Before taking up the consideration of other business yesterday evening, the Minister indicated that he was prepared to consider this new suggestion. The same suggestions are embodied really in amendments Nos. 31, 42 and 43, and I do not think anybody is bothering very much about which one of these suggestions is adopted. I expect that the Minister will not adopt any of them, but will bring in an amendment of his own embodying the principle. I think that amendments Nos. 41 and 42 ought to have been moved together, and if the Minister is prepared to accept amendment No. 43, I am prepared to withdraw amendment 42.
Trade Union Bill, 1941—Committee (Resumed—Amendment 42).
Debate resumed on the following amendment:—
Before sub-section (3) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
One of the ordinary members of the tribunal shall be nominated in the prescribed manner and in accordance with the prescribed procedure by the authorised Trade Unions of Masters and the other ordinary member shall be nominated in the prescribed manner and in accordance with the prescribed procedure by the authorised Trade Unions of Workmen.—(Mr. McGilligan.)
I should like to have a little further discussion on this matter. There are rather different principles embodied in each of these amendments. In the Bill, as it stands, there is a proposal which would fix the personnel of the tribunal, once it has been appointed. In so far as the ordinary members of the tribunal are concerned, they would hold their appointments and continue to hold them under sub-section (3) of the section. Of the amendments which have been put down on the Order Paper, amendment No. 42 would seem, if I interpret it correctly, to accept that principle of a fixed personnel for the tribunal, preserving, however, to the masters' trade unions on the one part, and to the workers' trade unions on the other part, the right to nominate, each on its own behalf, one ordinary member to the tribunal. Amendments Nos. 41 and 43, on the other hand, proceed upon a different principle. They would propose that the ordinary members of the tribunal should be selected from two panels: one to be submitted by the authorised trade unions of masters, on the one part, and the other to be submitted by the authorised trade unions of workers, on the other part, leaving to the Minister the right to select from these panels one ordinary member to represent the masters' trade unions, and one ordinary member to represent the workers' trade unions, and to select ordinary members ad hoc in relation to each particular application which would come before the tribunal.
There is still a third way in which this tribunal could be constituted. You could, first of all, accept the principle that, in the case of an application coming before the tribunal on behalf, say, of a trade union of masters, the ordinary members of the trade union would be representative of the masters' trade union only and would be selected from a panel of persons nominated by such trade unions; and that, in the case of an application coming before the tribunal from a trade union of workers, the ordinary members would be selected from a panel of persons nominated or suggested by the workers' trade unions to sit as ordinary members in that case.
Apart altogether from the way which has been proposed in the section of the Bill as it stands, it will be seen that there are at least three ways in which this tribunal could be constituted. Unfortunately, I suppose we are debarred from discussing the way which was proposed in amendment No. 40 because, for some reason or other, that amendment and amendments Nos. 45 and 46, which would be consequential upon it, have not been moved, and I presume that discussion could not take place on the merits of that particular suggestion or way of constituting the tribunal, and that, accordingly, we would be confined in the discussion to considering the method proposed in the Bill or the method proposed in amendments Nos. 41 and 42.
I think there is something to be said, on the whole, for having a fixed personnel on the tribunal because, as I have said, it seems to me that, provided we can get the right persons, the tribunal, when constituted in that way, would be more remote and aloof from the ordinary internal politics which naturally exist within federated organisations or within a movement like the trade union movement, and that if we had a fixed personnel on the tribunal it would then become more and more a judicial body. At the same time, there is a great deal to be said for keeping close contact between the ordinary members of the tribunal and the respective interests which they represent. I should like to say in that connection that employers have an interest in this question just the same as workers have; that industry and employment have often been dislocated because of differences of opinion between two unions as to who should have the right to organise the employees in one particular industry, or even in one particular concern, and that if a matter were to be determined by the sort of arbitration that is here suggested there is a great deal to be said for having the opposite sides represented on the tribunal.
These are matters which I had hoped would be discussed on this section. As I have said, I am not wedded to the particular proposals contained in the Bill, and I would have liked to have heard the merits of the other amendments discussed and would have been prepared to consider them with an open mind. It has now been suggested, however, by Deputy Cosgrave that an amendment on the lines of amendment No. 43 would meet the point of view of those who have put down amendments to the Bill and are prepared to discuss them. In the light of that fact, I am prepared to accept one or other of these amendments in principle and, if the House agrees, to put down an amendment which may be on the lines of amendment No. 43, and to give the House an opportunity of discussing this matter further on the Report Stage of the Bill.
Is it intended that the members of the tribunal should be wholetime officials?
I did not visualise that they should be, that it would be necessary to have them wholetime. But I did envisage their being permanent members of the tribunal.
The Minister's proposal that he should bring in an amendment of his own on the Report Stage would be perfectly satisfactory to me so far as amendments Nos. 43 and 44 are concerned. At the same time, I think the Minister seems to see something in amendment No. 43 that I am not so sure is there. He seems to think that for every separate case the panel of employers or workers, whichever it happened to be, would want to make a fresh nomination and that the Minister would have to change the personnel, so that it would be continually changing. In framing amendment No. 43, the idea was that the employer's representative, and I presume the worker's representative, should at any rate have this qualification, that he should be intimately acquainted with all the intricacies of the matters likely to come before the tribunal. I do not see why that member or those members should not remain on the tribunal for a long time. That is why I am suggesting that the Minister seems to see something in amendment No. 43 that I am not sure was intended. In any case, as between amendments Nos. 41, 42, 43 and 44, the whole matter really depends on the details as to how it is worked out. If suitable nominations are made, the whole thing is easy.
Any objection I might have had in constituting the tribunal in the way suggested in amendment No. 43 has been removed by what Deputy Dockrell has said, and I will bring in an amendment which will make it clear that the Minister is to appoint members of the tribunal from the panels of persons submitted to him by the masters' trade union, on the one hand, and by the workers' trade unions, on the other, and that, once the Minister has made the appointments, those persons will continue to function as members of that tribunal until such time as, either by lapse of time or for some other reason, it is clear that a change should be made.
There is another aspect of this matter which those who wish to have an amendment along the lines set out in amendments Nos. 41 and 43 should consider. I think both these amendments adumbrate a federation of masters' trade unions on the one hand and a federation of the workers' trade unions on the other. We know such federations exist. There is the Irish Trade Union Congress, representing the general body of the workers' trade union movement, and there is the Federated Employers and the Federation of Irish Manufacturers, representing what might be described as the masters. But not all trade unions are affiliated to the Irish Trade Union Congress, and I do not think all the masters' organisations are affiliated to the Federated Employers or the Federation of Irish Manufacturers. A question might arise in these circumstances whether we should not have to give some consideration to the possibility that an application might come before the tribunal which would affect the interests of a workers' trade union which is not affiliated to the Irish Trade Union Congress or the interests of a masters' trade union which is not affiliated to the Federated Employers or the Federation of Irish Manufacturers. That is an aspect of the problem which can be discussed, perhaps when my amendment is submitted on Report Stage.
The amendment moved by Deputy Dockrell seems to indicate nominations for this panel by individual organisations. You may, of course, have a situation in which a large number of organisations will be affiliated to one central body. These organisations may well prefer the central body to speak for them on certain matters. Does the Minister contemplate, in his advertence to Deputy Dockrell's amendment, that a body such as that would be entitled to make nominations on its own behalf, or on behalf of those organisations which are affiliated to it? The Trade Union Congress is a case in point. It speaks for a quarter of a million trade unionists. The employers' organisation is in a position to speak for a large number of employers. Does the Minister contemplate that an organisation of that kind will be permitted to make nominations under the amendment, if he is considering the one proposed by Deputy Dockrell?
The amendment I have in mind would empower the Minister to receive nominations from organisations representing authorised trade unions, whether trade unions of masters or of workers. I do not think I would be entitled to exclude the right of authorised trade unions which might not be affiliated with these federations, to make suggestions for the panel. That is apparently a matter which we can consider more fully when we come to debate the amendment. My present intention is to put down an amendment which will permit bodies like the Trade Union Congress to nominate persons for the panel, and bodies like the Federated Employers and the Federation of Irish Manufacturers to do likewise.
Will the Minister confine the nomination to such bodies?
I have said that in my view it would not be right, but naturally, since there will be only a limited choice to be made, the Minister will be bound to give the weightiest consideration to nominations coming from what he judges to be the most representative bodies.
It may happen that the Minister's amendment will meet the wishes of the House. On the other hand, the Report Stage is the last stage on which alterations may be made and the House may desire to make alterations and may find it difficult to do so on that stage. In the circumstances, it might be as well to have this matter dealt with now. I agree it is desirable if you can deal with a representative body, but I should like to take the Trade Union Congress as an example. It is conceivable that an important trade union, even a very big one representing a large number of workmen, might cease to be affiliated to the Trade Union Congress for any reason you like. Some matter affecting that trade union particularly might come up and it is desirable that a man thoroughly conversant with their particular point of view should be on the panel. While I am anxious to see that the Trade Union Congress as far as possible would have the nomination, on the other hand we should be sure that we have necessary safeguards in respect to other organisations that might not be affiliated with the Trade Union Congress. I can conceive many reasons why a trade union would cease to be affiliated with the Trade Union Congress. It has happened before.
It was precisely the point the Deputy has raised that I had in mind when I put down the proposal in the Bill. Perhaps it might be better to allow the Minister to make the choice and depend on him giving full weight to all the circumstances. I am not going to press my point of view against the wishes of the House in this matter.
I am very glad that the Minister is listening sympathetically to another point of view. If the Minister had any knowledge of the working of the Agricultural Wages Board he would realise that certain bodies were packed by political nominees of the Government Party and he would see then, as a man who wants to act—and I believe him when he says he wants to act—impartially, the necessity for altering his point of view from what he originally intended by the section. I know of cases where nominations were invited from organised bodies for seats on the area wages board. I am not sure that I could say it applies to the national body, but I know that nominations submitted by the properly organised bodies were ignored and persons with a definite political view favourable to the Government were put there as against the nominations submitted by the representatives of the organised workers.
Amendment No. 42, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 43, 44 and 45 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 19 stand part of the Bill."
Will the Minister say what expenditure is contemplated in respect to the personnel of this tribunal?
Frankly, I could not give a precise figure. A good deal will depend on the amount of work the tribunal will have to do. I expect that in the earlier stages, until the procedure has been shaped, and until its value has been recognised by the trade unions generally, the honorarium or the fee to be paid to each member of the tribunal will be very moderate. I would say, speaking offhand, that the tribunal ought not to cost more than £500 to £700 a year if it is necessary even to pay so much.
If the Minister adverts to Section 21, I think he will have to admit that it is likely to provide the Tribunal with full-time employment.
Would the Minister say, in the case of the chairman in particular, whether the fee or part-time payment in his case will be based on what a man of his standing at the Bar would be expected to get under the rules of the Incorporated Law Society, or whatever organisation represents the legal profession, or is it intended to give him his appropriate fees per sitting, or a lump sum which, in the opinion of the Minister, would cover the part-time work to be done by him over a period?
I am not able to answer that question authoritatively. As the Deputy will see, sub-section (4) provides that: "Every member of the Tribunal shall be paid such fees or other remuneration as the Minister for Finance determines." If the Deputy wants to know the view that I would put, it would be this: that it would be better to pay each member a fixed sum, a retainer, rather than proceed to pay him per diem for the days on which the Tribunal sat. I know it might be said, if there was a prolonged hearing, that the proceedings were being stretched out in order that fees might be earned. I am not suggesting that there would be anything in that, but it is a suggestion which is sometimes made, and I think, in matters of this sort, it is desirable to take precautions to ensure that such suggestions will not be made. Therefore, my view would be that it would be better to pay each of these members a lump sum as a retainer so that they might do the work of the Tribunal as and when called upon to do it.
But suppose they do not get any work to do after being appointed?
Then it is easy for us to terminate their appointment, and proceed to make a new appointment on the basis that there is nothing for them to do.
And ask them for a refund of what you have already paid them?
I am afraid we could not do that.
Will the Minister say what is the meaning of the term "practising barrister"?
A person who has actually been called to the Bar and is practising in the courts.
Does that necessarily mean that the person must have appeared in cases in court and received briefs?
I should say so.
But who is going to decide that?
I am afraid the Minister will have to.
I had some recent experiences in which, I think, that test did not apply.
I do not know what the Deputy is referring to.
I could easily refer to one or two instances.
Give one.
I do not think it is necessary. I do not know of any person appointed to a position in which this qualification was required who had not actually practised.
This tribunal will have very wide powers, the power of practically wiping out trade unions as such. It is a section which requires very careful consideration from Deputies. Am I correct in inferring from what the Minister has said that the members of the tribunal will be employed part-time but paid on a whole-time basis?
No. They will be paid on a part-time basis.
I understood the Minister to say that they will have a fixed salary. I take that to mean a salary for whole-time work, whether the work is there or not.
I do not think the Deputy would be entitled to think that at all.
The section, as I have said, is a very important one, and I suggest to the Minister that the position should be cleared up. First of all, the chairman is to be a practising barrister. I take it that he will deal with the work of the Tribunal in his spare time, and will be free to take up other work when it is not sitting. With regard to the other two members, I gathered from what the Minister said on the last amendment, that he has in mind selecting one from the employers' side and one from the workers' side, and that they are to be—I want to say this without meaning any disrespect to either of them—elderly members of those different bodies, people who are aloof from the actual work of the bodies they are drawn from.
Why?
I do not know. The Minister stated that. The Minister is not able to give the House any definite information with regard to the remuneration those people are to receive for their work. Will the two ordinary members be paid for each sitting of the Tribunal they attend? The chairman, I take it, is in a different category. The ordinary members of the Tribunal are to be, I suppose, a kind of retired members of their different bodies. They will, probably, have made some provision for their old age, and are now going to be called upon in their old age to act on this Tribunal. That is my interpretation of the Minister's statement. Are those two members to be paid for each sitting they attend, or are they, as the Minister said, to have a fixed salary, no matter what work they have to do? I can imagine that they may have very little work to do. Would the Minister say what he has in mind with regard to their remuneration? Sub-section (4) provides that they shall be paid such remuneration as the Minister for Finance determines. Will that determination take place on the advice of the Minister for Industry and Commerce or will the Minister for Finance determine their remuneration, salary or fees, or whatever payment they are to get on his own initiative?
Would the Minister consider inserting in connection with the term "practising barrister," the words "a man versed in sharp practice," as he will be the only kind of man who can correctly interpret this Bill?
If the Minister has not in mind appointing to the tribunal a trade union official he may find some difficulty in getting the type of man he requires whose occupation will enable him to spend one, two or three days, or even a whole week, attending sittings of the tribunal. The type of man that he would probably require might be engaged as an employee on some particular job, and it might not be possible for him to get away for a prolonged period. The Minister should bear that in mind when considering the basis on which payment will be made to the two ordinary members of the tribunal.
It strikes me that a member of the tribunal will not be able to do any other work.
Ultimately, I presume, that position may develop.
The Minister should take that into consideration in fixing the remuneration.
I suggest that we would be able to increase the remuneration as the work grew if we found it necessary to do so.
I suggest to the Minister that he should do it the other way. He should start off by getting a good man, and then keeping him. I do not see what prospect he has of doing any other work, once he goes on this tribunal.
Deputy Cosgrave may be correct in the assumption that, under the Bill when it comes into operation in some form other than that in which it now appears, he may be a very busy man. If that is so, and if the Bill in its official form is recognised——
I said that he was precluded from doing other work. It is a different point.
I agree. If all the people concerned with the working of this measure recognise it and bow to the Minister's wishes in the matter, the chairman would be a very busy man, and a man who could make plenty of trouble in respect of the decisions of the body of which he was chairman. Somebody asked the Minister whether a practising barrister would be a person with a good practice at the Bar. It has been suggested—I could not swear that it is correct—that the chairman of one of the commissions appointed by the Government never went any further than the library in the Four Courts, and that he never actually practised at the Bar. I hope that will not be so in the case of the man whom the Minister has in mind for this position. If the Minister wants a man who will obviate a good deal of trouble, he should be a man of considerable experience of work in the trade nnion movement, and should have some inside knowledge of and sympathy with its objects. If he is a person with a history of hostility to the trade onion movement, the Minister may be certain that he will create plenty of trouble from the very beginning. From that point of view, as well as the point of view mentioned by Deputy Cosgrave. he would become a full-time man, and be entitled to whatever would be the appropriate yearly salary for the work.
I am not the only member of the House who has heard the names of people mentioned for this position. I have heard the name of one man who does not practise at the Bar, but who gets a good deal of work from the Government in other branches of Governmental administration. I hope the Minister has in mind for the position a man who is, in reality, a practising barrister who has had some association with the trade union movement and the work carried on by it over a long period. Under present circumstances, I foresee a time when most of those concerned with the coming into operation of the measure would not bother their heads about it, and I want to see the taxpayers safeguarded against the payment in such a case of a high yearly salary to a man who might have a very easy time, and might not have an opportunity of earning it.
I do not quite agree with Deputy Davin on that. My information may be completely wrong, but I think there are certain unions which are going to take advantage of the Bill when it becomes law. That is one of the fears I have in relation to the passing of the Bill. I do not know whether I should use the plural form and say "certain unions," but certainly Sections 21, 22 and 23 will, very probably, unless I am very wrongly informed, be used, and if they are used to the full, not only will they provide full-time work, but overtime, for any tribunal set up.
I oppose the section, and, while I have always heard Deputy Davin described as a very honest man, he is a much more innocent man than I take him to be if he believes the chairman of this tribunal will have either sympathy with or understanding of the trade union movement. I consider that there is no necessity for the section, and, even if the Bill is to become an Act, I do not see any more necessity for the appointment of a chairman on a full-time basis than I do for the position of chairman of a court of referees in relation to unemployment assistance and unemployment insurance being made whole-time.
That is, of course, a skilful method of providing jobs which has always been lurking behind legislation passed for the last seven or eight years. Every bit of amalgamation and centralisation carried through the House for the past five, six or eight years has had this bait skilfully concealed under innocent phrases and legal jargon for the purpose of providing jobs, and the hungry army of jobless people who have been hanging on to this Government for the purpose of getting jobs of this kind are looking forward to seeing whose turn it is to be this time. This Bill proposes to interfere with the trade union movement, to restrict its freedom and to deny its rights, and if Deputy Davin believes that there is going to be any system of impartiality, fair play or reason, in the constitution of the tribunal—and more especially in view of the possibility of the appointment of the type of briefless barrister who has always been found accommodating to whatever Government is in power, with a lively expectation of favours to come, which can happen in this case—it seems to me to make Deputy Davin an extremely innocent man indeed.
He cited the example of the Agricultural Wages Board, where the area committees were constituted after a number of formal inquiries had been made, but were constituted in a certain very definite and positive way. Men with no connection with either agricultural labour or any labour organisation sit on the area committees for the purpose of covering up certain things in connection with the operations of the board and for the purpose of giving a pretence of representation to working-class people. I see no reason, and I anticipate no prolonged work, for this tribunal. I see no reason why the Minister should, if the tribunal is ever set up, have any doubts that the authority to be consulted is the central trade union organisation. The Minister's views on that point, of course, are indefinite yet, because it is quite possible that under this scheme there could be repeated the position we had in respect of one election to the eanad and of the Agricultural Wages Board, where a non-existent body called the Ballingarry Cottage Tenants' Association put forward their nominees and actually got them elected. I heard many years ago of an organisation of three tailors in Tooley Street in London who described themselves as the people of England. The claim of the so-called Ballingarry Cottage Tenants' Association to represent anything was as impudent as that claim. I view this section with suspicion, and I want to register my protest against this method of filling positions and interfering with the trade union movement for the purpose of accommodating Party hangers-on and of providing jobs which are unnecessary.
Mr. Byrne
A good deal has been said as to the qualifications of the chairman of the tribunal. Section 19 speaks of "two ordinary members." Who are the two ordinary members to be, or what qualifications will they need in order to be nominated? From what class will they be drawn? Will it be from the unskilled class, from the tradesmen class or from the professional classes? Will unskilled men be put on the tribunal to deal with applications coming from skilled craftsmen in certain unions? Those are points which will have to be considered, and I think ought to be spoken of in this House, so that when something comes before the tribunal the parties concerned will not say that the tribunal, the jury, knew nothing about their business and had no right to be there. I should like the Minister to give us some idea about the qualifications of the other two members of the tribunal.
There are a couple of points with which I should like to deal. I dealt fairly exhaustively, I think, with the points which have been made by Deputy Alfred Byrne, when we opened the debate on this section this evening, but I should like to state with particular reference to what was said by Deputy Davin that I certainly have no particular person in mind for chairmanship of this tribunal. I agree with what he has said that the person to be appointed chairman should be one who could command general confidence, a person of experience and high standing, and that is the sort of person I am going to look for. In that connection, naturally, I cannot bind myself. A suggestion has been made here that I should give a firm figure of the cost of the tribunal. We will have to pay that man whatever we think he is worth, and I cannot at this stage go further than to say this: that I anticipate, in view of things which have been said, that perhaps it may take some time for the value of this tribunal to be recognised in the trade union movement generally, so that the work of the tribunal in the early stages may be comparatively light, and naturally that fact would be taken into consideration in fixing the retainer which would have to be paid to the chairman in those circumstances.
The next thing I should like to say is that, so far as the ordinary members of the tribunal are concerned, again I fully recognise the fact that they must be people who would command general confidence, and who would be acceptable to all classes of unions which might at one time or another make an application to this tribunal, or who might be affected by a determination of the tribunal. These are considerations and factors which I will keep in mind. As I have already said to the House, I do think it would be better if there were not people who were actively engaged in organisations of the type which they would represent on the tribunal. I think there is a great deal to be said for having on the tribunal elderly men, men of ripe wisdom and great experience, who do know the difficulties with which this problem is bristling, and who have themselves had experience of the evils to which it has given rise. I should also like to say, with reference to what was said by Deputy Morrissey, that I am not aware as to what line will be taken by any trade union in regard to this tribunal or in regard to this Bill, but I am hopeful that, when the Bill is enacted and when it is considered free from the heat and prejudice which has been created against it, its value will be recognised, and that it will be seen that the Bill represents an earnest attempt on the part of the Government to bring order out of chaos, and to rid the working class trade union movement in this country of the abuses which have been a source of weakness to it.
That is a libel.
This section deals with the establishment of a trade union tribunal, and the Minister has told us that the chairman of it is to be a practising barrister of at least ten years' standing, or a practising solicitor of like standing. I do not know why barristers and solicitors are being selected as the class from which the chairman of this tribunal must be drawn. It does not seem to me that the functions of the chairman of such a tribunal are of a kind which necessitates any legal qualifications at all. There is no question of law involved in any application which may be likely to come before the tribunal. Anybody with ten years' common sense might properly serve as chairman of this tribunal as well as a practising barrister or a practising solicitor. Unless I do not know the trade union movement—and I believe I do—I do not see any work at all for this tribunal. The trade union movement itself does not know if it is going to avail of or implement Section 19 of this Bill. It is suggested in this Bill that a trade union can go to the tribunal, and there endeavour, with the assistance of a practising barrister or a practising solicitor, and with the concurrence, probably, of an employers' representative, make an application to have transferred to it the right to organise workers in another industry. That seems to me to be a contemptible thing for one trade union to do against another.
The tribunal has power, the barrister or the solicitor has power with the aid of the employers' representative, to say to the trade union: "You cannot organise any future members of a particular class," whereupon the union against which a decision of that kind has been made does not go out of existence; it proceeds to carry on with its existing members, but it is made an offence for the union to organise any new workers in respect of that industry. You will have a position, therefore, where a union may in fact have 2,000 members, let us say, organised in a particular organisation, but the right to continue organising such workers is to be transferred to another organisation. If anybody imagines that the kind of craziness which is left after a decision of that kind has been given is going to make for greater amalgamation in the trade union movement, that person is suffering from illusions which will justify detention in a mental institute. But I hope the trade unions will not take any notice of Section 19 just as I hope they will not take any notice of this Bill at all. I hope at any rate that there will be sufficient comradeship left amongst Irish trade unions to ensure that they will not go to this tribunal in a competition for members to be got in the kind of way envisaged in this particular section. I am one of those people who have always deplored the poaching by one union of the members of another union. I believe in the right of a worker to have free choice as to what organisation he will be a member of, but what we are doing in this section here is appealing to the lowest type of cupidity and avarice when we ask people to go to this tribunal and endeavour, through the medium of that tribunal, to get transferred to one organisation or to more than one organisation the right to organise particular workers.
Would it not be more relevant on the next section ?
The point I am making is that the members of trade unions normally have to fight together for their common interests, and that has been the traditional outlook of trade unions, but now they are being encouraged to get at one another's throats and make an application to this tribunal, the chairman of which will be a practising solicitor or a practising barrister who, probably, was never a member of a trade union in his life. In addition, if the amendment that has been suggested by the Minister is adopted, then one other person on that tribunal may be a representative of the employers. Does the Minister expect to get any class of workers or their representatives to act on a tribunal constituted in such a way as that? If he does, I think he will be disappointed, and I hope that the trade unions and their representatives will have the decency and the manliness to stand up against an application of that kind, because it only means legalised poaching, which is a thing that trade unions have always been against. I hope that a halfpenny will not be spent on Section 19, because I do not believe any union will go there and make an application under that section.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 57; Níl, 29.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Deais.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Carty, Frank.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Crowley, Fred Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Dorkrell, Henry M.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Keane, John J.
- Kelly, James P.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Loughman, Francis.
- Lynch, James B.
- McCann, John.
- McDevitt, Henry A.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Mullen, Thomas.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh. Laurence J.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Broderick, William J.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
- Coburn, James.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Corish, Richard.
- Curran, Richard.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Davin, William.
- Everett, James.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hickey, James.
- Hughes, James.
- Hurley, Jeremiah.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Timothy J.
- Nally, Martin.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donovan Timothy J.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reidy, James.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and Allen; Níl: Deputies Keyes and Hickey.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 20.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, where application is made to the tribunal by a trade union which claims to have organised a majority of masters of a particular class for a determination that such trade union alone shall have the right to organise masters of that class, the tribunal, after hearing such application and having considered all the circumstances of the case, shall either—
(a) grant such determination, or
(b) refuse to grant such determination, or
(c) if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds in the public interest for so doing, determine that two or more specified trade unions alone shall have the right to organise masters of that class.
As to amendments Nos. 47 and 53, Deputy Dockrell might consider whether they are not met by a subsequent amendment— amendment No. 68 to the best of my recollection.
I intend to move amendment No. 47 as follows:—
In sub-section (1), page 9, line 17, to delete the word "a" and substitute the words "an authorised."
Is the Minister accepting it?
I had proposed to accept amendments Nos. 47 and 53.
Can we have the amendment explained before the Minister replies to what has not been said?
The amendment was moved, by Deputy Dockrell.
He asked the Minister whether he was going to accept it or not.
Deputy Dockrell moved his amendment.
He did not say anything in support of it.
I asked the Minister was he accepting it.
He has not explained it.
That is for the Deputy moving it, if he so desires. It is not a matter for the Chair.
I know it is not easy for the Chair, but surely I am entitled to ask the Deputy to explain his amendment.
Certainly. I understood the Deputy was asking the Minister to explain.
It might save a lot of time and, perhaps, save the intervention of two Deputies in the debate where one would suffice, if I indicated the reasons why I am prepared to accept the amendment. As Section 20 is drafted, it might be held that it left it open to a trade union, other than an authorised trade union, to go before this tribunal. As has been pointed out in the course of the debate, this Bill makes a distinction between trade unions which are registered for a number of purposes under the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1935, and bodies which combine for the purpose of fixing wages and conditions of employment. Under this Bill henceforward those bodies will have to be authorised trade unions. It has been suggested to me that Section 20, as worded, would allow a trade union other than an authorised trade union to make a claim to lodge an application with the tribunal. I want to make it quite clear that only authorised trade unions will have the right to go to that tribunal and, accordingly, I am accepting Deputy Dockrell's amendment which makes that clear beyond yea or nay.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 48:—
In sub-section (1), page 9, to insert in line 18 before the words "a majority" the words "for the purpose of the carrying on of negotiations for the fixing of wages and other conditions of employment", to insert in line 20 before the word "organise" the word "so", and to insert in line 28 before the word "organise" the word "so".
Similarly, as the section was originally drafted, it might be argued that, when a trade union obtains a determination to organise masters or workers of a particular class, trade unions which deal with matters other than wages and conditions of employment would, under the section as introduced, be estopped from organising that particular class of masters or workers. This amendment protects the position of such trade unions and makes it quite clear that they may pursue their other activities as benevolent organisations or societies of that sort. I should mention that the amendment should be read in conjunction with amendments Nos. 54 and 79 which are similar in principle.
Will the Minister say if he has any preference for the split infinitive in line 20?
I have no particular preference, but apparently the draftsman has. It would help us if we realise that these Bills are not drafted by laymen but by lawyers.
Is there any danger that the section as amended by the putting in of the words proposed tends to limit the functions of the trade unions?
I do not think so. It only makes it quite clear that the determination of the tribunal will affect only trade unions among whose activities are the carrying on of negotiations for the fixing of wages and other conditions of employment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 not moved.
I move amendment No. 51:—To delete sub-section (3). This amendment should be read in conjunction with amendments Nos 67 and 68. Perhaps I ought to refer to these amendments. The new sections which it is proposed to insert by amendments Nos. 67 and 68 are designed to deal with a question which Deputy McGilligan raised in relation to Section 20, and which has been re-cast accordingly. Amendment No. 68 provides that where a determination is granted and where a previous determination exists, the first-mentioned determination is automatically revoked. It also provides that, where one trade union alone has the right to organise workers or masters and its negotiation licence lapses, the lapsing of the licence automatically revokes the determination, so that we should not have a position in which, notwithstanding the fact that the union concerned could not, by reason of the fact that its negotiation licence had lapsed, negotiate for the fixing of wages, we had a determination saying that that union, in conjunction with, perhaps, some others, would alone be entitled to enter into such negotiations. Similarly, where a determination is granted to two or more trade unions, and subsequently both or all the negotiation licences become revoked, the determinations are revoked automatically by the collapse of each licence in turn. That is the purpose of amendment No. 68.
Amendment No. 67 provides that, where two or more unions have been granted a determination, no application shall be considered from such unions until at least 12 months after the granting of the first determination. The object of this amendment is to prevent undue haste on the part of one of the holding unions to press for a revision. Where a determination is granted to one trade union alone, or two or more trade unions to have the right to organise masters or workman, it is further provided that no application should be made to the tribunal by any trade union in relation to masters or workers of that class until five years after the granting of the first determination, or until the determination has become revoked. These two amendments are really the amendments which have necessitated the introduction of amendment No. 51, which seeks to delete sub-section (3) as being no longer necessary, on the assumption that amendments Nos. 67 and 68 will be accepted by the House.
Amendment No. 51 agreed to.
The following amendment was agreed to:—
52. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(4) For the purposes of this section masters may be classified by reference to a class to which they belong, by reference to an area in which they carry on trade, or by reference to such a class and such an area, and the word ‘class' shall be construed in this section accordingly." (Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.)
Question proposed: "That Section 20, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
This is not a section that will commend itself to the sympathy of anybody who has due regard for the conditions under which we live. It deals with the type of people who are called "masters" and it brings down to 1941 that objectionable feature of ancient legislation while at the same time the good features which were secured through the old Acts of 1871 and 1906 are conveniently deleted in certain sections dealing with the workers. We find carried on, without any attempt at alteration, the very objectionable feature of masters as against workmen. For many years it has been the established practice to recognise the two sections as employers and employees. The word "master" is held to be irreverent in certain senses by thinking people, but we find our Government preserving this old link with a very objectionable period.
We have the master class perpetuated in this Bill. That may truly reflect the mind of the Minister, but it does not reflect the minds of thinking people, of some of the people behind him. I wonder if many Fianna Fáil Deputies desire to perpetuate that objectionable word. I have a rooted objection to the continuance of it. I do not think the employing classes of the present day would object to be designated as employers. I certainly do not think there are many in the community who favour the perpetuation of the master class. The phrasing of this section does not appeal to anybody on this side of the House as having much merit in it and it actually constitutes itself a blot sufficient to call for the deletion of the section.
There is nothing in the section to indicate that workers will not be called from the panel to deal with differences between these alleged masters or employers. I suggest that whether they are called masters and employers and any friction comes between them, they should be allowed to solve their own difficulties. Whether they are to be called masters or employers it should be their job to settle their differences in their own way. I object to this section, and I think it is regrettable that in legislation introduced in 1941 this objectionable feature should be brought down as the only relic from the past, the Minister taking care to delete the good points which were won in the workers' favour as a result of their struggle over the years. We have the master class brought down, but the benefits of previous legislation from the worker's point of view are taken from him.
One of the objections I have to this Bill is that it is so evident that it is purely class legislation. I remember a discussion I had with an employer in regard to one of his employees, and I have treasured one of the expressions I got from him. He called his employee a "hand." He went on to explain to me what "hands" were in his concern, and he suggested that it would be well if I informed his "hands" what security they had in his employment. We are asked to pass a section, here which deals with the masters as a class. I think I can well claim that this legislation is purely of a class nature.
I consider that the matters left for the consideration of the tribunal are too general. In paragraph (c) of this section, which covers the functions of the tribunal in relation to trade unions of masters, the tribunal shall, if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds in the public interest for so doing, determine that two or more specified trade unions alone shall have the right to organise masters of that class.
I have to refer, in passing, to the Constitution. When we are passing legislation of this kind we find ourselves more or less in a strait-jacket, if I may use that expression, because we are continually coming up against the rigid terms of the Constitution. I submit that if this particular part of the section does not offend the letter of the Constitution—that is a matter to be decided elsewhere—it does offend the spirit of the Constitution. Under Article 40 the State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality:—
iii. The right of the citizens to form associations and unions. Laws, however, may be enacted for the regulation and control in the public interest of the exercise of the foregoing right.
I am not going to venture any view as to whether there is interference with the letter of the Constitution, but the spirit of the Constitution is interfered with in this way. Laws are to be enacted for the regulation and control in the public interest of the exercise of the right of the citizens to form associations and unions. We are not doing that here. We are passing that on to another body. I think it is being deliberately passed on in this section; the actual words that appear in the Constitution are passed on as part of the functions of the tribunal.
In passing legislation here we should satisfy ourselves that certain matters are in the public interest, but we have left that decision to this tribunal, and in that respect the tribunal will be making laws and usurping our functions. Whether the point has any validity in law. I will venture no opinion, but I certainly think that this is definitely against the spirit of the Constitution. It may be got over by elaborating the functions of the tribunal. I anticipate that there will be a considerable number of queries arising, possibly in the form of litigation, and possibly the jurisdiction of the tribunal will be impugned at some future date. If a guide is laid down by the legislative body for the tribunal as to the basis on which it is to proceed then possibly the gaps in the spirit of the Constitution can be filled in. As far as we are concerned this seems to be a lazy way to do it: that we should pass on to the tribunal the right to determine whether or not, under certain circumstances, it is reasonable that citizens may form associations and unions. The second point which I want to refer to is also connected with the generality of the phraseology of sub-section (2). That sub-section reads:
When considering an application under this section, the tribunal shall hear every person who wishes to be heard and appears to have an interest in such application and shall receive any evidence tendered by such person.
I think it would be better if this section were more explicit and defined the classes of persons who should be heard and who have an interest, because it can very rightly be argued that, under the general clause as it stands, almost any person would be entitled to go there and say that he had an interest and the right to be heard. I think if some guide were laid down for the tribunal in a matter of this kind, as to what class or sort of persons should be heard, it would certainly be of great assistance to the tribunal, and would, I think, be of benefit generally.
The remarks I have made in connection with Section 20 are also intended to apply, without distinction, to Section 21. It seems to me that the proposal here is to give very extensive functions to the tribunal. We are giving to it a very extended jurisdiction indeed. One may almost say that the life and death of trade unions at the present time will depend on the decisions of this tribunal. Even where courts of limited jurisdiction are set up under the laws of this land, their jurisdiction is very specifically defined in certain matters. My whole criticism of the section, apart from the particular instances I have given, is that we are giving too much general authority to the tribunal to decide the various matters that come before it. I think that the tribunal should be tied up in certain ways, and should receive a direction from the law-making body as to what exactly its functions are, and within what ambit it is to operate in making decisions.
In connection with Section 20, would the Minister say whether he has in mind that the tribunal should be given any principles upon which to act? As the section stands, it would appear as though the Minister should be empowered to give them some basis on which to act. The tribunal has to decide whether a certain trade union should have the right to organise masters in a particular class. On what basis is it to decide that? Is it to decide it on its own information, or according to certain fixed rules that the Minister may make?
I would ask the Minister to drop the word "masters" from this section. It belongs to the slave age.
I have listened to what Deputy Esmonde has said. I think he himself would not be prepared to press the view that the section, as it stands, is in any way in conflict with the Constitution as it is written. The Deputy spoke of the spirit of the Constitution. I do not think this section is in conflict with the spirit of the Constitution at all. I do not think there is any question of our right—in certain circumstances it would be our duty— of entrusting to a competent tribunal to determine what would be in the public interest.
With regard to the other point which he has made, that the right of audience before this tribunal as set out in sub-section (2) is too comprehensive, there, again, I think we are up against a practical difficulty. Supposing a person comes along and says: "I know of matters which render it imperative that I should be heard before the tribunal should take this decision or that decision in regard to an application before it so that it may see what is in the public interest to do." I do not see how we could limit the right of any person, who claimed that he had an interest in an application before the tribunal, to be heard before it. I assume that the tribunal would not look with favour upon vexatious applications, and would probably find a way of dealing with such applications if they came before it. It need not necessarily spend much time considering them.
With regard to the question raised by Deputy Childers, I think we have put down there succinctly the guiding principle upon which the tribunal must act if it proposes to make a determination that two or more specified trade unions alone shall have the right to organise masters of any particular class on the grounds that it is in the public interest to do so. I cannot see that, in considering an application on the part of one trade union to have alone the right to organise masters of that class, the tribunal would leave out of consideration the public interest altogether. I take it that, in making this determination whether in respect of one trade union or more, the public interest would have to be the predominant factor: If it be felt necessary, I will look into that aspect of the matter with a view to making certain that the public interest will be considered by the tribunal in all applications which come before it.
I cannot attach very much importance to the view which has been expressed by Deputy Corry. If the need for having, in relation to certain trade unions, a tribunal of this sort were not agreed to by practically every section of the working class trade union movement, it would not be necessary to have a provision of this sort in the Bill. However, that is a matter which will arise more correctly on the following section.
Is the Minister alleging that there is agreement among the trade unions with regard to this Bill?
Would the Minister say why the word "masters" was chosen?
Because it is the term which is used all through the Trade Union Acts from 1871 to 1935.
Deputy Corry was right in saying that this language relates to the slave age. I am surprised the Minister has not taken a more serious_ and sympathetic view of the suggestion made by Deputy Corry, because the Deputy seems to be only one of the very few Fianna Fáil Deputies who have taken any real interest in the dicussions on this Bill. I think the Deputy's suggestion deserves more consideration than has been given to it by the Minister.
Does the Deputy think there is any chance of catching him?
Deputy Corry and Deputy Walsh voted, I think, for previous sections of the Bill which bring us back to the slave age and to the conditions that existed in 1825. I do not know whether Deputy Walsh has been down in the Library very much of late, but I suggest to him that when he goes there again he should make a careful study of the conditions that existed in the year 1825 which were supposed to be related to the mentality of the democrats of to-day and the mentality behind this Bill. The Minister has repeatedly said that this Bill and every section of it is good. We say that it is a bad Bill, and I should like the Minister to move the adjournment of the debate and let us meet him on the matter about 7 o'clock, so that he may accept the invitation given to him by his constituents to justify this section and the other sections of the Bill which have already been steamrolled through the House.
There is, only one section before the House now.
I should like to hear from the Minister that he is willing to accept that invitation from his constituents and to stand up in Rathmines Town Hall to-night and justify the class nature of the words in the section.
"What's in a name?"
Deputy Walsh will agree that, on the face of it, it is class legislation, and the Minister has not made any attempt to refute that argument. He would, however, bring a greater audience of Fianna Fáil Deputies to listen to him there, even in silence, than the number who have listened to him here since the Committee Stage began. The Minister may be assured that the Town Hall will be fairly filled to hear him explain why this Bill is regarded as a matter of urgent public importance, and particularly why he introduces this wording into the section. I say, in all seriousness, that some of us on this side, in both opposition Parties, have as good advice as to the meaning of the words in this and other sections as the Minister has. The Minister certainly has big people in the legal profession, including the Attorney-General, behind him, and he says that every section can be justified and related to the letter and to the spirit of the Constitution. We say definitely that there are words in the section which conflict with the Constitution. Time will tell whether that is correct or not, and the opportunity may be taken to challenge the opinion of the. Minister in another place, even though he may have behind him what he regards as the greatest legal experts in the land.
You would not recognise it.
The only way the Deputy has recognised it is by interruptions which are not always intelligent and which require a little more explanation than the few words which Deputy Brady throws in from time to time, while he remains seated. I ask the Minister to say whether it is possible under the section, if the Bill becomes law in its present form, for an applicant union to be refused by the tribunal the powers asked for. The section reads:—
(1) Subject to the provisions of this, section, where application is made to the tribunal by a trade union which claims to have organised a majority of masters of a particular class for a determination that such trade union alone shall have the right to organise masters of that class, the tribunal, after hearing such application and having considered all the circumstances of the case, shall either—
(a) grant such determination, or
(b) refuse to grant such determination, or
(c) if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds in the public interest for so doing, determine that two or more specified trade unions alone shall have the right to organise masters of that class.
Is it possible that the applicant union would not be one of the two or more unions granted a determination by the tribunal under that section? If it is, it appears to be ridiculous, to use the word used by the Minister, to make it possible. The Minister admitted on a previous occasion that certain wording, not carefully considered by him or his legal advisers, appeared to be ridiculous, having heard the interpretation that could be put on the words by people with a better understanding of the English language than I have. The same difference of interpretation applies to every section, but the Minister will not admit that, because he says this is a good Bill. Deputy Corry, however, rightly says that the wording of some of the sections, such as this, brings us back to the slave age.
And were agreed to by you in November, 1940.
I advise the Deputy to have a private conversation with the Minister, or with his principal officials, on the matter. I advise him to ask the Minister to produce a copy of the proposals submitted by Deputy Keyes and his colleagues of the executive of the Trade Union Congress in November, 1940. He will see then the difference between the proposals submitted and the provisions in the Bill.
Meanwhile, the Deputy might address the Chair, and not Deputy Corry.
I cannot help it, Sir, because I have to try to understand what he is saying and, quite unconsciously, I address my remarks to him, instead of doing so through you.
The first Standing Order of the House is that every Deputy shall address the Chair.
I bow to your ruling. Sir, and assure that I meant no disrespect in speaking across the House to Deputy Corry.
And Deputy Corry might follow the same line. The Standing Order refers to him as well as to every other Deputy.
I addressed my remarks through you.
The Deputy did nothing of the kind. The Deputy will keep order, and allow an orderly debate to proceed.
I know you realise that I am speaking under provocation, Sir, but if I have inadvertently addressed Deputy Corry directly, I am sorry for doing so.
Much of the provocation is provoked, too.
Deputy Esmonde has rightly called the attention of the Minister to the very loose wording of sub-section (2), which says:—
When considering an application under this section, the tribunal shall hear every person——
inside and outside our asylums, I suppose.
——who wishes to be beard and appears to have an interest in such application and shall receive any evidence tendered by such person.
I should like to know the reason for the insertion of "every penon", and why the Minister should make it possible for every Tom, Dick and Harry to take up the time of the tribunal, privately and publicly, in making his case to be heard before that body. I cannot imagine that anybody other than a master—I use the words of the slave age referred to by Deputy Corry —or a member of a trade union could have any deep interest in the work of this tribunal and, therefore, should like to hear why the Minister or his advisers allow this latitude to anybody and everybody. No doubt a good deal of time will be wasted by the tribunal in hearing every nosy-parker who comes along in an attempt to prove that he is interested in the proceedings of the tribunal. I do not think that is desirable, but if you want to make a mockery of a rotten Bill of this kind, this is the right way to do it. The sub-section does not even say that "every person" should be an Irish national, and some of the people from Whitechapel or Timbuctoo can waste the time of the tribunal in trying to prove that they have an interest in the case to be heard by the tribunal. Does the Minister mean that "every person" shall be confined to persons who are members of the master class, as defined in the section, or members of a trade union recognised by the section, or does he mean that every citizen of the State, or every Tom, Dick or Harry inside or outside the State, can come before the tiibunal and waste its time, while the taxpayers have to pay for it?
Objection, I think, has quite rightly been taken to the use of the phrase "organise masters of that class." The only justification for the continuance of the phrase is apparently a suggestion that similar terminology has been used in relation to earlier Acts of Parliament dealing with the subject of trade union organisation, but I think it is not impossible for us in 1941 to find phraseology which more closely represents the train of progressive thought in 1941. It seems to me that even in a Bill of this kind it should not be impossible to describe a trade union organisation of employers as an "employers' trade union" or a "trade union of employers" instead of getting back to the phraseology which has distinguished trade union legislation of 100 years ago. For instance, in the Trade Union Act, 1906, while the phrase "trade union whether of workmen or masters" is used, the same Act nevertheless, when it is referring to industrial disputes, uses the words "employers" or "firm" where the firm is not an individual employer. What is the difficulty either in this section or in other sections in using the term "employers' trade union" instead of "trade union of masters," to describe our train of thought in 1941?
Deputy Davin has raised the point— which I think is of considerable interest —that it may be possible for a trade union of masters, as it is called here, to make an application for the right to organise employers in a particular industry or in a particular area, and it seems to me that under this section it is possible for the tribunal in that case to make a determination not related to the application of the employers' trade union, but may in fact come to a decision regulating what type of employers' trade unions may organise certain classes of employers. It may very well happen under Section 20 as it is now drawn that a trade union of employers which makes an application to this tribunal may find that, far from having its own application conceded or merely rejected, the tribunal may, simply because the matter has been brought to its notice, come to a decision on that application recommending the employers' trade unions into which certain classes of employers will be organised. I should like the Minister to tell us whether it is possible for that to happen under Section 20, as it is drafted at the moment. It seems to me that it is possible for it to happen, and if employers are to go to a tribunal of this kind the tribunal ought to be compelled to limit its decision to the application before it, and not have power to lay down the type of employers' trade unions which would organise employers, whether in a particular industry or in a particular territorial area.
I think the point which has been made by Deputy Davin and by Deputy Norton is quite correct. Any person who goes before this tribunal will have to accept the risks of the determination which the tribunal makes. I think that is a very useful and salutary safeguard, so that people will not go vexatiously to this tribunal asking for the right to organise employers or employees as the case may be in any section unless they can make a good case. One of the reasons why every interest must be heard is that other people can come along, once the issue is raised before the tribunal, and can show perhaps that they have a better case for securing the determination which is asked. I do not think there is anything contrary to public interest in leaving the tribunal, once the facts are before it, to make the determination which is best in the public interest. It may be that the determination which would be best in the public interest is the one to which Deputies Davin and Norton have referred—that not the originating trade unions but another trade union which had made a better case should have the right which it asked for.
The Minister now confirms the suggestion that it is possible for an organisation to go before this tribunal and have its application either rejected or acceded to, or have an entirely new determination made by the tribunal. The effect of the determination may be that the organisation which might seek an increase in its area of operations would, by a decision which it is possible for the tribunal to give under sub-section (1) (c), find itself wiped out in the course of time, inasmuch as the tribunal might decide that not only would it not accede to its application but would give another group the right to organise this particular class of employers. The Minister said that that is a kind of salutary lesson to people not to go to this tribunal without some good reason. In this section, which is dealing with the functions of the tribunal in relation to employers' unions, we are giving this tribunal very wide powers. It is apparently possible for the tribunal to come to a decision that it is satisfied that in the public interest there are reasonable grounds for doing certain things. But this is a lay tribunal. Some barrister may just manage to scrape in and become the chairman——
Oh, no. A member may scrape in, but the chairman must be a barrister.
He need not be a practising barrister.
We know the kind of tests which have been applied to practising barristers before. A few fellows have been put into good jobs on that phraseology before. This will not be the last vehicle which will wheel another one of them in. It seems to me there ought to be a right of appeal to the courts against the determination of the tribunal on a matter of this kind. We may find for instance a craft organisation, with a long and honourable record, which will go before the tribunal making an application for the purpose of extending the area of its activities. When it goes to the tribunal, the tribunal may reject the application, and instead may say to that organisation: "Look here, not only are we not going to accede to your application, but we have in fact come to a decision which will entirely put you out of the scope of operations in respect of the future recruitment of members." Then, this organisation, which has been in existence for a long number of years, and which may have built up certain assets on behalf of its members, will find its source of recruitment cut off in the future. That decision is apparently to be completely in the hands of this tribunal. I think if we are giving the tribunal such wide powers as this the minimum we ought to do is to give the right of appeal to the courts against a judgment of the tribunal on such a matter. I do not know on what grounds the Minister can justify a refusal to give an appeal to the courts against the determination of the tribunal on a matter of that kind. It may be one of tremendous importance to the organisation concerned, and the tribunal should not be allowed to arrive at a final decision. It ought therefore, to be possible for the case to be re-heard by the courts, so that a tribunal of this kind would not wield those wide powers in any arbitrary way. I should like to know what the Minister has to say on the question of permitting an appeal from the tribunal's determination.
Of course. I am in a great difficulty in regard to this matter since I have no amendment before me that would enable me to address ray mind to that particular proposal. If an amendment of that kind had been put down, I might have been able to discuss it in greater detail and with more exactitude. However, I can see difficulties in the way of an appeal to the court. Where is it going to stop? Where will the appeal stop? Will it have to be carried to the Supreme Court? That is one of the questions that must arise. If this tribunal is not to be regarded as a final arbiter in connection with disputes in our industrial system, would that not be the beginning of prolonged litigation and, of course, tremendous expense to the trade unions concerned? If we were to grant an unrestricted right of appeal in a matter of this sort, it would be quite possible for a wealthy organisation to initiate proceedings before the tribunal, carry the matter to the Supreme Court and, in that way, defeat the aims of the competing organisations. I am quite prepared to consider this suggestion with an open mind—the suggestion that the tribunal should not be the last word in the matter. It might be possible, let us say, for the findings of the tribunal to be subject to confirmation by the Minister. My attitude, however, is that once we have provided legislation and laid down the lines upon which the matter must be dealt with, it is better that it should be solved entirely by the parties concerned themselves. As I say, therefore, I should fear, or at least hesitate, to make the findings of the tribunal subject to confirmation by the Minister, although the question of whether there might be some further appeal tribunal or board to consider the findings of this tribunal and confirm them, reject them, or revise them, is perhaps a question which I might examine. It is clear, however, that once proceedings of this sort are initiated it is in the interests of all concerned that they should be brought to a speedy and, if possible, of course, an acceptable conclusion. I think it would be admitted that there is little to be gained by affording certain interested parties the excuse or the opportunity of such machinery for dragging out proceedings.
As I have said, I am at a great disadvantage so far as what Deputy Norton has been advocating in connection with this section is concerned, because I have no precise formulation before me of the ideas which he wishes to have considered. I shall think of what the Deputy has said and it may be possible that, on the Report Stage, I might be able to give the House an opportunity of considering whether the findings or determinations of this tribunal should be final or not.
The Minister, certainly, is a little bit more amenable to reason.
Oh, I have always been that.
That is evident from what he has just now said, and, apparently, the argument used by Deputy Norton has influenced the Minister to go so far as to say that be thinks that he will be able to consider, between now and the Report Stage, the advisability of inserting some amendment which would give the right of appeal from the decision of this tribunal to some other persons or some other body. For the same reasons— some of which were given, I think, in connection with Section 16—I suggest that the Minister may make up his mind that neither he nor any other Minister can be regarded as a person who could give the last word in a matter of this kind, and have it accepted willingly by the parties concerned, who might like to have an appeal from the decision of the tribunal. I do not think that the right of appeal to the Minister, whoever he might be, in a case of this kind could be regarded as satisfactory, and I think the Minister would be well advised to make up his mind as to that. If, as he says, he is going to give consideration to the question of appeal from the decisions of this tribunal, then I think it would be better to give the persons concerned the right to go before a court, such as the High Court, or some other competent body that would be regarded as likely to give an impartial judgment in such cases. I asked the Minister already about the words "every person", and I want to know why he insists on these words being left in.
It is very simple. The phraseology used here is used to ensure that any person, who claims to have a right to be heard, or who has an interest in the application, shall be heard by the tribunal.
I am not asking the Minister to amend this Bill. I do not care whether this Bill is amended or not, because I think it is a vicious Bill in its conception, and I believe it will be still more vicious if the Minister is allowed to operate it. In Section 20, however, the spirit of the whole Bill is manifest. As the Bill is drafted, we provide for the setting up of a tribunal to be appointed by the Minister, and we give this tribunal powers to determine whether an organisation is to exist or not, and provide no appeal against the judgment or determination of that tribunal. I am wondering why that was left out. The Minister's Department was responsible for the enactment of the Railways Act, 1924, Section 22 of which provided for appeals in certain cases, against decisions of the Railway Tribunal, to the Supreme Court, and I think it will be remembered that that particular section was availed of in an action between the Independent and the Irish Press. In any case, it was felt desirable there, that even the Railway Tribunal— although it had been given very wide powers—could not finally decide the matter, and there was a direct appeal to the Supreme Court in questions of law. You have a similar provision in the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1920, Section 10 of which provides that any aggreived person may appeal to the High Court, and it is not confined to questions of law. During recent years there has been a number of cases of re-hearing by the High Court, and there have been cases where the High Court over-ruled the insurance officer who had been confirmed on the facts. It seems rather strange, therefore, that with this well-beaten track before us, and with the knowledge that we alredy have, we should deliberately prohibit appeal against the findings or determinations of this tribunal. I think that no tribunal set up in this way to discharge the functions allocated to this tribunal should be given those wide powers and that we ought still to preserve the right of appeal to our own courts in order to ensure that there may be a fairer determination secured than could be secured before a tribunal selected in this fashion.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 60; Níl, 33.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Carty, Frank.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Fred Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Keane, John J.
- Kelly, James P.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Loughman, Francis.
- Lynch, James B.
- McCann, John.
- McDevitt, Henry A.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Mullen, Thomas.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Bennett, George C.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Broderick William J.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hickey, James.
- Hughes, James.
- Hurley, Jeremiah.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Corish, Richard.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Davin, William.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, John L.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Murphy, Timothy J.
- Nally, Martin.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donovan, Timothy J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Sullivan, John M.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reynolds, Mary.
Tellers:—Tá, Deputies Smith and Alien; Níl, Deputies Keyes and Hickey.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 21.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, where application is made to the tribunal by a trade union which claims to have organised a majority of workmen of any particular class for a determination that such trade union alone shall have the right to organise workmen of that class, the tribunal, after hearing such application and having considered all the circumstances of the case, shall either—
(a) grant such determination, or
(b) refuse to grant such determination, or
(c) if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds in the public interest for so doing, determine that two or more specified trade unions alone shall have the right to organise workmen of that class.
(4) Where a determination (in this sub-section referred to as the first determination) is granted under this section that two or more trade unions alone shall have the right to organise workmen of any particular class, no application shall subsequently be made by any of such trade unions to the tribunal in relation to workmen of that class until at least twelve months after the first determination, and, if a determination is granted on any such subsequent application, it shall operate and be stated to revoke the first determination.
I move amendment No. 53:—
In Sub-section (1), page 9, line 43, to delete the word "a" and substitute the words "an authorised".
The purpose of this amendment is to prevent a trade union, which is not an authorised trade union, pretending that it has organised masters or workers in a certain class. In this case it is workmen and this is a replica of the amendment I moved so far as masters are concerned.
The Minister is accepting this amendment.
This section cannot be amended in any respect to make it acceptable to us and we challenge a division.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 60; Níl, 23.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Benson, Ernest E.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Keane, John J.
- Kelly, James P.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lynch, James B.
- McCann John.
- McDevitt, Henry A.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Carty, Frank.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Fred Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Mullen, Thomas.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Browne, Patrick.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
- Coburn, James.
- Corish, Richard.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Davin, William.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Everett, James.
- Hickey, James.
- Hurley, Jeremiah.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Timothy J.
- Nally, Martin.
- Norton, William.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reynolds, Mary.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Smith and All en; Níl, Deputies Keyes and Hickey.
Amendment declared carried.
I move amendment No. 54:—
In sub-section (1), page 9, to insert in line 44 before the words "a majority" the words "for the purpose of the carrying on of negotiations for the fixing of wages and other conditions of employment", to insert in line 46 before the word "organise" the word "so", and to insert in line 53 before the word "organise" the word "so".
The object of the amendment is to make clear that a trade union which goes to the tribunal claiming to have organised a majority of workmen—that the determination to be based upon that contention shall only be granted if it claims to have organised a majority of workmen for the purpose of carrying on negotiations for the fixing of wages and other conditions of employment. It is similar in principle to amendment No. 48 which has already been accepted.
What other purpose would they organise workmen for?
As I indicated on the Second Reading of the Bill, any seven persons could register themselves as a trade union and might fulfil a variety of functions.
The section, which this amendment seeks to amend, provides:
"Subject to the provisions of this section, where application is made to the tribunal by a trade union which claims to have organised a majority of workmen of any particular class for a determination that such trade union alone shall have the right to organise workmen of that class, the tribunal, after hearing such application and having considered all the circumstances of the case..."
may do a number of things. It seems clear to me that the organisation of workers in a union such as that referred to there is organisation for the purpose of carrying on negotiations for the fixing of wages and other conditions of employment. In what other sense would the trade union exist? It is true, of course, that you could get seven people to form a trade union heretofore. That is not possible now because the seven people forming the organisation must be able to deposit a cheque for £2,000.
There is nothing in this Bill which prescribes that.
The bank manager will do the prescribing. The present position is that any seven persons could form a trade union. As I said on an earlier section, they need not even be workers to do that. In fact, they might be united by a covenant to the effect that they were never going to work. Yet, they could register as a trade union. The Minister says there is nothing in this Bill which prohibits that. There is this much of a prohibition, that the organisation proposing to do that now must lodge a cheque for £2,000.
Not at all.
Yes, or be a house union or an excepted body.
They need not be any of these things. All the amendment proposes is that they be organised "for the purpose of the carrying on of negotiations for the fixing of wages and other conditions of employment".
That is the purpose of a trade union, to fix wages and other conditions of employment. If any seven persons want to form an organisation now they must make a deposit of £2,000 unless they are going to be a house union—that is, where they all work for the one employer, not being a local authority—or an excepted body. Only a small number of persons come into that category. I do not see the purpose which this amendment seeks to achieve. I could understand its meaning in respect to a trade union of employers, but in respect to a trade union of workers I cannot understand it. The only reason why it is being made to this section is, apparently because a similar amendment was made to Section 20. The circumstances, however, in relation to both organisations are entirely dissimilar.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 54; Níl, 23.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Carty, Frank.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Fred Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Keane, John J.
- Kelly, James P.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Lynch, James B.
- McCann, John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Mullen, Thomas.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Brennan, Michael.
- Broderick, William J.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hickey, James.
- Hurley, Jeremiah.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
- Davin, William.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Everett, James.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Timothy J.
- Nally, Martin.
- Norton, William.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and Alien; Níl: Deputies Keyes and Hickey.
Amendment declared carried.
Amendments Nos. 55 to 59, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 60:—
To delete sub-section (4).
This amendment is similar to amendment No. 51. The sub-section will not be necessary, if the House adopts amendments Nos. 67 and 68.
Surely we might expect from the Minister, when making this change from one year to five years, an explanation as to what operated on his mind in deciding to make it. Sub-section (4) reads:—
Where a determination (in this sub-section referred to as the first determination) is granted under this section that two or more trade unions alone shall have the right to organise workmen of any particular class, no application shall subsequently be made by any of such trade unions to the tribunal in relation to workmen of that class until at least twelve months after the first determination, and, if a determination is granted on any such subsequent application, it shall operate and be stated to revoke the first determination.
The Minister now proposes to change that to five years. Could he say what operated on his mind in making the change?
Would the Deputy indicate where the reference to five years occurs in this amendment?
It is in amendment No. 67.
Could it not be dealt with on amendment No. 67?
The Minister referred to it and explained that instead of dealing with it in the way provided in sub-section (4) of Section 21, he proposed to deal with it by the introduction of sub-section (2) of the new Section 23 in amendment No. 67.
I indicated on amendment No. 51, and I have indicated the same thing now, that I would deal with amendments Nos. 67 and 68 when we come to them.
It is very hard to hear the Minister over here.
It is twice as hard to understand him.
Surely when the House is asked to delete a sub-section they ought to be told why the sub-section is to be deleted, and if any thing is to be put in its place, they ought to be told what is going to be put in its place. Does the Minister want the House to take a decision with only half the information before it, or less than half the information before it? That is what he is asking the House to do.
I should not like the Minister to think that this is a question simply of preferring one thing to another. I think that sub-section (4) of this section is something like the rest of the section and should be wiped out, and I have no hesitation in supporting the Minister's amendment to delete the sub-section, but I do simply suggest as a matter of orderly conduct of business that now is the time to explain it. Of course, if the Minister wants to continue to treat the House in the way in which he has been treating it, I do not want to question the matter.
I must protest. It is all very well for Deputy Mulcahy to continue to carry on the hypocritical performance which he has been carrying on during the last week in regard to this Bill, but Deputy Mulcahy was not in the House when I dealt with amendment No. 51 and referred to amendments Nos. 67 and 68.
I was.
The Deputy should have raised these points then.
Why?
Because we had a certain amount of discussion on the matter, and I do not think it is necessary to repeat it.
The Minister had no discussion in the world on it. The Minister mentioned it. There was nobody in the House who thought it worth while discussing the matter on the previous section. I do think it worth while discussing the matter on the section which deals with trade unions of workmen.
If the Minister will give an assurance that he will explain this matter at the Rathmines Town Hall tonight, we can leave it over and read what he says there.
That is not a bad idea, if the Minister will not talk here, but we surely are entitled to get some explanation in what is still a legislative Assembly. Will the Minister tell us why he drafts a Bill, putting in provision for review of a case after 12 months, and then, shortly after the Bill has been drafted and circulated, slips in five years instead of 12 months? What set of circumstances induced the Minister to believe that it is now necessary to have a decision endure for five years instead of 12 months, as originally contemplated by him?
I again put it to you, Sir, that we can deal with this question on amendments Nos. 67 and 68. I object to initiating a discussion now, because we know that we will have a rehash of that discussion on amendments Nos. 67 and 68. I have already indicated to the House the reasons why I propose to make the amendments in the two similar Sections 20 and 21, and I do not propose to repeat probably three times what I have already said in relation to those amendments.
The Minister tells us now that he explained this amendment on a section to which it had no relation—Section 20. Does the Minister think that to be the right and proper procedure to adopt—to explain amendments Nos. 67 and 68 on an amendment to Section 20?
He did not do it.
I know, but that is what he is claiming. He apparently considers that that is a quite proper and correct procedure, and that it is the proper way to treat this House and this Bill. He refuses to give any explanation of amendments Nos. 67 and 68 in the place where it should be given. He asks the House to take out a sub-section specifying 12 months, and refuses to give the House any reason or reasons, if there are any, as to why it should be taken out. He refuses to give the House, before it decides to take it out, if it does decide to take it out, any reason why five years should be put in its place, or can the House take this out altogether and refuse to put in amendments Nos. 67 and 68? That is the only line we can take— to agree to the Minister's amendment now before the House, and refuse to agree to amendments Nos. 67 and 68.
In any case, the Minister will not be here in five years, as Minister, to explain it.
Surely the Minister is not going to treat the House with this studied insolence? Surely we are going to get an explanation from him as to why he has changed his mind on this whole question?
Is it strictly in order for the Minister to tell the House, through you, Sir, that he will explain this amendment to the House on amendment No. 67 to Section 23?
That is not a question of order. At what stage the Minister may explain is not for the Chair to decide.
But perhaps you can give the Minister some good advice.
The Minister has suggested that the debate might be duplicated and that his explanation if given now might be re-debated on amendment No. 67.
Might I submit that, even if that were so, it is much better that the matter should be debated twice over than that it should not be debated at all?
The Chair has no comment to make on the Minister's suggestion.
Mr. Morrissey
I do not suggest that you did, but I am making the point to the Minister through you.
We have no assurance even that we will get an explanation from the Minister on the section.
If he will explain it at the Rathmines Town Hall we shall be satisfied.
Question put: "That sub-section (4) be deleted".
The Committee divided: Tá, 56; Níl, 23.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Carty, Frank.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Fred Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eanion.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Keane, John J.
- Kelly, James P.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lynch, James B.
- McCann, John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Mullen, Thomas.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Browne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
- Coburn, James.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Davin, William.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Hickey, James.
- Hurley, Jeremiah.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Timothy J.
- Nally, Martin.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donovan Timothy J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Smith and All en; Níl, Deputies Keyes and Hickey.
Question declared carried.
Amendment No. 61 not moved.
I move amendment No. 62:—
To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:
(6) For the purposes of this section workmen may be classified by reference to a class to which they belong, by reference to an area in which they work, or by reference to such a class and such an area, and the word "class" shall be construed in this section accordingly.
This amendment provides that the tribunal may deal with workers operating in particular areas, as well as with particular classes of workers.
Is this the only explanation we are to get from the Minister, Sir, with regard to this very important amendment? Really, I suggest that it is not even an attempt at an explanation. Deputy Childers was complaining a while ago that there was not another section in connection with Section 20, which would give some direction to the tribunal in dealing with employers. There is no doubt whatever that they will be given a direction, under this amendment, to deal with workingmen. For the purposes of this section workingmen may be classified
"by reference to a class to which they belong, by reference to an area in which they work, or by reference to such a class and such an area."
And then the sub-section goes on to say that the word "class" shall be construed in this section accordingly— whatever that means. The Minister did not think it worth his while to enlighten the House, but apparently he is quite satisfied now, formally, to move each amendment, have the votes registered in the lobbies, and carry them. There are many things that I could say with regard to this amendment but probably it would be better if I left them over for the discussion on the section where we shall have a wider scope for discussion.
As Deputy Morrissey says, this is a very definite provision. There are very many things that would arise on the discussion of this section, and perhaps it might be well for the Minister, if he has any explanation to give with regard to this matter of the class or area to which workmen belong, to give that explanation now, because it would enable the discussion on the section itself to be more informative and more declaration of the other points that require to be considered. Would the Minister give us any idea of the particular classes he has in mind that would be distinct classes under this sub-section? I take it that, in regard to particular classes, whether a class of working men is related to an area would be more or less dependent on whether the class is a very numerous one or not in the area, and of course that might vary. However, if the Minister would give us some idea of the division of the particular classes, and then give us some idea as to the particular classes that might also be linked up with certain areas, that would help the House to understand these proposals.
It seems to me that the purpose of this amendment and of this section is patent on the face of it. For instance, we talk of "Dublin bakers", because there is a class of workers in that trade related to an area such as Dublin City. In the same way we talk of "Cork bricklayers", because certain workers there in that trade are related to the City of Cork. The purpose of this amendment is to enable the tribunal, if it should prove to be necessary, to consider an application coming from an organisation claiming to have organised all the workmen in a particular class in one area, say, an area where, for instance, their organisation has been operating over a long period and where no other organisation has come in. Whatever may be the deficiencies or defects of comprehension of some Deputies, I think it is ridiculous to ask me to explain the purpose of that amendment to the intelligent members of this House.
The relationship between the Minister and the chairman of the tribunal, I am sure, will be very close in connection with the administration of this measure.
No.
Whether the Minister does or does not want to explain this matter to the satisfaction of the House, it is desirable that he should have his views placed on record for the approval of the House and for the information of the tribunal that will have the big task of facing up to the consequence of the passing of this measure. Of course, the same wording has been inserted in an amendment in the previous section.
And adopted by the House.
Adopted by a majority of the House.
On a point of order. The Deputy has made a statement to the effect that a previous amendment to Section 20 in similar terms to this amendment was adopted by a majority of the House. In fact, it was agreed to by the whole House without a division.
The Minister is losing his memory. There was a division on the section.
There was no division on the amendment.
The section was carried by a majority of the House. If that is the point of order, it is quite in keeping with the many points of order raised by the Minister during the whole of this discussion. At any rate, will the Minister take us into his confidence and say from what source he got the advice to insert an amendment of this kind already agreed to by a majority of the House in the case of the previous section? I wish to remind him again, even if he does not want to explain the meaning of this amendment or of the various sections of the Bill, that it is desirable that he should have his views on record for the guidance of the tribunal and of whatever body he may set up as an appeal court from any decisions that may be given by the tribunal.
I suggest that there is no relevance in the Minister's point that he has made a similar provision in the previous section. When relating to masters, it is one thing; when relating to workmen, it is quite a distinct thing. Will the Minister say what is his interpretation of the word "class"? If you take a particular industry, in that industry you may have 20 different classes. How is it to be decided by the tribunal that they have organised a majority of a class? There are all sorts of classes in the flour-milling industry besides flour millers. The same thing applies to the bacon industry and the transport industry. What particular section will be the dominating one? If some union says that they have organised a majority of the stationary engine drivers in a particular industry, will it be sufficient for the tribunal to grant a determination on that basis? I suggest that it would be impossible for the tribunal to interpret this section which, I confess, I have sympathy with the Minister in trying to interpret. What is meant by "class" in this instance?
I suggest that the House has no right to pass legislation like this and to ask tribunal, whether composed of lay persons or legal persons, to interpret something which we cannot interpret ourselves. I suggest that the Minister does not know what is meant by this, and that he ought to say frankly that he does not know how it will be interpreted. There are so many classes of workers in each of the different industries that we know there will be rival claims made by the different unions that cater for this section or that section. How can the tribunal determine what is meant by a majority of any class as contemplated in this section? If the word is ambiguous, as it is, should the Minister not try to lay down some plain common-sense course which will enable the tribunal to function and carry out the important duties entrusted to them? I suggest that no tribunal can interpret that sub-section. If the Minister is able to do it. I ask him to do it. I have sympathy with him in trying to give a definition of what is conveyed in this jumble of words. It is not fair to the tribunal, and they cannot possibly interpret it.
The Minister did make some attempt to give a picture to the House in connection with this new proposed sub-section when he mentioned the Dublin bakers and the Cork bakers as examples of a particular class in a particular area which might be associated together. I do not know whether or not we are to gather from the Minister's remarks that, under the operation of this section, he contemplates having an authorised union representing the Cork bakers and an authorised union representing the Dublin bakers, and that they stand out as the kind of class that would be treated as being associated with an area. When we come to consider the Bill as a whole and the general position of such classes, we find that in the Cork County Borough under the heading of bakers, there are pastry cooks and biscuit makers. When we take the biscuit makers and the pastry cooks and add them to the bakers, there are only 298 persons, 267 of them being men and 31 women, who come under that particular class. So that, if they are a separate trade union, which I understand from the Minister's remarks they are at the present time, those 298 persons would have to find £2,000 between them before they could be recognised as a class or a group. If we take the County Borough of Dublin and the County Borough of Dun Laoghaire, again adding the biscuit makers and the pastry cooks to the bakers, we get a total of 1,620 persons, 1,171 being men and 449 women, and that group again would have to pay £2,000.
The question of a deposit does not arise on this amendment.
No, but what does arise is the number of authorised unions that we are likely to have, and the number of persons, under the section as a whole, we are likely to have as persons who get a determination that they are the union for that particular class or area, and who will have a monopoly of the right to organise workers. In giving us a picture of the Dublin bakers and the Cork bakers, I submit to the Minister that he does not lead us very far in understanding the situation, that it only makes confusion more confused, and the position and its possibilities more kaleidoscopic than ever. I think he ought to add a little more detail to the picture. It is not sufficient to refer to the Dublin bakers or the Cork bakers, because that only makes it more difficult to understand.
I think that there is a reason, as Deputy Keyes pointed out, to define or construe the word "class". Are we to take it that it would be the function of the tribunal to put their own interpretation on the word? There is no definition in this Bill of the meaning of the word. The common interpretation of the word "class" is the working class or the master class, but for any sub-divisions of these classes there is no common interpretation. I think the Minister should lay down exactly what is his interpretation and what will be accepted by the House as an interpretation of the word "class". Otherwise the interpretation of it will be the function of the tribunal, and that tribunal, from its very constitution, will not be in a position to interpret the meaning of the word "class". It is going to cause very great confusion if and when this Bill comes into operation, and if and when the tribunal will be called upon to decide on the interpretation of the word "class".
One instance comes to my mind. Take distributive workers. People in that group—I do not know whether the word "group" is a better one to use than "class"—could be put into various classes. But that is not going to solve the problem or make things easier for the tribunal. I am sure the House will welcome a definition or interpretation of what is meant by "class". The amendment and the whole of Section 21 turn on that definition. We are told in the section that workmen may be classified by a reference to the class to which they belong. Does that mean the working class or the master class? The new sub-section sets out that workmen may be classified by reference to an area in which they work or to such a class and such an area, and the word "class" shall be construed accordingly. There is nothing in the Bill which would help to construe the word "class". The Minister should give us an interpretation which will be on record for the tribunal when it is faced with interpreting the word.
Is it necessary for the Minister to tell the Dáil the meaning of the word "class"?
As understood by the Minister.
As understood by every person who understands the English language, including, I hope, Deputy Hurley, who teaches it occasionally.
Mr. Morrissey
That is just a characteristic interruption of the Minister.
It is downright blackguardism, not an interruption. He is just passing from interruptions to blackguardism.
The word "blackguardism" must be withdrawn.
In deference to your wish, I withdraw it, but I have very profound views——
A withdrawal should be unconditional.
I submitted my points for an interpretation of the word "class" and not for the purpose of receiving a gratuitous insult from the Minister.
It is not insulting to assert that a Deputy may teach a language.
The Minister said: "supposed to be teaching it." The Minister has not withdrawn his observation in regard to the Deputy.
The whole incident should teach the Minister some manners.
I should like to draw attention to the reply the Minister made. I tried to elicit information and the reply of the Minister was not very helpful. We certainly have not got any information from him. I would not even try to attempt to teach the Minister manners because I believe he has gone beyond that stage. I consider I have a good knowledge of the English language and the meaning of words, but so far as this section is concerned, I cannot interpret what the word "class" means. I have asked the Minister for that information, and I think the House is entitled to it.
Every trade unionist in the country wants to have the Minister's meaning on record.
I support all that has been said by Deputy Hurley and Deputy Davin on this point. The only clue we have been given to the word "class" and the word "area" and to the combination of class and area, in this sub-section is the reference to the Dublin bakers and the Cork bakers.
The Deputy has stated all that already.
Yes, and I suggest, in the light of what the Minister says with regard to the difficulty of understanding it, that he should refer to the Census of Population of 1936, volume 2, where it deals with occupations, and he will see the difficulties which are raised for people who want to get this matter explained. On page 6, as part of table 2—Occupations of persons 14 years of age and over in Saorstát Eireann on 26th April, 1936, with comparative figures for 1926—we find bakers, pastry cooks and biscuit makers as a class. Not to mind anything that goes before that, but merely to follow on, we find other classes, such as grain millers, sugar, sweet, and jam boilers, creamery workers, bacon curers, maltsters, skilled workers in the tobacco and snuff industry, and, under textile works, we have spinners, weavers, knitters, hand-lace workers, dyers and assistant carpet workers, boot and shoe makers, tailors' cutters——
I do not think a continued quotation from that list is relevant.
If I may, as it were, vamp through it page by page——
That would hardly be relevant.
We are up against the question of class, and we are anxious to find out what this means as part of a provision setting up machinery directed towards trade union organisations negotiating the wages and conditions of workers. We are up against a charge that the present position is one of confusion, chaos and overlapping, and the Minister suggests that, provided they have the money, the Cork bakers may be an authorised trade union and the Dublin bakers may be an authorised trade union.
This is the third time the Deputy has made that statement.
But we are up against the question of how many are involved in this.
And the Chair is up against repetition.
I am up against the question of how many trade unions are likely to be involved on the workers' side, and how authorised trade unions, with power to carry on negotiations in respect of wages and conditions——
That does not arise on the amendment.
I do not know what arises on the amendment, but I do know that if we pass this section, a particular trade union that is an authorised trade union is given a monopoly to organise workers, and that monopoly may be given by reference to a class to which they belong or to an area, or a combination of class and area.
In considering this amendment, we are considering what the result of the passing of it is likely to be in the setting up of machinery in the country, and how many bodies are likely to be involved. For the purpose of understanding what is going to happen from the passing of this amendment, we are asking for a definition of class. The Minister has referred to one particular type of class. We are also asking in regard to area. But, when we come up against classes, we find from a review of the various occupations that people have in this country that bakers form a very small part.
The Deputy was told that those statistical quotations are not in order.
I submit to you, Sir, that I am entitled to put to the Minister the difficulties that the House has. First and foremost I put it to you——
It seems to me that the Deputy is in danger of bringing himself under Standing Order 46.
What is that. Sir?
It deals with repetition or an endeavour to obstruct business.
I am doing neither one nor the other.
On a point of order. On this section, dealing with the classification of workers, is Deputy Mulcahy not entitled to refer to this official publication, the Census of Production, which so far as I know is the only official publication in which workers are classified? Is he not entitled, before the House passes this section dealing with this matter, to put before the House the various headings under which workers are classified, and the different classes to which they belong? This sub-section deals solely with the classification of workers. The only authority we have, to which we can refer in the absence of any explanation from the Minister, is this official publication, and I respectfully submit that the Deputy is in order in referring to it.
This amendment purports to set out how these workmen may be classified, according to class or area or both. It certainly would be preposterous if a book of statistics, all referring to classes, could be read through page by page or even a summary of every page on that amendment.
On a further point of order, I submit that Deputy Mulcahy is not attempting to do any such thing. If the House is to get a picture of the effect of this amendment, and of the task which we are seeking to place on the tribunal of interpreting the proposed sub-section, I submit that the House can only do that by a reference to the Census of Population.
It is quite obvious that a reference to the Census of Population, of quoting four classes on one page and of proposing to skip through other pages and giving a summary of them is not in order. It would be quite easy to refer to classes and to mention half a dozen or so without quoting whole pages of the Census.
Would the Chair say how many classes I have mentioned up to the present?
The Chair may not be cross-examined.
Well, I am doing my duty. I am pointing out the difficulties under which we are labouring here in understanding what is going to be the outcome of this Bill as a whole and of this section. Here is a section that is likely to determine the number of trade unions that are going to be left in the country. We admit that it is like other sections in that it will give no guidance or direction to the tribunal that is going to deal with the matter. However unsatisfactory the section may be—drafted by the Minister and with the Minister's mentality behind it—when it leaves the House and goes to the tribunal, I do not want to have it said that, so far as members of the House have responsibility for the result of legislation passed here, I did not, so far as I was concerned——
Is the Deputy addressing me or addressing the Chair?
He is supposed to be addressing the Chair.
Am I going to be protected against interruptions by the Minister? Is there any point in his remarks?
Certainly. Quite palpably the Deputy was addressing his remarks to me.
Can the Minister state the words in which I addressed him?
The Deputy's visage was addressed towards me.
My what?
Your countenance.
Are we being reduced to this, that we are not to be allowed to look one another straight in the face when we talk to one another in this House? In dealing with serious matters, are we going to be submitted to the type of interruption which the Minister has inveighed in? I am speaking under certain difficulties, and as you can understand I do not want to elaborate why. But I am not going to have it said that I neglected any part of what I consider to be my duty in trying to find out what the likely effects of this section are going to be.
If Deputies will take the Census of Production for 1936, Vol. 2, and look at pages 4 to 15, see the various classes of workers that are recorded there, and then refer to the Minister's remarks with regard to bakers and area with regard to Dublin and Cork —if they will go through that, and see the way in which classes like smiths, motor mechanics, brush-makers are distributed through the country, I would ask them to tell the House, if the Minister cannot do so, what they think the result of this sub-section is going to be. I think we are entitled to have that information.
It seems to me that the language of this is of a most ambiguous character. I can imagine quite a considerable amount of litigation arising out of the interpretation of this sub-section. This amendment was not embodied in the Bill when circulated. We got it as an afterthought. Quite obviously the amendment han been drafted with the utmost indifference. It purports to describe what class is, and it says that classes may be classified, that workmen may be classified by reference to the classes to which they belong. Does that mean vocational classes? Does it mean that carpenters are to be classified as tarpenters, or that they can be classified as building trade workers or constructional workers?
Can we be told if the Minister is coming back again? If he is going to the Rathmines meeting we are prepared to facilitate him.
I move to report progress.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again later.
I think the arrangement was that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance was to speak on the turf position between 7 and 8 o'clock.
Can we be told if the discussion on the Trade Union Bill will be resumed at 8 o'clock? Personally I should be far better pleased if the Parliamentary Secretary carried on the discussion beyond that hour. I was wondering if the Minister for Industly and Commerce, who has gone to Rathmines, will come back again.
Why does not the harbour master go?
The master class.
The arrangement was that the Parlimentary Secretary would make a statement on the turf position, and his will be the only statement. At its conclusion the Committee Stage of the Trade Union Bill will be resumed.
Need that statement necessarily conclude by eight o'clock? Can we assume that it may go on after eight o'clock?
I do not desire to continue after eight o'clock. I think we shall have said all we want, to say before then.
That hour has been fixed tentatively.