desirable at this stage to fix the legal minimum beyond six consecutive days.
Deputy McGowan mentioned trade union agreements providing for longer holidays. There may be such, but there are not very many of them. I have no distinct recollection of ever having seen an agreement of that kind providing for longer than six days. Except in special cases, such as the special-trade shops which I mentioned here, the great majority of the trade union agreements provide for six days. In any event, I think we should be satisfied at this stage with raising the legal requirement to that level. It will ensure for a very large number of workers in the distributive trades an annual holiday this year for the first time, and I do not think we should try to push that too far. I know, of course, that if I had brought in a proposal to give workers 14 days' holidays, the Labour Party would have proposed 21 days or 28 days. They had to raise my ante in any event, but in this particular case, I am quite serious in my belief that it would be unwise to push this legislation too far or too rapidly. If we can succeed in having this idea of annual paid holidays generally applied and enforced on the basis of six consecutive days, we shall have done as much as we should attempt to do at this stage. There is, of course, no limit being fixed in respect of the future, no barrier being placed against giving longer holidays, or against trade unions seeking agreements for longer holidays, but we are not proposing to make the statutory provision more than that at this time.
I do not think the Minister is quite justified in saying that if the Bill provided 14 days, the Labour Party would have suggested 21 and so on. The fact of the matter is that in putting down this amendment we had in mind that the prevailing practice for shop and office employment is a fortnight's holiday each year. I think the Minister will recognise that that is a very common practice.
I do not know what the Deputy means when he speaks of the prevailing practice, but if he determines that in relation to the numbers of persons employed, I should say that the prevailing practice is to give no holidays at all. In certain of the larger shops, they do give more than a fortnight's holidays, but only in certain shops.
I suggest that the purpose of legislation of this kind is to bring bad employments up to the level of reasonably good employments, and while there are people engaged in shop work who get more than a fortnight's holidays in the year, it is a very common practice, and certainly the prevailing practice in the decent employments in the towns and cities, for assistants to get a fortnight's holiday with pay, and I think the Minister might very well accept that principle and ensure that every shop employee will get a fortnight's holiday. A fortnight is not a long period and it is a very common thing in shops and offices for workers to get a fortnight's holiday each year.
Would the Minister say whether six days' holiday per annum is enough for a shop assistant?
It is sufficient to make the legal minimum requirement. I am not going to express an opinion as to what holidays a shop assistant requires. What we are doing here, and I emphasise it again, is fixing the legal minimum, and not determining what the practice will be in any particular trade or part of the country, and I am satisfied that we should not at present attempt to fix the legal minimum higher than six consecutive days, plus, of course, the six annual holidays.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 109, 110 and 111 not moved.
I move amendment No. 112.
In sub-section (9), page 18, line 25, to insert before the words "this Act" the words "this Part of".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 113 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 33, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Section 2 says:
Where the proprietor of both a special-trade shop and a non-special-trade shop employs any person as a member of the staff of one of such shops during any part of an employment year of such person, and as a member of the staff of the other of such shops during any other part of such employment year, such person shall be deemed for the purpose of this section to be a member of the staff of such special-trade shop during such employment year...
That is all right in the larger businesses where he is transferred from one type of business to another; but take the case of, say, a confectioner in the suburbs or country town, who puts out a table with a few bottles of lemonade on it on a bank holiday. Will that bring a person into the special class? I think the Minister might very well look into some of the ramifications of this section in respect of some of the smaller general shops. Would a confectioner have to keep time-sheets for his assistants in order to say what people might be engaged on this type of special trade? I should like the Minister to look into that aspect of the matter.
Obviously there must be some provision to deal with the case of mixed employment. What we suggest here is that if a person is employed by one proprietor partly in connection with a special trade and partly in connection with a non-special trade, he will get the holidays provided for that special trade.
I think "partly" is too general a term.
His employment must be continuous for a year, in any event. If it is very casual, or intermittent, or of a very short duration, I think it is in the interests of the proprietor to ensure that the mixture of employment does not take place at all. I think that could be easily arranged. It is necessary to make some provision, and I think the best provision to make is to ensure that if a person can come in under one head or the other, he gets the best conditions of either. If you do not provide that, you must provide something else, and the only alternative is that he shall get the worst.
Section 33, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 34.
I move amendment No. 114:—
At the end of sub-section (1) to add the following proviso:—
Provided that the time so selected in any year shall not be earlier than the first day of June or later than the thirtieth day of September.
The purpose of this amendment, in the name of Deputy Norton, is to provide that the leave period will be during the summer. As the Bill stands the employer will select the period at which the annual leave will be given. It may be argued, if this amendment was inserted in the Bill, and even if there was an agreement between the employer and the employee for a period outside the summer period, that the summer period would still have to be adhered to. That objection might be overcome by a slight alteration. There is a great deal to be said for not leaving it entirely to the employer to choose the leave period. Annual holidays are normally taken in the summer, and if they are not taken then they lose a good deal of the advantage to be derived from them. I suggest that the Minister should either accept this amendment, or indicate that he will be prepared to insert some such amendment at another stage, something that would provide that the normal leave period would be in the summer, and that the employer would not be permitted to give leave at a time when it would not be beneficial.
I have a certain amount of sympathy with the amendment but, in practice, it would be difficult to provide for it. The proprietors of large shops, in which a number of workers are engaged, will, in fact, have to spread the holidays over a longer period than that contemplated in the amendment, just as in the public service at the present time civil servants are, in many cases, required to take their period of leave late in the winter or early in the year. I think that is unavoidable. In the great majority of cases the proprietors of shops will endeavour to meet the wishes of assistants. It is very rarely that cases will arise where assistants will be compelled to take their holidays at utterly unsuitable times, but, having regard to the circumstances of cases that may arise, it is necessary to ensure that holidays should be taken at the discretion of the employers. I do not think that it would be wise to provide for the exclusion of any period of the year whether with or without the consent of employers. We had discussions about this on the Act of 1936, and the question was raised on a number of occasions since by different organisations of workers and other persons and, in every case, when I looked into the matter I came to the conclusion that it was not possible to intervene. I know of many cases where agreements were made with employers for the drawing up and the carrying out of a scheme of holidays designed to meet the convenience both of employers and workers. In fact, I think that was the normal practice. In trades of a special kind or of a seasonal character it was found impracticable to give the employees holidays in the summer months, and they had to be satisfied to get them at other periods of the year. Quite possibly the same question will arise now, and that the one period of the year when the services of employees would be fully occupied would be the period that the rest of us ordinarily regard as the holiday period. In such cases, presumably, the giving of holidays would take place at other periods. I have sympathy with the idea behind the amendment, but I think it is impossible to give practical effect to it.
Would the Minister consider introducing the principle of extending the period from May to October instead of June to September?
That brings the Department into the picture to supervise the fulfilment of the operation.
Would that present any greater difficulty than the difficulty of supervision that will be there?
Of course, we give workers the right to recover in lieu of holidays.
Restricting the period within which they must get holidays will not make it more difficult for the Department.
One aspect of this question has not been dealt with. If this amendment were passed, would its provisions be mandatory? I think employers try to give their employees holidays at a period that suits them, spread over a certain period. Of course the months of June, July, August and September may be the busiest months of the year and accordingly that period is altogether too short. An English poet wrote: "Oh to be in England now that April is here," but apparently the Labour Party do not think that the ideal time for a holiday. In any event, I do not think the holidays could be squeezed into that period.
Would the Minister consider the acceptance of a longer period?
I would be very reluctant to do so. I think it has to be left to negotiation in each case. That might be the only period of the year when the services of employees would be fully occupied. I do not know if any great difficulty arose in that regard under the 1936 Act. In some cases there was adjustment. I think you must leave the period of holidays to the employers.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 34 agreed to.
SECTION 35.
I move amendment No. 115:—
Before sub-section (3) to insert the following sub-section:—
It shall be a proper defence, for the proprietor of a refreshment house, to a breach of the regulations in this section to show that an emergency had arisen, by reason of death, illness, breakdown of plant, unusually heavy bookings or reservations. or any other happening which could not be reasonably anticipated.
This amendment deals with a case where an emergency arises, and I understand the Minister is going to look into it.
I do not think the provision is necessary at all in this Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 35 agreed to.
Amendment No. 116 not moved.
Sections 36 and 37 agreed to.
SECTION 38.
Question proposed: "That Section 38 stand part of the Bill."
I should be glad if the Minister would consider adding the words "to affirm or to declare" to paragraph (b) of this section. I am aware that in the Interpretation Act which was passed before Christmas the definition of an oath is taken to include "to affirm or to declare". I noticed, however, in the evening papers of Wednesday last that some difficulty arose in the District Court and that the justice apparently was not prepared to accept the position as it stands. I should be glad if the Minister would include the usual words "to affirm or to declare" in the section.
I will look into the point.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 39.
I move amendment No. 117:—
Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
Where as a result of the operation of Section 22 of this Act—
(a) the proprietor of a shop claims that the wages paid to a member of his staff or to a class of members of his staff are unduly high, and
(b) no rules under this Part of this Act fixing minimum wages and applicable to such member or class of members are in force, such proprietor or a person who claims to be representative of proprietors of the class of shops to which the shop of such proprietor belongs may send to the Minister an application (in this Part of this Act referred to as a minimum wages application) to have a minimum rate of wages fixed for that class of shops situate in the area specified in such application.
The purpose of the amendment is to give the Minister power to vary wages up or down.
I can contemplate the possibility of fixing minimum rates of wages, but if the Deputy wants to have maximum rates fixed and enforced, in my opinion it would be completely impracticable in relation to shop assistants where the wages paid to individuals have to vary considerably in accordance with their individual skill and capabilities.
I do not think the Minister understands my point. He is taking power to fix certain minimum rates of wages for certain classes of individuals. Something might occur as a result of which you would have greatly changed conditions and, in consequence, employers might feel that the maximum or the minimum, as the case may be, was too high, and that the rate should be fixed at another level. What I want is to have that rate fixed as soon as it has been ratified by the parties concerned.
That is provided for in Section 42, where it is provided "any person may apply to the Minister to have any rules fixing minimum rates of wages which are enforced amended in specified respects or revoked".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 39 to 41, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 42.
(3) Where an application under this section in relation to any rules fixing minimum rates of wages is in force, the following provisions shall have effect...
I move amendment No. 118:—
In sub-section (3), page 22, line 49, to delete the words "is in force" and substitute the words "which are in force, is referred to the Board".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 42, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 43, 44 and 45 agreed to.
SECTION 46.
I move amendment No. 119:—
Before Section 46 to insert a new section as follows:—
Where, at the passing of this Act, there is in force between members of the staffs of shops and proprietors of shops or between the representatives of the staffs of shops and the representatives of the proprietors of shops an agreement as to wages, such agreement, when a copy thereof has been sent to the Minister, shall until amended or revoked by the board have effect as if it were a rule of the board fixing a minimum rate of wage fixed and in force in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act.
The effect of the amendment is that when there is an agreement in force between the staffs of shops and proprietors they can by sending it to the Minister have it registered, and that it will then have the same effect as if it were a decision of the board.
I would ask the Deputy to leave the amendment over. I think it will be necessary to have a provision of the kind in certain cases, but at the moment I am not quite clear as to how best to do it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 119a:—
In sub-section (1), page 23, line 40, to delete the words "clear of all deductions".
These words, "clear of all deductions," seem to me to be too sweeping, because there are certain cases where employees have acceded to deductions being made for certain benefits received, as well, of course, as other matters such as national health payments, which are exempted. I do not know whether the idea is not to allow certain deductions which are being made at present in certain cases.
It would be a dangerous principle to provide for the possibility of deductions being made from the minimum wage provided for by order of the board. Under sub-section (6) the word "deduction" is defined. From that definition it is clear that deductions for statutory purposes are permitted, but all other deductions are excluded. I agree that it might be desirable to permit of deductions being made by agreement for some such purpose as a benefit fund or a holiday fund or for some other fund to which the employees agree to contribute.
Or an advance in cash.
The Deputy is now bringing us to a point where one can conceive of the possibility of abuses arising, and of the principle of the minimum wage, contemplated in this part of the Bill, being defeated by deductions of one kind or another, or the imposition of fines or penalties, all of which would operate to reduce the minimum wage. I will look into the point, but it would be with very considerable reluctance that I would contemplate making any change. We must adhere to the principle of the wage being paid clear of all deductions, but we may exempt certain clearly specified forms of deductions.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 119b not moved.
Sections 46 to 49, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 50.
On behalf of Deputy Norton, I move amendment No. 120:—
In pages 25 and 26, to delete sub-sections (6), (7), (8) and (9) and substitute the following sub-section:—
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 13 of the Shops Act, 1912, as modified by Section 21 of that Act, it shall be the duty of the sanitary authority for every district, as part of their duties under the Public Health Acts, to enforce the provisions of this Part of this Act.
This is the section that makes provision with regard to sanitary or other arrangements in shops. Sub-section (1) requires that suitable and sufficient means of ventilation shall be provided and maintained. There is another provision which gives the local sanitary authority the right to make certain exemptions and sets out the conditions which must be complied with before they can do that. The object of the amendment is to secure that the local sanitary authority shall not have this power, as it is considered that in a good many instances the local board exercising the authority would be composed of shopkeepers, and, therefore, the giving of this power to local sanitary authorities is not to be commended. In Section 49 "the expression ‘suitable and sufficient' means in relation to any shop or part of a shop suitable and sufficient having regard to the circumstances and conditions affecting that shop or part". I submit that that definition sufficiently protects the proprietor of a shop. I think it will be agreed that in a good many parts of the country, probably not intentionally but perhaps through neglect, the requirements contemplated in this section have been allowed to get into a deplorable state, with the result that shop assistants in many places are living under intolerable conditions. If you leave this power of exemption with the local bodies they will be subject to local influences and so on, and as members of boards are human the result will be that the intention of the Bill will not be carried out.
Of course, the sanitary authorities may grant an exemption from the provisions regarding sanitary arrangements only where they are satisfied that alternative accommodation and suitable and sufficient washing facilities are otherwise conveniently available. That is on the face of it a reasonable provision. I think what the Deputy has in mind is that sanitary authorities are not fulfilling their duties properly. That, however, is a somewhat different matter. So far as this part of the Bill is concerned, we must set out reasonable requirements, set out what the law is, see that the law is reasonable, and then subsequently there arises the question of seeing that the law is enforced. It is reasonable, in my opinion, to ensure that these requirements as to the sanitary arrangements in the Bill may be met in certain cases where the sanitary authority is prepared to grant exemption when satisfied that alternative arrangements and suitable and adequate facilities exist, and I would not be prepared to change the law in that respect.
I am disposed to agree that it may be necessary to consider the general question of enforcement, and I am quite prepared to bring that matter to the notice of the Department of Local Government, which is the Department directly concerned, and ensure that they will impress upon local sanitary authorities the desirability of carrying out properly their duties in respect of these Acts. I do not think, however, that we should go further than to set out in the Acts themselves what we regard as a reasonable provision, and not allow ourselves to be provoked, by the failure of certain authorities to do their duty, to make the law appear on the face of it unreasonable.
Would you not take the enforcement out of the hands of the local authorities?
It is all a matter of enforcement. The law is all right if it is enforced.
A lot of the sanitary authorities do not enforce it, particularly outside the cities.
I would not say that. Some of them could do more than they are doing.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The following amendment was agreed to:
121. In sub-section (11), page 26, line 47, to delete the words "served on" and substitute the words "served by."—Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.
Question proposed: "That Section 50, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Under sub-section (9) of this section, if an order is made and they then proceed to cancel it, there is provision for appealing to the Minister against the sanitary authority's wish to cancel the order. I suggest to the Minister that in sub-sections (6) and (7) provision should be made for appeal against the refusal of a sanitary authority to make the original order. It seems to be a logical conclusion from the other provision. If you can appeal against the cancellation of an order, you should be able to appeal against refusal to make the original order.
I am not so sure that there is much in that point, but I shall look into it.
Question put and agreed to.
Might I suggest, in order to get the Bill out of Committee to-night, that the remaining amendments be postponed for the Report Stage?
It has been agreed to dispose of all the amendments to-night by withdrawing them if time does not permit of their consideration so that the Committee Stage can be concluded now.
Amendments Nos. 122 and 123 not moved.
Remaining sections agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
SECOND SCHEDULE.
Amendments Nos. 124 and 124a not moved.
The following amendment was agreed to:—
125. In Rule 2 (1), page 28, lines 17 and 18, to delete the words "between those hours for dinner" and substitute the words "for dinner and such interval shall commence between those hours."—Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.
Amendments Nos. 126 and 127 not moved.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment No. 128 not moved.
Third Schedule and Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
When will the next stage be taken?
I think you had better order it for 2nd February, but I am not sure that we will be ready to take it on that day.
The Minister will take some time to get the new draft out, and I think there ought to be a fortnight's interval between the circulation of the Bill, as amended, and the next stage.
I think it is no harm to order it for the 2nd February. It is, however, most unlikely that we will be able to take it on that date. We have, of course, the Shops (Hours of Trading) Bill, which will come before it in any event. I think it is advisable to complete the Committee Stage of that Bill before we take the Recommittal Stage of this Bill. It is not improbable that the Committee Stage of that Bill will take some time, because there are a number of points which are likely to be discussed at length on it. If we take the Committee Stage of that Bill on the 2nd February, it is most unlikely that we will get any further with this Bill during that week, whatever we may do in the following week.
The only point I want to make is that there should be a substantial period between the issue of the Bill, as amended, and the Recommittal Stage.
The draft of the Bill, as amended now will, I take it, be issued from the Dáil office in the course of a day or two.
I think Deputy Dockrell means that we should have some time to consider the Minister's further amendments to it.
They will hardly be ready for at least a couple of weeks.
There has been a number of amendments withdrawn which will be put down again.
Yes, all amendments not dealt with can be put down again.
Ordered provisionally for 2nd February.
Next stage ordered for 2nd February.