Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Jul 1941

Vol. 84 No. 6

Trade Union Bill, 1941—Committee (Resumed).

Debate resumed on 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.—(Minister for Industry and Commerce.)

Mr. Esmonde

This amendment is a very important one from the point of view of the interpretation of the whole section. It is very important by reason of the vast powers which are to be given to this tribunal. The word "class" appears, I think, in five different places in the section. It always appears in the same context with the word "particular". Where the word "class" appears, there is always a reference to a "particular class". I think I can see what is behind or what is intended to be conveyed by it, but as it stands at present it is certainly very confusing, and I think it would be better, having regard to the large powers which this tribunal will have, and having regard to the fact that the word "class" is being more or less defined in this section, that there should be a definition of the words "particular class". I have written out here what I think the Minister intends to convey in this amendment, and if my interpretation of what I think he means is correct, then it would be better to have something like this, because the amendment, as it stands, is confusing. I suggest that a sub-section something like the following would meet the case:

"In this section reference to a particular class of workmen shall be taken as including such particular class in general or the members of any such particular class working in a particular area."

I take it that that is the intention which the Minister has in mind in this sub-section, and that what he intends is that if there is a contest before the tribunal, that contest can take place between the members of any particular class of workmen in two different districts or even between the workmen of a particular class of workmen in one district, or that class of workmen in various districts. I agree with a great deal of what has been put forward, to the effect that the proposed sub-section, as it stands, is extremely confusing. I think I know what the Minister has in mind, but it is very hard to define the word "class". I have looked it up in various dictionaries since this discussion started, and I find that there are many things to which the word might apply. I find that one definition is that of a category— being a class, or division, in any general scheme of classification. I think it would be well if the Minister would adopt the suggestion I have made, because the proposed sub-section, as it stands, is very confusing.

Mr. MacEntee

I am afraid that I cannot accept Deputy Esmonde's view of the proposed sub-section. The sub-section is merely a machinery section, the purpose of which is to enable the tribunal to make a precise definition. It relates to the reference to a particular class in sub-section (1) and to the fact that the tribunal may make a determination in relation to workmen of a particular class under paragraph (c). There is no difficulty, so far as the English language is apprehended in this House, in understanding what the word "class" means. It means, briefly, a plurality of entities, whether persons, animals, things or ideas which have at least one characteristic in common. Whatever be the classification, or whatever synonyms may be used, such as categories and so on, there must be one characteristic common to the whole group. No matter what other difference there may be in the persons, ideas or entities, if they have at least one characteristic in common they constitute a class. That is the basic definition of a class. I think that is apprehended by all who understand the English language, and I am perfectly certain that the members of the tribunal would have no difficulty in apprehending what is meant by the section, even if some members of this House have a difficulty in apprehending what is meant by the word "class". I have said that the class or group or category—that congregation of persons, ideas or entities—must have at least one characteristic in common. They may be red-headed men, or black-headed men,——

Mr. D. Morrissey

Or light-headed men.

Mr. MacEntee

—— they may be tall men or short men, but they will all come under the heading of one particular class if they have one thing in common, such as belonging to one occupation or living in one particular district. But the definition of the word "class" should be obvious. In the case of the human race, of course, it might be that there would be a difference to the extent that some men wore clothes, which would distinguish them from people who did not wear clothes and went around naked—like savages, in other words—but they all belong to the human race. It seemed to me, Sir, that it should not be necessary to explain to some members of this House what we all apprehend by the conception of the word "class". As I said, when I intervened, prior to the adjournment of the debate, I find it hard to believe that it should be necessary to explain to members of this House what is commonly apprehended by the concept of a class. I found it almost impossible to believe that members who wasted so much of the time of this House were really talking seriously: that Deputy Mulcahy, for instance, was as dense as he pretended to be, or that Deputy Hurley, who happens to be a schoolmaster, could not appreciate what was meant by the word "class".

All that this amendment proposes to do is to enable the tribunal, in making its determination, to state that determination with preciseness—to enable them to say that, if the facts which are adduced in the course of the application should satisfy them that it would be in the public interest to recognise the right of organised workingmen to follow a particular occupation, by reference, not merely to the occupation which they follow, but to the district in which they follow that occupation, it will be within the competence of the tribunal so to frame their determination upon the application before them that there will be no doubt that when they say, for instance, that a particular society alone has the right, or is going to have the right, in common, perhaps, with other organisations of organised workingmen following a particular vocation in Dublin to organise such workmen, their right to state that will not be challenged. That is all that this section proposes to do, and all these questions as to groups and classes are so many redherrings dragged in simply to prolong the debate. There may be a society calling itself the Cork Bakers' Society or the Dublin Bakers' Society, and the purpose of this section is to enable the tribunal to state, with the utmost possible preciseness, or at least with the necessary preciseness, what its determination is, so that there shall be little or no ground for challenging that determination afterwards.

Mr. D. Morrissey

I have not the shadow of a doubt that everybody understands this amendment. Such a piece of clear and precise English as we have just heard from the Minister has never been equalled in this House.

Mr. MacEntee

Are we talking, Sir, about the Minister's English or about the amendment?

Mr. D. Morrissey

Does the Minister claim that he is the only person who has the right to speak about the meaning of the English language? It would not surprise me if he did make that claim. Of course, the Minister says that no member of this House has a right to look at the Minister himself in connection with a Bill of which he is in charge. A member of the Opposition dare not look at the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The Minister is allowed to lecture us and to clarify our minds. All I hope is that this tribunal, when it is set up, if it ever, and I am sure it will, wants to seek for some light as to the meaning of this proposed amendment, will not be unfortunate enough to come across the Minister's explanation of it. The Minister used a lot of big words. He talked about the fundamental definition of "class"; but he took very good care not to attempt to tell us what was the fundamental definition of "class". It is quite clear that the Minister himself has not the foggiest idea of what this amendment means. He has not the faintest notion of how or in what manner it will be interpreted, or can be interpreted, or in fact whether it can be interpreted in any sort of sensible way at all. The only thing to be said for it is that it is on a par with every other section in the Bill and with most of the amendments introduced by the Minister.

Mr. Childers

In connection with this amendment, I think I can speak on behalf of the average supporter of the Government in this House, and we have no difficulty in understanding this definition of the word "class". It is quite obvious that the word "class" must have, to some degree, a consequential meaning. It cannot be too strictly defined, because, until the Bill operates, and until a merger of unions takes place, including those as a result of the deposit fee, it is impossible to tell in advance how unions are going to merge, whether by large classifications or small classifications; whether they will tend to divide up into area groups or remain as national groups, or become national groups from area groups. There is so much latitude allowed by the Minister in this Bill as to the manner in which the trade union movement may act as a result of its operation, that it is obviously impossible to give a limited, strict definition of the word "class". In other words, this sub-section gives power to the tribunal to decide whether, for example, as a result of representations made in connection with industries dealing with the treatment of grain generally, and after hearing all the evidence, they will make a special class for grain milling, or whether they will merge grain milling with baking; whether, again, they will have a Dublin area for grain milling, a Dublin area for bakers, and a rest of Ireland area.

The whole basis of the sub-section is that the effect of the Bill has to be watched by the tribunal, both in respect to the evidence given to them, as a result of applications by certain trade unions for representation, and also the evidence they will gain in watching the Bill operating as regards the limitations on trade unions arising from the payment of the deposit, and a careful study of the situation. They will have to make up their mind how to arrange these classifications. Having studied in the International Labour Office journals for the past five or six years, the legislation of this type which has taken place in about 14 non-totalitarian countries, with, apparently, the consent and general approval of the population of those countries, I do not think there is any need to be quite sanguine that this Bill, when passed, will not require further amendment. So far as I can make out from studying those journals, inevitably, because it is part of a human problem, changes are bound to be necessary.

It may be that at a certain point this sub-section will have to be defined more definitely. The Minister may find, in 1944, for example, after the tribunal has been in operation for a certain time, after the deposit limitations have their effect on the grouping of trade unions, that certain anomalies will have arisen, that there may have been certain classifications created that perhaps are not in the interest of the State; that there may be a certain amount of unfairness, not through the malevolent action of any tribunal, but because legislation dealing with human groupings may be faulty at times, and the Minister may come in with a number of amending Bills to correct certain things which have arisen. To my mind, as the definition of "class" must be a consequential one, the tribunal must use their best judgment as to how to group those unions. I think it is clear to members on this side of the House what the Minister is aiming at.

Mr. Corry

There is no doubt that, both before the adjournment of the Committee Stage and since, there has been a deliberate endeavour to bait the Minister, to put it frankly. I have examined both the section and the amendment. They are throwing a difficult job on the tribunal, but they are doing that because the Trade Union Congress themselves failed to do the job. They endeavoured to classify the unions, and they could not get agreement amongst themselves. It is because they could not get agreement amongst themselves that this Bill has to be brought in and this particular section and the amendment to it put in, and nobody knows that better than the Deputies who have spoken here. I have it here in the 45th annual report of the Irish Trade Union Congross.

Mr. Everett

Read the 46th report.

Mr. Corry

The Deputy can bring that in and read it. It will help to waste more time, which has been the main object since this Bill went into the Committee Stage.

Mr. Everett

What have Deputy T. Kelly and the York Street Club to say to it? Do they approve of the Bill?

Mr. Corry

I am not worrying about who approves of it or who does not. What I am worrying about is that we have 12 men, six of whom were brought from across the Channel, to tell us how to run trade unions.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy might establish the relevancy to the amendment of his line of argument.

Mr. Corry

During the last hour the Minister has been attacked for not giving a definition of what he meant by "class." I am suggesting that the reason this had to be brought in was because these gentlemen failed in an attempt to classify the workmen, and when they failed the burden was thrown on this House. They state here, in a memorandum which Deputy Norton refused to sign——

An Ceann Comhairle

Surely that is irrelevant. The Deputy may not initiate a discussion of the report in question.

Mr. Corry

I am not opening a discussion.

An Ceann Comhairle

And on the alleged non-signature of a certain document, which has nothing to do with the amendment.

Mr. Corry

I just made that remark in passing.

An Ceann Comhairle

Those passing remarks often give rise to heated discussion.

Mr. Corry

They endeavoured to classify the people into ten different classes of unions: building and furnishing; engineering, ship-building and vehicle building; seamen and dockers; rail and road transport; printing; bakery; distributive; clerical and supervising; teachers; civil servants and general workers, and they tried to drive all the people in the country into these. I find that in the building trade alone there were 12 different organisations, and they were out to drive all the 12 into one.

Mr. Dockrell

There are a lot more than that.

Mr. Corry

There may be, but those 12 were apparently recognised by Congress. I will not inflict the names on the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy would not be in order in doing so. He may mention the number if he likes.

Mr. Corry

The same thing applies right through. In the case of the general workers you have ten organisations. The job was given to these individuals to classify themselves, and they could not agree, and this Bill had to be introduced in order to set up some tribunal which would endeavour to classify them. These people could not agree among themselves on the matter of classification. Nobody can have a better knowledge of that than many of the Deputies who have been speaking all day on this Bill, endeavouring to hold up the business of the House.

Mr. Corish

And they will speak all day to-morrow.

Mr. Corry

I hope so, and all day for the next six months, if they like. If there is to be obstruction, we will see who will get the better of it in the end.

Mr. Corish

We were not the first to start it.

Mr. Corry

I have here one of the reports which was signed by Deputy Hurley as an adviser.

Mr. Hurley

On a point of explanation——

An Ceann Comhairle

It has nothing to do with the case.

Mr. Hurley

I did not sign any such report.

Mr. Corry

I have one of the reports here.

An Ceann Comhairle

It has no bearing on the amendment under consideration in the House.

Mr. Corry

The Labour Party are challenging the Minister about various things here, yet they freely admitted the desirability of an amalgamation or grouping of unions analogous to or associated with each other in specific industries. They considered that was absolutely necessary and yet, when we try to do it here by means of a tribunal, Deputies want to know what is the meaning of "classification" and what is the meaning of "class". If Deputies wish to carry on the game of holding up business here, I will not prevent them.

Mr. Murphy

I am sure the House is very gratified, and on these benches we are particularly, to receive such a very timely lecture from such an order-loving member of this House, one who has the dignity of the House so near his heart on all occasions. Now that we have benefited by that lecture and, presumably, are duly chastened, we might return again to the question of getting some definition of that very peculiar word "class" in this section. The Minister spoke, and I am not sure that we would not have been better off if, on this particular matter at least, he was silent, because it seemed to me that anything the Minister said did not make the position a bit clearer; indeed, he seemed all the time to make the position much more vague and indefinite. The Minister was ponderous and profound on this matter, but in the end he was delightfully vague and indefinite.

I think Deputy Childers unwittingly, as on former occasions, let the cat out of the bag because, if I sum up his statement correctly, it was that the question of defining "class" must be left to the tribunal; in other words, we are not going to know and we will not be permitted to decide what we are putting into this Bill. We are merely putting in a vague term that is to be interpreted and directed in any way that a tribunal not yet appointed may decide. The appointment of the tribunal is entirely in the hands of the Minister. It seems to me that this section makes it clear that the purpose is to regiment the organised workers. It makes it very clear that the official viewpoint is that they have to be watched, and this section will make sure, so far as possible, that when the Bill is in operation, if it ever is in this country, the workers are going to be as effectively shackled as the Minister and the tribunal can arrange.

Mr. Coburn

I have not taken part in the debate on this Bill since it was considered on Second Reading. I objected to the principle of the Bill then, and I have taken very little interest in it since. I should like to emphasise, however, that this amendment to Section 21, and the explanations of the Minister, make the position more confused. The mere fact that the Minister found it necessary to introduce this amendment is clear proof that the section originally was not to his satisfaction. I have a vivid recollection of certain words that occurred in, I think, the Shops (Conditions of Employment) Act and, when that measure was being considered, if a Deputy asked whether or not a bread-cart was a shop, he would be laughed at, yet the judges on circuit and some judges of the High Court expressed different opinions on the point whether or not a bread-cart was a shop. It involved great expense and meant considerable inconvenience to the people engaged in that particular business.

This word "class" may give rise to similar differences of opinion. I am ruled more by common sense than by Acts of Parliament. I am ruled more by the old saying that the best form of education is observation, and my common sense tells me that there can be great difference of opinion as to the real meaning of the word "class". I know perfectly well that until this Bill is in operation neither the Minister nor any member of the House can give a proper definition of the word "class". It has been alluded to by Deputy Childers because, under certain sections, before members of a union can appear as a class they must fulfil certain conditions. Possibly many of those unions that come under the heading of a class will be wiped out, and to that extent it may be easy to define what a class really is; but at the moment I would like to put a proposition to the Minister. Take the members of the Building Trades Federation, which is comprised of carpenters, bricklayers, plasterers, plumbers and all the other people who earn their living through building. Which of those would come within a common class? As I see it, if that trade union was set up to-morrow it is one of those particular classes that could appear before the tribunal and say that it was the class that must cater for the building trade. Unskilled labourers could come along and say that they were numerous enough to cater for carpenters and bricklayers. You would have a fine position then. How is the tribunal to put a proper interpretation on the word that is in this section? Is it to do that when all the trade unions have been wiped out, and when you have only one big union in Dublin? The big union will then possibly determine that question. I have great difficulty in knowing what is the meaning of this word "class". The tribunal might say, before it considered an application from a particular class, that a certain number belonging to that class should have red hair and some other number brown hair. This word could be interpreted in many directions. Neither the Minister's explanation nor, if I may say so without offence, the explanations given by some of the Deputies, have satisfied me as to what this word may mean. Every Deputy knows how difficult the interpretation of words in the section of an Act can become. Take the word "may" in the Dance Halls Act, and think of all the litigation it has been responsible for. It may be said that M.P's. in the old days, just as Deputies to-day, wasted their time in discussing these things, but yet judges in the High and Supreme Courts have had to spend days and days trying to come to a decision on the meaning of words in Acts of Parliament, and after all their deliberations their decisions might not be unanimous. There might be three for and two against, so that with a majority decision the position was left unsatisfactory. The discussion on this has been rather prolonged, but after it all I am still not convinced that a proper definition of the word "class" has been given to the House.

Mr. Norton

I want to make the point that I endeavoured to make on an earlier section. It seems to me that the Minister has been particularly clumsy in the drafting of this amendment because it is phrased in such a way as to cause every possible kind of doubt. We are giving the tribunal wide powers to decide what is a class for the purpose of trade union organisation in the country. I can foresee considerable litigation arising out of the clumsy way in which an attempt is being made in this amendment to define that word.

The tribunal may decide, for instance, in respect of the Province of Connacht, that certain people organised in one of the counties there are a class for the purposes of this section, but, in the case of Munster, it may decide that it takes all that type of worker in the whole province to be a class. In regard to Leinster, the tribunal may give one meaning to "class" in respect to Dublin City, another in respect to the County Dublin, and yet another in respect to the Province of Leinster as a whole. I am not concerned with whether the Minister does this efficiently or not, but if he wants to do it efficiently, he ought not to leave this in its present unsatisfactory position.

Deputy Corry insists on referring to the memoranda which were prepared by members of the special Trade Union Congress. The position in that connection was that 12 people were constituted a commission by the Trade Union Congress to report whether a reorganisation in the trade union movement was necessary. Of the 12 members appointed, 11 signed reports. Five signed one memorandum, five signed another, and one signed another. Memorandum I, which the Minister quoted from, had not the support of the majority of the members of that commission. I, personally, disagreed with the reorientation of the trade union movement as envisaged in Memorandum I, because I felt that the folk who signed it were getting too far ahead of the procession, and that when you do that you very often lose your procession. I felt on that particular occasion that they were taking big steps that other folk were not prepared to take. I felt that, in that way, they would get completely out of touch with the movement, and not be able to bring about the reorganisation that I desired to see. Anyway, no matter what may be said against Memorandum I, there was obviously some foresight in it which is not visible in this Bill. When the authors of Memorandum I decided on a reorganisation of the trade union movement, they suggested, for instance, the creation of industrial organisations. They suggested a type of organisation under which the entire trade union movement would be grouped into ten groupings, but they did not go on to define "class" for the purpose of getting into those groups. They simply took the unions which were already there in certain occupations, and said the members of these unions were to amalgamate. They did not go out on the foolish expedition that we are starting on in this amendment, to define in this vague way what "class" is for the purpose of its grouping a particular organisation. It found a certain number of unions and, having examined their structure, said they were to be put into different categories, each category then to be amalgamated. We are not doing that. We are creating here the muddiest possible definition of what "class" is. It will be possible under this for the tribunal to give one definition of "class" for Dublin, and another for Cork and Waterford, with dissimilar features about "class" generally.

I object to the tribunal being given power, without any check over it, to do that. I object in particular to the tribunal getting power to decide a matter of that kind without first indicating to it the general principles which Parliament thinks it ought to follow. We are not giving the tribunal any directions on this matter at all. We are merely putting in a vague definition of class so that the tribunal will have all the power it wishes to exercise in coming to any judgment it likes as to what in its opinion constitutes a class. This, in my opinion, is a very bad amendment. I venture to say that if, arising out of this legislation, there is ever an appeal to the courts, the interpretation of this particular amendment is one on which a good deal of money, and a good deal of energy, will be needlessly expended.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided :Tá, 57; Níl, 31.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Bourke, Dan.
• Brady, Brain.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Buckley, Seán.
• Carty, Frank.
• Childers, Erskine H.
• Crowley, Fred Hugh.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Flynn, John.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Fogarty, Patrick J.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hogan, Daniel.
• Keane, John J.
• Kelly, James P.
• Kelly, Thomas.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick J.
• Lynch, James B.
• McCann, John.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Meaney, Cornelius.
• Moran, Michael.
• 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.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
• Coburn, James.
• Corish, Richard.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Costello, John A.
• Daly, Patrick.
• Davin, William.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Esmonde John L.
• Everett, James.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Hickey, James.
• Hurley, Jeremiah.
• Keating, John.
• Keyes, Michael.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Murphy, Timothy J.
• Nally, Martin.
• Norton, William.
• O'Sullivan, John M.
• Pattison, James P.
• Redmond, Bridget M.
• Reynolds, Mary.

Tellers :—Tá : Deputies Smith and Kennedy ; Níl: Deputies Keyes and Hickey.

Amendment declared carried.

Question proposed : "That Section 21, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Norton

This section opens with the statement:—

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 do certain things.

The phrase "by a trade union which claims to have organised a majority of workmen" seems to me very peculiar, because nowhere in the section or in the Bill is any provision made for testing the claim of an organisation that it has in fact organised a majority of the workers. It is possible presumably under this section for a trade union to make an application to the tribunal, basing its application solely on the grounds that it claims to represent the majority of the workmen in that particular class. There is no machinery in the section or in the Bill by which its claim in that respect can be tested. Therefore, I take it that it is possible for an organisation to submit an application based upon that claim, without having previously furnished any evidence to the tribunal or having obtained a certificate from anybody, that it does in fact represent the majority of the workers of the particular class in the organisation, of which it seeks to have a monopoly. I should like if the Minister would clear up that aspect of the matter, and say whether he has ever thought of conceiving some type of machinery by which a test of that kind might be applied. In subsection (2) of Section 21 it is provided that:—

Before granting under this section a determination that a particular trade union shall alone have the right to organise workmen of a particular class, the tribunal may, if it thinks proper, require such trade union to satisfy the tribunal that the grant of such determination will not affect adversely any rights or claims to benefits enjoyed for the time being by any of such workmen as members of a trade union.

The authors of this Bill apparently felt that, before granting a determination, the trade union which made the application should satisfy the tribunal that the making of a determination would not adversely affect the claims of members of that union or another union to certain types of benefit in which they had perhaps accrued vested interests, but, instead of putting that obligation definitely on the tribunal, the words used in the section are that "the tribunal may, if it thinks proper, require such trade union" to produce evidence. If it is desirable that there should be no adverse effects upon the rights of trade unionists to benefits which they had previously enjoyed, surely it is desirable that there should be a definite obligation put upon the tribunal to require the trade union to show, before getting a determination, that in fact the making of the determination would not adversely affect the welfare of other trade unions over which the applicant trade union was seeking to secure a monopoly. I think the Minister might tell us why he has felt it desirable to give this tribunal a discretion in the matter of making that requirement. He might tell us why there is not a definite obligation on the tribunal to ensure that that test is imposed on the trade union and satisfied by the trade union.

Mr. D. Morrissey

On the Second Reading of this Bill I described it as a dangerous Bill, a Bill which in my opinion was bound to bring not peace in industry or peace in the trade union movement itself, but was bound to bring trouble in both. Of all the dangerous sections of the Bill from that point of view this section now before the House is the most dangerous. We are told that the object of the Bill is to prevent inter-union disputes, to secure peace and harmony amongst trade unions, and in that way to secure peace and harmony in industry in the country. This section, if it were deliberately framed for the purpose, could not be more effective in setting trade unions at each other's throats. A union may go before the tribunal and ask for a determination that it is the only union which has the right to organise certain classes of workers. Let me give an example. The dockers or the port workers here in the City of Dublin are organised, I think, in four different unions—the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union, the Amalgamated Transport and General Workers' Union, the Workers' Union of Ireland, and the Seamen and Port Workers' Union. I do not know which of the four unions has the majority of the dockers or the port workers, and for the purposes of my argument it does not matter, but one of them goes before this tribunal and gets a determination that it, or if you like, two of them, are the only unions that have the right to organise the dockers. Does anyone in his senses who knows anything about conditions in this country, who knows anything about trade union or labour conditions, think that is going to lead to harmony?

Does not anybody who knows anything whatever about actual conditions know that it is going to lead to an immediate fight? I have consistently opposed this Bill for one reason —because I am absolutely convinced that it is going to bring about more turmoil, more disunity and more bitterness in the trade union movement, and, as a consequence, in the industrial organisation of the country, than was ever thought of by the Minister. It could have no other effect.

The Minister, of course, is assuming, and other members of the House, including Deputy Childers, have assumed with him, that whatever inter-union rivalries there were, whatever disputes were caused and continue as a result of inter-union rivalry, were caused exclusively by the small unions. That is not all in accordance with the facts, as anybody who has any knowledge whatever of the trade union world knows; but what the Minister is going to do by that deposit system and by this section is to set up two large armies in this country. I can see the position which will arise. I can see the reason behind the Bill. I am not accusing the Minister of being responsible for this, but I can see, lined up on one side, the people outside who are sponsoring this Bill quietly if not vocally, who are strongly behind the Bill, who want the Bill. I can see those men on one side. I can see every union that is going to be wiped out when this Bill becomes law, and many members of other unions, rallying behind another trade union leader. Then we have all the elements for a first class battle. The Minister and employers, either inside this House or outside it, who are foolish enough to think that this Bill—and particularly the operations of this section—is going to bring peace or harmony are living in a fool's paradise. By passing this section they are not only doing a grave injustice to the vast majority of the workers of this country, but a grave injustice to the country itself. We have been accused of deliberate obstruction and of delaying time. As far as I am concerned. I deny that absolutely. We tried in the most reasonable way possible to help matters in the beginning by suggesting reasoned amendments on the Second Stage of the Bill. By every means at our disposal within the orders of the House we have tried to convince the Minister that he was on the wrong road. We have tried, to the best of our ability, to make the Bill less dangerous, but the Minister has refused to listen to reason. If the House passes this section of the Bill it will lead not to unity but to disunity, not to peace but to discord, and instead of wiping out whatever bitterness and hatreds that may exist, you are going to accentuate them and bring on, not only a battle, but a series of battles and fights—not of worker against employer, but of trade union against trade union and worker against worker. That is a state of affairs that would be deplorable in any circumstances, but that it should occur in the present period of emergency is something that we should shudder at.

Unfortunately, this Bill has been introduced by a Minister who is absolutely wedded to it, who will not listen to reason or accept suggestions from anybody, and who, apparently, has made up his mind that those who do not see eye to eye with him are dishonest in their views. It is because some of us see what the reactions to this Bill are going to be, because we see, or foresee, if you like, the consequences that will flow from the passage of this Bill, that we have contested every section of the Bill. It is many years since a Bill was contested in this House in the way in which this Bill has been contested, and that, in itself, should give the Minister cause to think. Why have members of this House adopted that attitude on this Bill and, particularly, on this section? It is because we are afraid of it and of its consequences and because we see clearly— far more clearly than the Minister does, apparently—that, far from bringing the peace that he expects the Bill will bring, it is going to bring turmoil and strife.

Mr. MacEntee

One would think— and in saying this I do not wish to cast any reflection on the sincerity of the Deputy who has just spoken—one would think, from what he said, that hitherto all had been peace and harmony in the Irish trade union movement.

Mr. D. Morrissey

I never said that.

Mr. MacEntee

I am saying that it is only on that hypothesis that there could be any validity in the arguments submitted by the Deputy to the House. This, however, is not a case where we find co-operation, good feeling and harmony prevailing among trade unions or where we are now, deliberately and without forethought, endeavouring to disturb it. On the contrary, we find a position in the Irish trade union movement which is deplored by every member of that movement and which is deplored by the organisation which can speak for the movement as a whole. That is admitted. I have here the Forty-first Annual Report of the Irish Trade Union Congress. It is the report for 1934-35, and in paragraph 151 of that report the responsible executive, controlling this congress of the trade union movement in Ireland, which is the congress to which not only our Irish trade unions are affiliated but to which other trade unions, having their headquarters in Great Britain, are affiliated, we find this considered and deliberate expression of opinion as to the condition of affairs which then existed and which still exists in the Irish trade union movement. I am quoting from paragraph 151 of the report to which I have referred, which is as follows:—

"In the opinion of the National Executive the time has arrived when a more orderly state of affairs should be called into existence among the existing trade unions to prevent any further disruption into warring competitive sections. Disintegration must lead to demoralisation and invite an attack by the employers on wages and conditions of employment.

"The National Executive feel a duty devolves on them to call attention to the disintegrating circumstances which are manifesting themselves in the trade union movement throughout the country leading to an absence of harmony and unity, and, hence, they are anxious to promote understandings where similar and competitive unions exist."

They go on then to recommend that a body should be set up under the aegis of the Irish Trade Union Congress itself which should consider, among other matters, the action which should be taken "in relation to the inception of a new union or member thereof within the industry whose existence is, or is calculated to injure or prejudice an existing recognised union". The report then goes on to say:

"The National Executive are very definitely of the opinion that some type of machinery of the above character is essential to bring into existence those ordered conditions of movement so vitally necessary to the successful prosecution of advances and resistance to attacks in the industrial struggle; the advantage of expert industrial group advice will bring co-ordination to the councils of the several union executives enabling them to present to the united industrially organised employers a solid unified union front.

The prevention of the rise of undisciplined so-called trade unions at the instigation of every individual who considers he has a grievance against an existing union will not be the least useful effect of the machinery proposed above."

In consequence of that, the National Executive of the Irish Trade Union Congress called a special conference on the 25th April, 1936, and the Commission of Inquiry, which has been referred to in the course of the discussions on this Bill, was set up, and in confirming the action of the special conference in setting up that Commission of Inquiry, the National Executive of the Irish Trade Union Congress, in their report for 1935-36, made the following comments:

"The trade union movement has now secured an important and responsible position in the economic life of the country—a position which tends to develop in responsibility yearly."

That is a statement in which I concur without any reservation. The National Executive then goes on to say:

"A complete stocktaking is desirable and the decision of the special conference is a happy indication that newer and better methods are required, and that when they are promulgated as a result of the inquiries of the commission, they will secure endorsement, and be translated as soon as possible into concrete realisation. If this work is carried through successfully, we shall have much for which to be thankful; we shall have lightened our burden when we have left behind us those corroding domestic quarrels which vitiate our energies and dissipate our means, and with confidence in our new strength we shall reach much higher attainments than those that have already crowned our efforts."

The evidence, the testimony, of the National Executive of the Irish Trade Union Congress was confirmed by the proceedings of the Commission of Inquiry. One of the memoranda, or as in Parliamentary parlance we would, perhaps, more properly describe it, one of the reports which emanated from this Commission of Inquiry stated:—

"Furthermore, it must be remembered that the internecine quarrelling of the trade unions weakens them, not alone physically, but it also vitiates them morally. This great evil can never be eradicated while the organic existence of the trade unions is confined to and dictated by the accidental divisions of trade, commerce or occupation."

I have quoted that simply to show, because I think it does show, that even in the year 1938-39 the condition of affairs which was described in the 42nd Report of the Trade Union Congress still persisted. There is a further confirmation of its existence to be found in the other memoranda or reports which emanated from that commission. We have, for instance, the report of the leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Norton himself, who stated:—

"I would welcome a reorganisation of the unions with a view to avoiding the wasteful overlapping and baneful jealousy and rivalry which exist to-day."

Mr. Davin

Read the whole of it.

Mr. MacEntee

I have quoted the passage which substantiates my statement that there is not and has not been for a considerable number of years that peace and harmony which is the only logical basis for the argument which Deputy Morrissey addressed to the House. He has proceeded, I think, on the assumption that this tribunal would have a disturbing influence on the trade union movement; that it would intensify those animosities; that it would increase the bitternesses, and that it would promote the internecine strife which experienced members of the trade union movement have themselves admitted to exist already.

But what was the remedy for this deplorable condition of affairs which responsible trade unionists themselves recommended? What was the recommendation in the memorandum, which, I think, was signed by five persons who were representatives of trade unions having their headquarters in this country, trade unions which might be concisely and popularly described as Irish trade unions on the Commission of Inquiry? Those gentlemen, all of them holding responsible positions in the trade union movement, all of them with national records of which any of us might be proud, recommended:—

"There shall be established by the National Executive an Industrial Court of seven members, of which three shall form a court at any time.

"In appointing the court the National Executive shall, as far as possible, select only members who, by their training, previous experience and general ability, are considered suitable to perform the duties with which the court may be charged.

"It shall be the duty of the court to deal with and adjudicate in matters connected with inter-union disputes.

"Where two or more unions cater for similar groups of workers in the same concern, no union shall present a demand regarding rates of pay, hours of duty or conditions of service without first informing the other unions directly affected."

I am not quoting this verbatim; I am quoting extracts from it.

"The Industrial Court shall not order any union to call its members out on strike although it may make a recommendation to that effect. It may decide that a demand made by a particular union in an industry in which other unions are involved is anreasonable or impracticable and recommend that no strike in support of such demand should take place.

"Where disputes in connection with a question of demarcation arise, no general stoppage of work may take place until after discussion between the unions concerned and, failing agreement, submission of the question in issue to the Industrial Court. The finding of the court shall be binding on all concerned.

"Complaints regarding ‘poaching' or ‘transference of members' shall, in the first instance, be dealt with between the unions concerned, and, failing agreement, submitted for the consideration of the court. The acceptance of members shall remain in abeyance until the court has issued its decision. In arriving at a decision the court shall have regard to all the circumstances, and particularly to the ability of the respective unions to cater effectively for the workers in question.

"The court may decide that, on and from a given date, particular groups of workers in concerns where competition between unions exists shall be recruited (as far as new members are concerned) only by a particular union or unions, always having regard to the ability of the selected union or unions to cater effectively for the workers involved.

"Affiliated unions for which special services are performed by the court shall be charged such fees for same as may be fixed by the court, with the approval of the National Executive.

"The National Executive, with the approval of Congress, shall prescribe the penalties, including cancellation of affiliation, which may be imposed for failure to abide by or give effect to decisions or findings of the court.

"Where a trade dispute, either actual or prospective, is likely to affect directly or indirectly a union or unions primarly involved in such dispute, the Industrial Court may call for a statement of all the facts and order or recommend such action as may be considered necessary in the circumstances, subject to the provisions of section (f)."

I have cited all the matters which the memorandum recommended should be dealt with by the Industrial Court which it suggested should be set up by the Executive of the Irish Trade Union Congress. I think I have quoted sufficient to suggest that this was a practical, patriotic, and statesmanlike document. In that connection I should like to emphasise that among the other matters which it was specifically recommended this court should deal with was this problem of the organisation of workers in overlapping unions, and that the report recommended that the court, in relation to that problem, should be given power to decide that.

"...on and from a given date, particular groups of workers in concerns where competition between unions existed shall be recruited (as far as new members are concerned), only by a particular union or unions, always having regard to the ability of the selected union or unions to cater effectively for the workers involved."

That is precisely what is proposed in Section 21 of the Bill. We are striving to give effect to a recommendation which was made in a report submitted to the Irish Trade Union Congress by the representatives of the Irish trade unions.

Mr. D. Morrissey

And rejected by that congress.

Mr. MacEntee

I am glad that the Deputy reminded me—in fact, this memorandum was not turned down by the congress. But the congress was jockeyed by the vested interests which are concerned to thwart and defeat any attempt to reorganise the Irish trade union movement into a position where the memorandum was never submitted to a vote of the special conference called to consider the report of the Commission of Inquiry.

Mr. Norton

That is not true. I was a delegate at that conference, and what the Minister has said is not true; it is a misrepresentation of the facts.

Mr. MacEntee

If any person wishes to adjudicate as between the veracity of my statement and the veracity of Deputy Norton's statement——

Mr. Keyes

On a point of order, is it permissible for the Minister to make statements without producing authority for them, and particularly when they are definitely challenged as not being true? The Minister cannot support his statements.

Mr. MacEntee

If any person wishes to decide between the veracity of my statement and the veracity of Deputy Norton's statement, he will have an opportunity, because I propose to table the Report of the Trade Union Conference, 1939, with terms of reference and memoranda of the Commission of Inquiry. That report will be found in the Library, and the proceedings at that conference can be studied by every member of the House. I am certain that when Deputies consider the proceedings, and realise how this earnest and sincere attempt to cure the abuses which exist within the Irish trade union movement was defeated, they will give short shrift to those who have taken up an obstructive and vexatious attitude towards this Bill.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Now we are getting a lot of information that was held back on the earlier stages of the Bill. The cat is coming out of the bag now.

Mr. Keyes

What the Minister has said just now does not alter the fact that he has made a misstatement. His interpretation of certain matters is another thing.

Mr. MacEntee

I have said, and I stand over it, that the special conference called by the Irish Trade Union Congress to consider the report of the Commission of Inquiry or the memoranda they supplied was jockeyed into a position in which it was denied the opportunity to vote on Memorandum No. I. Since my veracity has been challenged in this matter, perhaps the Chair will allow me to put on the records of the House evidence from this report?

Mr. D. Morrissey

I take it other members of the House will be allowed, if necessary, to quote as extensively from other relevant documents?

Mr. MacEntee

Certainly. It is obvious there are certain Deputies interested in keeping facts from the House, because I am being interrupted——

Mr. Norton

That is not true. The only person suppressing facts is the Minister. Tell the truth. We do not mind what evidence you give if it is truthful.

Mr. Davin

The Minister used the name of the censor under false pretences.

Mr. MacEntee

At the conference a resolution was proposed by a certain Mr. John Marchbank, who does not live in this country; I think he is general secretary of a union which has its headquarters in Great Britain. He came over specially for this conference. I think Mr. John Marchbank is very well known to at least two Deputies in this House.

Mr. Keyes

And respected.

Mr. MacEntee

That may be. He certainly did your work well. Whether he did a good day's work for this country or not is another matter.

Mr. Norton

He did as good a day's work as ever your friend Maffey did.

Mr. MacEntee

That may be; he might even do better work than the accredited representative of another country in this country. Anyway, Mr. Marchbank proposed a resolution and a card vote was taken. For Mr. Marchbank's resolution there were 85,211 votes cast, and against the resolution there were 70,836 votes cast. That is to say, there were 21 unions for the motion and 18 against. Here is an extract from the official report of the proceedings of this special conference:—

"Chairman: I declare the motion carried.

"Mr. W. J. Whelan (D.T.P.S.): As a further resolution I move: That the principle of amalgamation or grouping as set out in Memorandum I be approved by this conference.

"Chairman: I cannot accept that.

"Mr. W. O'Brien: You gave me an undertaking that such a motion would be taken."

There is an echo of an historic controversy in what follows:—

"Chairman: The vote was between Document No. 1 and 2."

Mr. Davin

That is certainly historic.

Mr. Norton

Perhaps the Minister could bring in a few formulas now?

Mr. MacEntee

Mr. O'Brien's rejoinder to that was "No", and the report proceeds:—

"Chairman: I gave the assurance that the vote would be between Memorandum I and II. The vote we took was the substitution of one document for another. The proposal was that we should approve of the proposals set out in Memorandum II to the extent that they referred to Item (1) of the terms of reference. My interpretation is that Document No. 2 is substituted for No. 1 to the extent set out in the resolution.

"Mr. O'Brien: I want to state definitely that I only took part in the vote on the distinct understanding that there would be a second vote on Memorandum I.

"Chairman: The motion substituting one document for another was voted on.

"Mr. O'Brien: As a protest against your ruling, I withdraw from this meeting.

"Mr. O'Brien then left the hall accompanied by some other delegates."

Mr. Marchbank having asserted the control of the English trade unions over this special conference of the Irish trade union movement, then, Sir, no less than four other resolutions from this conference were adopted.

Mr. Norton

With the support of Irish unions in some cases.

Mr. MacEntee

With the support of all the vested interests that have been battening on the Irish trade unionists, with the support of all those people who have been concerned in this internecine strife, and who have been the source of the baneful jealousies which, Deputy Norton has admitted, do exist. The English trade unions with, as I have said, the vested interests which have been battening upon the Irish trade union movement, succeeded in defeating this attempt on the part of the Irish trade union movement to cure abuses.

Mr. D. Morrissey

The Minister has them in this Bill.

Mr. Norton

He is recognising them now.

Mr. Davin

Would the Minister say that in Rathmines?

Mr. MacEntee

I would say it not merely in Rathmines but in the Deputy's constituency.

Mr. Keyes

The Minister said some nice things in that constituency before.

Mr. MacEntee

I have indicated that these abuses are generally admitted to exist within the Irish trade union movement. I have told the House of the recommendations which the Irish trade unions made as to the method by which these abuses might be remedied. Now, there might have been some difference of opinion in the Irish trade union movement, and at this special conference, as to the extent of the reorganisation which was necessary if the abuses were to be cured, but there was no difference of opinion as to what steps were necessary to deal with this question of overlapping and internecine jealousy: there was no difference of opinion that it was essential, if these abuses were to be remedied, that some sort of a tribunal should be set up. Even the English trade unions, who submitted Memorandum No. II, indicated agreement with the proposal contained in Memorandum No. I, covering item 2—that is the provision of arbitration machinery for inter-union disputes, and even Deputy Norton, whose report is a splendid exhibition of political tight-rope walking, was constrained to say that he was in general agreement with the recommendation on the subject of machinery for the settlement of inter-union disputes. He said:—

"These disputes, where they result in strikes in which wages and working conditions are not at issue, do serious damage to the trade union movement."

I suppose, in view of that statement ——

Mr. Cosgrave

A very sensible statement.

Mr. MacEntee

I agree.

Mr. Cosgrave

We did not hear about the resolution that the Minister was speaking about. He said there was a resolution, but did not tell us what it was.

Mr. MacEntee

The resolution was, in fact, to throw over Memorandum I.

Mr. Keyes

What was that?

Mr. MacEntee

I prefer to concentrate upon this question of the tribunal. I have indicated that even Deputy Norton was constrained to agree with the recommendation that machinery for the settlement of inter-union disputes should be established, and he went on to add—pointing the moral to adorn the tale:

"These disputes when they result in strikes in which wages and working conditions are not at issue do serious damage to the trade union movement."

I presume, in view of that statement, that Deputy Norton will not be prepared to challenge my assertion that in fact inter-union disputes arising not out of questions of wages or conditions of employment have taken place and resulted in strikes which have seriously dislocated some of the major industries of this country. But, in any event, we have here this position that, following these attempts of the Irish trade union movement to set its house in order, following the universal admission that inter-union disputes do grave and serious damage, not only to the trade union movement but to the country as a whole, the attempt to secure that reorganisation was defeated by the English trade unions, headed by the big guns or big lions or big noises, or whatever you like to call them, the brass hats, who came over here to ensure that the Irish trade union movement would continue to be organised as they wanted it. Because of the fact that they succeeded in thwarting what I have described as the patriotic efforts of honest Irishmen concerned for the welfare of their country and for the welfare of their class to secure this reorganisation, we find that the trade union movement is to-day without this tribunal, or a tribunal of any kind, which they all admit to be necessary if peace and harmony are eventually to be brought about inside the movement. I have the responsibility on me of trying to secure peace and harmony in industry in this country.

Mr. Davin

The Minister will want all his artillery for that.

Mr. MacEntee

I have found, in the short period in which I have been Minister for Industry and Commerce, that this inter-union strife is a frequent source of grave danger to our whole industrial economy. Since the trade union movement has shown itself unwilling to tackle this problem, I am constrained, by a sence of my responsibility to Parliament and to the country as a whole, to provide a tribunal which will do as the Irish report submitted to the special conference suggested:—

"That on and from a given date particular groups of workers in concerns where competition between unions exists shall be recruited (as far as new members are concerned) only by a particular union or unions, always having regard to the ability of the selected union or unions to cater effectively for the workers involved."

I am proposing here to set up a tribunal which will be, I think, a fair tribunal, a judicial tribunal, a tribunal representing all the interests involved, to allow any authorised trade union, and no other interest or party which claims to present the demands of Irish workers in relation to the fixing of wages and conditions of employment, to apply to it for a determination that, if necessary, "on and from a given date" that particular trade union will be entitled to organise the workers in a particular class and in, perhaps, a particular area in this country. Because the Irish trade union movement has failed to do it itself, I am giving effect to this constructive proposal which was submitted to the special conference of the Irish Trade Union Congress.

Now, there has been a suggestion here that in some way or other I am legalising the English trade unions under this Bill. Well, I have no apology to make for the action which I am asking the House to take in relation to these particular trade unions. I have no apology to make to the House, because what I am doing is to bring these trade unions, with headquarters outside this country, within the ambit of our law. At the present moment, these trade unions are over and above our law; these trade unions are outside our law; these trade unions, some of them, have been responsible for strikes and disputes, not arising upon rates of wages or conditions of employment, but upon the right of an Irish tradesman to secure employment in his own city at his own trade.

Mr. Davin

They held up the munition trains.

Mr. MacEntee

They did not hold them up—Irishmen in them did. I am speaking of what has happened in this country in recent years. Not so very long ago, three or four years ago, a dispute arose in a certain Irish city as to whether an Irishman, a carpenter, trying to get a job, would be employed on a certain contract, if he belonged to an Irish trade union. The contract happened to be work of military importance—a contract to provide accommodation which would be of great value to this country in the circumstances in which we find ourselves now. This dispute dragged on and at last, at the request of the Department of Defence, the Department of Industry and Commerce intervened and ultimately a court of inquiry was set up. The terms of reference of this court were the consideration of the causes and circumstances of the trade dispute between the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers and the Irish National Union of Woodworkers, in respect of the employment of certain persons in Cork and any matters connected therewith or relevant thereto. It is perhaps not without significance that the leader of this agitation in Dublin against the Trade Union Bill is also a member of the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers, so that we had Mr. Marchbank at the special conference and we have Deputy Keyes and Deputy Davin of the National Union of Railwaymen in the House.

Mr. Davin

The Minister has made a mis-statement. I am not a member of the National Union of Railwaymen.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy was.

Mr. Davin

Will the Minister withdraw that statement or prove it? He has made a mis-statement. I am not a member of the National Union of Railwaymen.

Mr. MacEntee

Was the Deputy ever a member?

Mr. Davin

Does the Minister accept my statement?

Mr. MacEntee

Certainly.

Mr. Davin

I would not be ashamed to say so, if I were.

Mr. MacEntee

I accept it without reservation, if the Deputy is not now——

Mr. Keyes

That is not an acceptance.

Mr. Davin

I have been a member of the Railway Clerks' Association for 35 years and I am not going to apologise for it. The Minister's statement shows the kind of information he has.

Mr. MacEntee

Mr. Walkley, I think, also——

Mr. Norton

The Minister wants another trade union adviser. The one he has might be misleading him.

Mr. Davin

I have informed this intelligent Minister that I was not a member of the union of which he said I was a member, and I think he should finish at that.

Mr. MacEntee

I am prepared to accept that statement, but it is not without pertinence to the issue we are now discussing to remark that the Railway Clerks' Association also was one of the joint authors of Memorandum No. 2, the report of the English trade unions. But let me continue.

Mr. Norton

Why do you not intern them all? Go to war with Britain over them and then go to Mallow when the war is on.

Mr. MacEntee

The President of the Dublin Trades Council and of what is known as the Council of Action, which has been formenting the agitation in Dublin against this Bill, is also a member of the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers. I was saying that this dispute which arose in Cork as to the rights of an Irish tradesman to work at his occupation in the City of Cork was referred to a court of inquiry.

Mr. Hickey

I should like to see the Minister for Supplies here now.

Mr. Meaney

The Minister should be allowed to make his speech.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Why did the Deputy write a letter to the papers?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

These personal interchanges should be stopped while the Minister is speaking.

Mr. MacEntee

This court of inquiry recommended for an immediate settlement of the dispute that the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers and the National Federation of Building Trade Operatives should acknowledge the right of their fellow-tradesmen in the Irish National Union of Woodworkers to work with them within the Cork area, and added that "since the latter are trade unionists whose competence is admitted, there should be no insuperable difficulty in granting the recognition recommended". The court further added that the problem of the multiplication of trade unions might be immediately considered by a body appointed for the purpose. The report of this court of inquiry was tabled on 14th November, 1937. On 10th November, 1937, a copy of the report was sent to the disputant parties, and, in a covering letter, the Minister for Industry and Commerce urged that the recommendations of the court should be accepted and stated that he would be glad to be so informed. On the 18th November, the National Union of Woodworkers, the Irish union, wrote accepting the report. Naturally they would, since the report recommended that an Irish carpenter should be allowed to work at his trade in the City of Cork, that a member of an Irish trade union——

Mr. Norton

And now the Irish union will be wiped out under the Bill.

Mr. MacEntee

—— should be allowed to work at his trade in the City of Cork. On 13th November, the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers, the English union, wrote acknowledging receipt of the letter of 10th idem, stating that the recommendations would have the consideration of the Executive Council and that its decision would be sent in due course.

Mr. Cosgrave

Very like a Minister's reply.

Mr. MacEntee

No satisfactory communication was forthcoming, and eventually the Minister wrote a letter stating that he could not accept certain suggestions made by the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers, since he was satisfied that the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers were the prime movers in the dispute and were the cause of its continuance. On 24th December, 1937, the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers sent back a reply, which I can only describe as impertinent, but which I propose to read to the House, in order that not merely the House but Irish trade unionists and the country in general may understand the attitude towards an Irish Government which lies behind this agitation against the present Bill. The letter is addressed from the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers, 131 Wilmslow Road, Withington, Manchester, and dated 24th December, 1937. It is addressed to the Secretary, Department of Industry and Commerce, Upper Merrion Street, and reads:—

"Sir, I have to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 22nd December, and to state with all due respect to the findings of the arbitrator that my Executive Council is not prepared to accept that our society is responsible for the position at Cork,"

—that society, I presume, from the fact that it appeared before the court, had accepted the jurisdiction of the court—

"and it again affirms that the dispute is between the unions affiliated to the Cork branch of the Irish National Federation of Building Trades Operatives and the Cork employers, and the Minister for Industry must seek a solution with the bodies referred to.

I would remind the Minister of Industry that my executive council did not receive direct from your Department notice of the inquiry to be held at Cork, neither was it asked as an executive council representing the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers to send representatives to the inquiry. Therefore, it (my council) resents the attempts of the Minister of Industry to compel it, by threat, to accept the findings of an arbitrator with whom it does not agree, and at which inquiry it was not invited to be represented.

The Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers represents all its members irrespective as to the countries (or the Governments of those countries) in which they may be employed, and it will continue so to act, and protect and safeguard the interests of its members as it thinks best, and according to the general rules of our organisation.

If, as stated, the Minister of Industry will have to take steps to deal with the position, then it may also be necessary for this society to take steps, through the British trade union movement——"

—we have them all united here in this country against this Bill, the National Union of Railwaymen, the Railway Clerks' Association, the Amalgamated Woodworkers' Association, and all the rest of them.

Mr. Davin

Read the letter.

Mr. MacEntee

The letter continues:—

"If, as stated, the Minister of Industry will have to take steps to deal with the position, then it may also be necessary for this society to take steps, through the British Trade Union movement, to see that a trade union has the right, in whichever country its members may be employed to protect their interests against any other union that may seek to destroy it simply because its headquarters are not in a particular country."

Now, mark what was the issue referred to this particular Court of Inquiry—that an Irish carpenter, a member of an Irish union, should be allowed to work on a Government job in the City of Cork, and that is misrepresented in the form which I have read to the House.

Mr. Hickey

Would the Bill settle that?

Mr. Davin

On a point of order. Is is right that the Minister should repeat this? He has read parts of this letter two or three times. Can he not read the letter right through?

Mr. MacEntee

The letter goes on to say:—

"It is the considered opinion of my Executive Council that the Irish National Union of Woodworkers was formed with the deliberate intention of preventing this society from continuing to operate in the Irish Free State, and it is our Irish Free State membership that has refused to leave the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers to join up with the Irish National Union of Woodworkers. My society will not, and has never, prevented any of its members in any country from forming a union limited to that country, but if such union is to be formed it must not be brought about by force by outside bodies, but must be by the free will of the members concerned."

Mark this concluding paragraph:

"My society will not, and has never prevented any of its members in any country from forming a union limited to that country..."

But, if Irish carpenters did dare to form an Irish union of carpenters in this country, the only thing that this British society will do will be to ensure that the Irishmen do not get a job in the City of Cork.

Mr. Norton

What is the nationality of the people in Cork?

Mr. MacEntee

I have read that letter, and I have read it to show the attitude which the English trade unions have, up to this, been free to take in regard to the employment of Irishmen in their own country. I have read that letter because a question was raised as to what I was doing in this Bill in relation to the English trade unions. I am not depriving any Irishman of his right to belong to a trade union with its headquarters in Great Britain if he has belonged to that trade union and wishes to continue in membership. But what I am doing is this, and it is an important step and ought to be remembered: I am, for the first time since the ending of the Act of Union in this country, bringing the British trade unions within the ambit of Irish law. If they wish to continue in this country, they will henceforward have to conform to our laws in the manner prescribed in this Bill——

Mr. D. Morrissey

You are also wiping out the Irish trade unions.

Mr. MacEntee

——and that is something which has not been done in this country before. I think when I have done that, it will be impossible for any foreign union to defy the findings of an Irish Court of Inquiry, to defy a Minister of an Irish Government, to defy the State as a whole in the manner in which the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers did defy it in the letter which I have read.

Mr. Cosgrave

Will the Minister develop that point?

Mr. MacEntee

I am perfectly certain that if an Irish Union comes before this tribunal, and if it is in a position to show that it can satisfactorily cater for Irish workers, that fact will be taken into consideration.

Mr. Norton

How do you know?

Mr. MacEntee

Because I am putting Irishmen who are free Irishmen on the tribunal, and not men who are tied to vested interests in this country.

Mr. Murphy

Who are they?

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy is one of the most intelligent members of this House——

Mr. Murphy

Thanks very much.

Mr. MacEntee

——and I am perfectly certain that he can answer that question of his very fully and very precisely. We have heard a great deal of what the proposals contained in this Bill are going to do in relation to the Irish trade union movement. It cannot do anything worse than has already been done by certain trade unions operating in this country. It certainly will not deny to an Irishman the right to work at his own trade, perhaps in the city in which he was born, simply because he happened to be a member of a trade union registered under the Acts of this country.

Mr. Cosgrave

How does the Bill remedy that situation?

Mr. MacEntee

The Bill remedies that situation by setting up machinery similar to that which was recommended by the Irishmen who submitted a constructive report to the Irish Trade Union Congress, a report which was defeated at a special conference called to consider it, through the machinations of the English trade unions——

Mr. Norton

No such thing.

Mr. MacEntee

——and those who are upholding the position of the British trade unions in relation to this Bill.

Mr. Hickey

It does not do anything of the kind.

Mr. MacEntee

Now, I hope that when I have pointed out what is going to be the real position of British trade unions under the law of this country we shall hear nothing about this Bill putting the English trade unions in a special position. For the first time, I think, they are going to be made realise that the Government of this country is going to be supreme in this country, and that in relation to any matters occurring in this country it is the law of this country that is going to run, and not that of another country, and the sooner that fact is realised by those who are their agents in this agitation the better it will be for all concerned, whether these agents represent one English union or another. The need to secure a reorganisation, and a farreaching reorganisation, of the Irish trade union movement has been recognised by Irishmen. It has been admitted by all Irishmen that that need exists, and the purpose of this Bill is to see that that reorganisation is carried through.

Mr. Norton

The Minister started off on this Bill by telling us that he wanted to keep an open and impartial mind in respect of the trade union organisation in this country. We have just listened to, probably, one of the most desperately reckless speeches that any Minister could be guilty of in a discussion of such an important piece of legislation as this is. Every kind of deception and false argument was mobilised by the Minister in defence of this Bill.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy can put a face on himself for that.

Mr. Norton

The Deputy is quite capable of talking to Irish workers in Dublin or in any part of the country on this Bill, and I defy the Minister for Industry and Commerce to do that tomorrow in connection with this Bill.

Mr. Davin

The Minister will not even meet the Rathmines Republicans.

Mr. Norton

Let us take the case that has been so distorted by the Minister in his account of it, the case of the carpenter who, apparently, worked on some job in Cork and to whom objection was made because he was working there. By whom was the objection made? Was it by anybody in Manchester, or was it by some of the Minister's friends in Whitechapel? No; the objection was made by workers in Cork, men who were born in Cork.

Mr. MacEntee

And who wrote this letter?

Mr. Norton

The objection in this case came from Cork carpenters, working in Cork, and they objected to this man being a member of the other union whilst working on that job. If that particular carpenter was likely to lose his employment, it was not because of objections by Englishmen, Scotsmen or anybody else outside this country: he was losing it, and would lose it, by reason of an objection from his own fellow-workers.

Mr. O'Rourke

And will the Deputy stand for that?

Mr. Norton

Yes. The Minister gave the impression that this particular Irish carpenter lost his employment because of instructions issued by a union with headquarters in Great Britain. No such thing happened. He lost his employment because his own fellow-workers in Cork would not work with him. That is the position. Let us try to see what will now happen to the Cork carpenter who has lost his job. Under this section the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers can go to the tribunal and make an application to the tribunal that the members of the Irish National Union of Woodworkers should be transferred to the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers. Everybody knows that the membership of the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers is probably ten or 20 times the membership of the Irish National Union of Woodworkers. One organisation has a membership of 7,000 or 8,000 while the other organisation has a membership of only about 700 or 800. The tribunal will now decide these cases. One organisation—the organisation with headquarters across-Channel—has tens of thousands of pounds, and the putting up of a deposit of £2,000 means nothing to them, but the small union, the Irish National Union of Woodworkers, cannot raise £2,000, and what is going to happen is that the Minister, in his alleged efforts to lash the English unions into line, use his little whip and have another round with Britain, is going to see the English union registered in this country, with its £2,000 deposit in our courts at 4 per cent. interest, while the Irish union—the one that he talked about in this House so much for the purpose of getting sympathy from people who do not understand this Bill—is going to be completely wiped out overnight because of the fact that it cannot raise £2,000.

Mr. MacEntee

Not at all.

Mr. Norton

The Minister ought to know that. Certainly, Deputies sitthing behind him know it, and yet he comes in here with a speech reeking with deception, and tries to give the impression that he is standing in this crisis for the small Irish union as against the large English union. The fact of the matter is that if I were asked whether this Bill is good for the Irish union or for the English union, I would say to the Irish union: "This Bill is your death warrant." I would point out that it simply means that the large English union with tens of thousands of pounds at its disposal will transfer £2,000 of its money, which is now invested in some other trustee stock or some other institution, over to this country while we pay the interest on the money. That is being done, we are told in the name of nationalism and patriotism; that it is being done in the name—if it is not an offence to use the word—of republicanism. What is being done is that the English unions are being more strongly entrenched under our legislation than they ever were before, simply because of the fact that a sum of £2,000 means nothing to them, while the small Irish union, which came into existence in the years between 1916 and 1921, as a result of the national struggle, will be wiped out of existence.

Mr. MacEntee

But whose members will not be allowed to work.

Mr. Norton

They will not be allowed to organise now, not to speak of not being allowed to work. They must become members of the English union whom the Minister is going to "larn" under this Bill. Now, let us move to some other aspects of this matter. The Minister talked about the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers being an English organisation. It is true that they have their headquarters in England, but it is also true that they have membership in the United States, in New Zealand, in Canada, in Australia; but this much must be said: that, when you call that organisation an English union, every one of the carpenters in that union are there by their own choice. They are Irishmen, and the members of the A.S.W. who signed that Memorandum No. 2 signed it, not as Englishmen but as Irishmen, and they have just as good records in the national movement of this country as the men who signed the other thing. I do not know what trade unionist is supposed to be advising the Minister on this matter, but I can say certainly that he is getting a lot of misleading and untruthful advice on these matters. He has already been misled by the report.

Mr. MacEntee

I have the report in front of me.

Mr. Norton

I move to report progress, Sir.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until Thursday, 3rd July, at 3 p.m.