Trade Union Bill, 1941—Report Stage (and Recommittal).

I wonder if the Minister intends to recommit this Bill on Report Stage. The original Trade Union Bill consisted of 11 pages, with two additional pages giving a description of the sections. To-day we have before us nine pages of amendments to an 11 page Bill. In fact, this bunch of amendments is really a new Trade Union Bill. It would not be possible to discuss, conveniently, a Bill of this importance under the procedure laid down for Report Stage, particularly when such widespread amendments are proposed to be made.

While it is quite true that the amendments which have been circulated are printed in a more voluminous form than is usual, that is due to a desire on my part to meet a view expressed here in the House that it would be much better if, instead of moving, as is the usual practice, to delete certain words and substitute certain others, the amendments were printed in a form in which the full effect of the deletions and substitutions could be seen. That is particularly so in relation to amendments Nos. 1, 5, 6 and so on where, in fact, the sections are almost repeated verbatim, simply for the sake of making one or two changes. So that, while it is true that the amendments as printed cover nine pages, they are very largely substitute matter for the existing text, the substituted matter carrying only comparatively short and brief amendments in the text as originally printed. I do not think there is much point to be made on that. Secondly, most of these amendments are to meet views which were expressed on the Committee Stage of the Bill. I think the only matter which is really new are the amendments dealing with the appeal board. Deputy Norton will remember that he argued very strongly that there should be some appeal from this tribunal and in an effort to meet his point of view in that regard I have provided for an appeal board. There has been a change too in relation to the composition of the tribunal, but that is really a change which, I think, gives effect to an amendment which was put down by the Labour Party and not moved. No doubt he would not be very critical of that particular change. Therefore, while I do not wish to take up an unyielding attitude in relation to this matter, I think, if I may suggest so, that the case for recommittal might be met if we were to agree to recommittal only in respect of amendments Nos. 23, 24, 25 and 26—which deal almost entirely with this question of the tribunal and the appeal board —and, of course, the consequential amendments Nos. 31, 32 and 33 on these matters.

I am glad to here the Minister say he does not want to take up an unyielding attitude. Neither is there any desire here to cause him any unnecessary trouble if he agrees to recommit the Bill at this stage.

Very well.

I will say right off that he will get this stage of the Bill just as quickly if he agrees to recommit the Bill because it may be necessary to ask certain questions on the Recommittal Stage which we cannot ask on Report Stage.

That means recommittal for the purposes of all the amendments?

Yes, if the Minister agrees.

Ordered: That the Bill be recommitted in respect of the amendments."

I move amendment No. 1:—

In page 4, to delete Section 6 (3), lines 19 to 34, and substitute three new sub-sections as follows:—

(3) In this section the expression "excepted body" means any of the following bodies, that is to say:—

(a) a body which carries on negotiations for the fixing of the wages or other conditions of employment of its own (but no other) employees,

(b) a body which is registered under the next following sub-section of this section,

(c) a Civil Service staff association recognised by the Minister for Finance,

(d) an organisation of teachers recognised by the Minister for Education,

(e) the Agricultural Wages Board,

(f) a trade board established under the Trade Board Acts, 1909 and 1918, and

(g) a body in respect of which an order under sub-section (6) of this section is for the time being in force.

(4) The Minister shall, for the purposes of this section, maintain a register and shall enter therein the name of any body which—

(a) applies to the Minister for registration therein, and

(b) accompanies its application by a fee of £1, and

(c) satisfies the Minister that—

(i) it consists of persons who are constantly employed in a particular form of work and are habitually employed by the same employer, and

(ii) carries on negotiations for the fixing of wages or other conditions of employment with that employer only.

(5) All fees under the immediately preceding sub-section of this section shall be collected and taken in such manner as the Minister for Finance directs, and shall be paid into or disposed of for the benefit of the Exchequer in accordance with the directions of the said Minister, and the Public Offices Fees Act, 1879, shall not apply in respect of any such fee.

This amendment has two purposes: first of all, to meet the point which was raised by Deputy Fitzgerald Kenney and I think also by Deputy McGilligan as to whether it would be competent under the Bill as originally drafted for members of a board of directors or members of a partnership to negotiate with their own staff. The amendment includes a provision which will enable that difficulty to be got over. It will be noted there that in paragraph 3 (a) the following has been added:—

a body which carries on negotiations for the fixing of the wages or other conditions of employment of its own (but no other) employees,

That amendment to the existing paragraph (a) of sub-section (3) will get over the difficulty which I have mentioned. In addition to that, Deputy McGilligan suggested an amendment that the excepted bodies should consist of persons who are in constant employment and that the bodies who were so excepted should be registered. The new sub-section (4) covers that point. It will be seen that for the purposes of the section the Minister must maintain a register and that he shall enter therein the name of any body which applies to the Minister for registration therein. It accompanies its application by a fee of £1 and satisfies the Minister that it consists of persons who are constantly employed in a particular form of work and are habitually employed by the same employer, and carries on negotiations for the fixing of wages or other conditions of employment with that employer only. The remaining sub-sections of the Bill, as amended in Committee, stand.

Do I understand the Minister to say that the application for registration to be made under sub-section (4) will apply only in respect to the point adverted to by Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney on the Committee Stage of the Bill?

Will it be necessary, for instance, for a teachers' organisation to make an application for registration?

No, not necessarily, because they are completely excepted. Teachers' organisations need not apply for registration as an excepted body.

And a civil service organisation would not find it necessary either to do it?

No; a civil service organisation would not find it necessary either. Neither would any of the bodies under (f). We are dealing here with a particular class of bodies which consist of the employees of one firm or one organisation only who may wish to establish a negotiating organisation— they must apply for registration.

Would that mean county council employees would have to apply?

Yes, I would say they would have to.

They would have to lodge £1?

Would that register be open for inspection?

It may be assumed that it would be.

I would ask the Minister what exactly will be the position of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, which is a trade union at the moment? It is now put into the category of excepted bodies because, I take it, that it is understood that they deal only with the Department of Education. But the organisation deals with other bodies. The Minister is probably aware of the peculiar position which a teacher occupies. While he is paid by the State, the manager of the school is his employer. I cannot yet discover what the Minister has in mind with regard to that organisation. It is a trade union and it has to act for its members in ways other than dealing with the Department of Education. I take it that as an excepted body they would confine their activities to the Department of Education?

It is taking away from them the status they have enjoyed up to the present as a trade union. I would like the Minister to clarify the position.

I think I have already dealt with that point on a couple of occasions. The situation which the Irish National Teachers' Organisation is in is a very simple one. It is, as the Deputy says, a registered trade union and it can continue to exist as a registered trade union if it does not pay the deposit. It can be an excepted body. It can enter into negotiations, if it wishes, for the fixing of wages and conditions of employment.

This Bill contemplates henceforward two different types of trade unions, the ordinary registered trade union, which may deal with a multiplicity of affairs, in addition, perhaps, to fixing wages or negotiating about conditions of employment, and the authorised trade union which is now being constituted as the recognised and normal type of organisation for negotiating in relation to wages and conditions of employment. The National Teachers' Organisation is in the special position, first of all, of being definitely under the Act given the status of an excepted body. If it elects to continue in that position it falls under the disabilities imposed by Section 11 upon all excepted bodies. If, however, it wishes to convert itself into an authorised trade union by the payment of the necessary deposit, it can do so, and then it has all the protection and the rights reserved to authorised trade unions in Section 11. It is in the position of being able to make a choice.

May I ask the Minister another question? Could the Minister direct me to the section which allows an excepted body to become an authorised body?

There is nothing which debars it.

What I fear is that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be interpreted strictly on the matter contained in the Act. For instance, could the Agricultural Wages Board take out a licence and become an authorised trade union?

Could any of the other people do it?

Could a civil service organisation do it?

I think a civil service organisation would find itself in some difficulty.

How is the difficulty presented for them and not for the teachers?

Because a civil service organisation is under a different discipline.

Will the Minister say that, whatever difficulty arises for a civil service organisation, it will arise outside this Act? Sub-section (1) of Section 6 says:

It shall not be lawful for any body of persons, not being an excepted body, to carry on negotiations for the fixing of wages or other conditions of employment unless such body is the holder of a negotiation licence.

I take it that the presence of those words in this measure leaves the excepted bodies mentioned here, that is organisations of teachers, the Agricultural Wages Board, and civil service organisations, absolutely untouched by this Act?

It does not. The Agricultural Wages Board is not a trade union.

In so far as those are concerned, and in so far as restrictions are imposed by this measure, is it not a fact that this measure does not touch by way of restriction an excepted body, and that if Civil Service organisations are not going to be excepted bodies under this Act then this Act does not constrict them in any way, and any difficulty or constriction that the Minister suggests now is going to arise for them outside the framework of this Act? Is not that so?

There is no point in trying to argue in this way. The Deputy is quite wrong. I pointed out that one of the conditions which must be complied with in order that a body may convert itself into an authorised trade union is that it must be a registered trade union. The Agricultural Wages Board is not a registered trade union, neither are any of the boards functioning under the Trade Board Acts, and they cannot become registered trade unions so far as I know. With regard to the question of Civil Service organisations, they, as I said, are under a different discipline. For one thing, I am perfectly certain that there would be some difficulty in relation to the question of strike. I cannot see any organisation which is debarred from having resort to the strike weapon paying a deposit in order that it may become entitled to the protection of Section 11 of this Bill, so that all this question of what the Civil Service organisations can do or what the Agricultural Wages Board can do is beside the point. So far as I know, the only body that has been mentioned here which is in the particular position of being a registered trade union, and perhaps not being as strictly bound by disciplinary regulations as in the Civil Service, is the Irish National Teachers' Organisation. They are in the special category which I have mentioned. Being a registered trade union, they can, by paying the necessary deposit, convert themselves into an authorised trade union. If they elect not to do that, the only disability they might suffer would be that, if they desired to go on strike, they would not—being a registered trade union and not an authorised trade union—get the benefits of Section 11 of this Bill. That is the only difference.

I am not quite satisfied about the position of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation. There are other privileges and rights which a trade union has, apart from the question of strike, and I fear that, if this Bill when it becomes an Act is interpreted literally on the face of the matter contained in it, it might be open to a future Minister for Education or somebody else in authority to say that the Irish National Teachers' Organisation is in the same position as a Civil Service staff association. What I want the Minister to state is whether there is any section in the Bill as it stands that will allow an excepted body such as the Irish National Teachers' Organisation to become an authorised trade union on payment of the necessary deposit?

Section 7 makes it quite clear. First of all, Section 7 provides that:—

"No body of persons shall be granted or hold a negotiation licence unless it is a body ... which fulfils the following conditions, that is to say:—

(a) that either it is registered under the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1935 ..."

—the Irish National Teachers' Organisation complies with that condition—

"(b) that it has deposited and ... keeps deposited with the High Court the appropriate sum."

The Irish National Teachers' Organisation has not yet complied with that condition, but it is open to it at any time, if it sees fit to do so, to comply with it. When those two conditions have been complied with, the following consequences then ensure under Section 9 of this Bill:—

"Any authorised trade union may apply to the Minister for a negotiation licence."

Then, under Section 10:

Where application is duly made for a negotiation licence and the applicant is shown to the satisfaction of the Minister to be an authorised trade union, the Minister shall grant such licence.

When a registered trade union has deposited the appropriate sum, it automatically becomes an authorised trade union, and can apply for and must get, as far as I can see, a licence.

I suggest to the Minister that it is implied very effecttively in sub-section (1) of Section 6 that that sub-section would restrict people who had not a negotiation licence from carrying on negotiations or fixing wages or other conditions, but that the section later on was making certain excepted bodies which would not be so restricted. It implies that those excepted bodies, in so far as this Act is concerned at any rate, would be left with powers to carry on negotiations for the fixing of wages and other conditions. I can place no other meaning on sub-section (1), if that is not so, and I understand from the Minister that he says that it is not so—at any rate with regard to certain of them.

The excepted bodies are entitled to carry on negotiations for the fixing of wages and of the conditions of employment, but there is nothing in the Bill or anywhere else, to prevent an excepted body, which is a registered trade union, from paying the appropriate sum and converting itself into an authorised trade union.

When the Minister says that, does he mean that excepted bodies, unless they have a negotiation licence, will not be allowed to carry on negotiations for the fixing of wages and conditions of employment?

No. I have not said that. On the contrary——

What does the Minister mean by "No"?

Certain excepted bodies—the excepted bodies which are specified here—can, without securing a negotiation licence, carry on negotiations for the fixing of wages and conditions of employment, but if they do so, these negotiations will be carried on subject to the reservation that they will not get the protection which is afforded by Section 11 of the Bill. If, however, they desire to secure that protection for themselves, and if their constitution will permit them to do so, they can then fulfil the two conditions: first, they can convert themselves into registered trade unions, and then pay the appropriate sum, in which case they get the protection of Section 11.

Well, I only wanted to bring out the position in regard to Section 6. Section 11 is another day's work.

Section 11 is the one with which Deputy Hurley is concerned.

I take it from what the Minister has said that if, say, a civil service organisation registers itself under the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1935, so far as this Bill is concerned it has the rights of an excepted body, these rights being such as have been defined by the Minister in relation to the teachers' organisations. The matter of discipline and the matter of going on strike are matters outside the purview of this Bill. These are matters between the individual civil servant and his employer, who is the Minister for Finance. Outside that, however, are we to take it that such a body has the same rights as the teachers' organisation, in the way the Minister indicated?

Yes; I see nothing to debar their having that.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move amendment No. 2:—

In page 5, Section 11, (1), to delete lines 40 and 41 and substitute the words and figures "Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the."

In the debate on this section it was suggested that the section, as originally drafted, went too far. The section, as originally drafted, provided that:—

Section 2 of the Trade Union Act, 1871, Section 3 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, and the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, shall apply only in relation to authorised trade unions which for the time being are holders of negotiation licences and the members and officials of such trade unions, and not otherwise.

It was suggested, as I say, that that went too far, and in order to meet that objection we now propose to allow the protection of Section 2 of the Trade Union Act, 1871, and Section 3 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, and Section 1 and the other sections of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, except Sections 2, 3 and 4, to apply to all trade unions and all people negotiating in respect of the fixing of wages and conditions of employment, but reserving to the authorised trade unions the protection of Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906.

Under Section 6, we have the old sub-section (4), which now becomes sub-section (6):—"The Minister may by order declare that this section may not apply in respect of any particular body of persons." Therefore, under Section 6, we are likely to have a position in which the organisations in the country are divided up into bodies that have applied and got a negotiating licence, bodies that are excepted bodies, and bodies—whether they are to be included or excepted bodies or not—in respect of which it has been declared, under Section 4, or the new sub-section (6), by the Minister that that section shall not apply to them. We spoke several times, on the Committee Stage of the Bill, on the position of a body like the Tipperary Workingmen's Protection and Benefit Society, where you had a body of about 500 members organised since 1931, who have kept harmony in the life of the town there, so far as the working men are concerned, for a number of years. Under this Bill, unless the Minister proposes to deal with them under sub-section (6) of Section 6, these people will have to go, and will have to try to find their way into some larger union. We have got no indication as to what their future is likely to be. Now, if the Minister should be persuaded by the pressure of the facts of the situation which he will come up against not only in Tipperary, but in Dundalk and many other places throughout the country, and if he does apply the new sub-section (6) of Section 6 to these bodies and relieves them of the restrictions of Section 6, then do I understand it to be the position, in connection with Section 11, that while they will be able to negotiate for the fixing of wages and conditions of employment, they will be prevented by Section 11 from having the power to strike, or that they will not have the protection of the Trade Disputes Act of 1906, if they do withdraw their labour and have strike conditions?

That will be the position, roughly; but of course they will have the benefits of the two earlier Acts of 1871 and 1875, and of Section 1 of the Trade Disputes Act, of 1906. That will still remain to them, and Section 5, accordingly, does not matter. So far, however, as Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Trade Disputes Act of 1906, are concerned, these rights are reserved entirely to authorised trade unions. They may, of course, have common law protection also.

I hope that the limitations that would necessarily apply to small local bodies of organised workers such as this will help the Minister to give these local bodies exemption under Section 6, so that they can continue to negotiate about the fixing of wages and conditions of employment without becoming a negotiating body.

There is one point I should like to make. In the rural districts in our county we have had occasion to try to arrange for the fixing of wages through the medium of what one might call local labour clubs. These clubs have been doing good work. There is no trade union which the members of these clubs could look to for assistance, or any other organisation than their own, and they certainly serve a very useful purpose and have been helpful on occasions. On other occasions, they have also been useful in connection with the local authority and labour troubles. I think I am on the same point as Deputy Mulcahy when I ask for some measure of exemption to be extended to these people. They can serve a very useful purpose and, if they are debarred, large numbers of workers will be deprived of any means of having their cases represented. They are not members of any regular or official trade union, and thus would be deprived of any assistance from the organisation point of view, and I should like, therefore, if something could be done to allow these people to make their case when occasion demands.

I would draw the attention of Deputies to the fact that only the amendments have been recommitted, not the sections.

What is the case for retaining the penal character of Section 11? Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, are in fact, the most vital sections of that Act and the most vital sections of the entire trade union code so far as the operations of trade unions are concerned. The Minister is pretending to give way in regard to certain protection under the Trade Union Act, 1871, and the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, but in fact there is nothing given away by the deletion of these references at all. The main right in respect of trade union activity is given by Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the 1906 Act, and a perusal of these sections will show clearly that these are the vital clauses and that they represent the most vital protection so far as trade unions are concerned.

If, in 1906, a British Administration was sufficiently enlightened to give trade unions the protection of Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Trade Union Act of that year, what is the set of circumstances which justify us 35 years later in reversing the process of thought in respect of trade union activity? We are taking away from workers rights which they have exercised up to the present under Sections 2, 3 and 4 of that Act. As Deputy Mulcahy pointed out in connection with the Tipperary workingmen's organisation, as has been pointed out by Deputy Flynn, and as is known to everybody else who has any experience of these local organisations, under this Bill they will be wiped out unless they pay a deposit. If they cannot pay that, they have either to get out, or try to get a larger organisation to take them in. If the Minister chooses to exempt them from the scope of the Bill by an order made under Section 6, then they will be exempted on the very definite understanding that they cannot exercise rights which they formerly exercised.

Let us see what will happen. Take, for instance, the Ennis Labourers' Union, an organisation which does very useful work. If they cannot pay the £1,000 deposit provided for in this Bill two courses are open to them: (1) to go out of existence; (2) to try to get some larger organisation to take them in. Suppose they cannot get a larger organisation to take them in, then their next hope is to try to get the Minister to exempt them under Section 6 from the operations of the Bill and that puts them in the category of an excepted body. If the Minister does that, the Ennis Labourers' Union will be this type of union: they will be exempted from the scope of the Bill, but in future they will not have the protection that they have at present under Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906. The effect, therefore, of this Bill and this particular section is the same as if you made an order prohibiting the members of that organisation from ever going on strike or from getting the benefits provided for in Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the 1906 Act. What is the case for continuing that penalty? What is the case for imposing that penalty? It is being imposed in the main on these small local organisations which may survive or may not survive the operations of Section 6. I think there is no justification for the Minister's continuing this penalty in respect of small organisations of that kind.

I think we have already dealt with this matter fully on the section. The amendment merely proposes to make it quite clear that these excepted bodies will be acting legally when they meet for the discussion of wages and conditions. The whole case originally made against this Bill was that it would encourage the formation of house and shop unions. This section is a definite discouragement of that. I think the whole implication of the Deputy's speech was that Section 11, as it stands, and as it will remain in substance after the amendment has been inserted, will be an effective deterrent against the operation of house and shop unions, which it was alleged this Bill was designed to encourage. But, as I said, we are really discussing the whole principle of the section, which I think does not arise. What we are doing now is to ensure that the excepted bodies would not be declared to be contrary to the provisions of the Acts of 1871 and 1875 or debarred from the provisions of Section 1 of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906.

What is the case for wiping out those small local labour unions?

That does not arise. The section is not before the House.

There is no case for it.

The recommittal is purely for the purpose of the amendments.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 53; Níl, 16.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Benson, Ernest E.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Dockrell, Henry M.
  • Flynn, John
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fuller, Stephen.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hogan, Daniel.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Kelly, James P.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • McCann, John.
  • McDevitt, Henry A.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Meaney, Cornelius.
  • Morrissey, Michael.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Mullen, Thomas.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Conn.

Níl

  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Hannigan, Joseph.
  • Hickey, James.
  • Hurley, Jeremiah.
  • Keating, John.
  • Curran, Richard.
  • Davin, William.
  • Everett, James.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Norton, William.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Redmond, Bridget M.
  • Reidy, James.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies Keyes and Hickey.
Question declared carried.

I move amendments Nos. 3 and 4.

3. In page 6, Section 12 (1), lines 1 to 22, to delete paragraphs (b) to (d) and substitute the following paragraphs:—

(b) such trade union shall maintain at its office a register of its members (including former members other than those dead and those who have been non-members for more than five years or since before the grant of such negotiation licence) and such register shall, as regards each member, show—

(i) his name and address,

(ii) the date of commencement of his membership,

(iii) where his membership has ceased, the date of the cesser and whether it was caused by resignation, suspension, expulsion, or otherwise, and

(iv) where his membership has ceased by suspension or expulsion, the date of the order directing and a reference to the rule or other provision authorising such suspension or expulsion,

(c) such trade union shall keep at its office such register of members open during ordinary business hours for inspection by any interested person who pays such fee, not exceeding 5/- in respect of each day (or part of a day) during which the inspection continues, as such trade union determines, and

(d) a person who ceases, otherwise than by death, to be a member of such trade union shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to continue to be a member thereof for one month after such cesser.

4. In page 6, to delete Section 12 (3), lines 31 to 33, and substitute two new sub-sections as follows:—

(3) Any person may apply to the Minister for an authorisation in writing to inspect any register of members of a trade union kept in pursuance of this section and the Minister, if satisfied that the applicant has abona fide interest in inspecting such register, shall issue to the applicant an authorisation such as aforesaid in respect of such period as the Minister thinks proper.

(4) In this section—

the word "office" means, in relation to a trade union, the office which for the time being is the registered office of such trade union for the purposes of the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1935;

the expression "interested person" means in relation to a register of members of a trade union,—

(a) any person having an interest in the funds of such trade union, or

(b) any officer of the Minister authorised by the Minister in writing to inspect such register, or

(c) during the period in respect of which an authorisation under sub-section (3) of this section is issued in relation to such register, the person specified in the authorisation.

Amendments Nos. 3 and 4, and 5 and 7, all deal with points raised on the Committee Stage. Nos. 3 and 4 deal with points raised on Section 12, and 5 and 7 relate to Section 13. Sections 12 and 13 are similar. Section 12 applies to trade unions registered in this country and Section 13 to trade unions registered under the laws of another country. I think we can very well discuss these amendments together if that be acceptable.

It is a matter for the Committee.

I suggest it would be convenient if it were done. They are introduced to meet points which were raised in regard to the sections as originally drafted. One of these points was that it was somewhat absured to deem a man to be a member of a trade union a month after cesser of membership in the case of death. Deputy Murphy suggested that the section by reason of that condition might interfere with certain mortality rights and benefits. The second point made was that a person paying the necessary fee to inspect the register of members might continue the inspection indefinitely for a payment of one fee. The third point was that there should be some limitation specified in the Bill, which would safeguard a union against a vexatious person who wished to inspect the register unnecessarily, or perhaps merely to operate some private grudge against a union. Another objection was that the register of members would become unwieldly if all members' names, from the date of the granting of the negotiation licence, had to be kept there for all time. In amendments Nos. 3 and 4 we are dealing with these points, in so far as they affect trade unions registered in this country, and under the section, as amended, it will be no longer necessary for a trade union to maintain at its offices a register of its members, including former members, other than those dead, and those who have been non-members for more than five years; that is to say, that when a man dies his name may come off the register, and if he ceased to be a member five years previously his name may be removed from the register. The next point covered is that where a fee is paid for inspection of the register of a trade union, that fee will be in respect of each day or part of a day during which the inspection continues.

It will be seen that, in the section as it stood originally, this right of inspection was conferred on any person who had abona fide interest therein. In amendment No. 4, we make the Minister, in the first case, the judge as to whether a person has a bona fide interest. It was suggested that this was a duty which properly devolves on the Minister, and I am accepting that suggestion. If any person other than a person having an interest in the funds of a trade union, or an officer of the Minister authorised in writing to inspect the register, desires to inspect the register, he must apply to the Minister for authorisation in writing to inspect it, and the Minister, if satisfied that the applicant has a bona fide interest, shall issue to him the authorisation in respect of such period as the Minister thinks proper. He may allow him to inspect the register on one day or a number of days, but, quite obviously, he will not allow him to inspect it over such a period as would become oppressive.

Can the Minister say why provision is made for maintaining on the register for five years the name of a person who has ceased to be a member of a union?

That was very fully dealt with on the Committee Stage.

What is the reason for the five years as against one year?

Because it may be a valuable right for some person to be able to say that his father was engaged in a certain trade, that the fact that he was a tradesman of this description had been recognised by the organisation of that trade, and that he had been a member of the union for that period.

We have in this the curious provision that a person must be retained in membership of a union one month after he has, in fact, ceased to be a member of that union. The absurdity of deeming a person who was dead to be a member for a month after he was buried was pointed out to the Minister, and the Minister has recognised the unwisdom of allowing anomalies of that kind to creep into what is intended to be serious legislation. Take the case of a person who says: "I do not desire to continue membership of a union," and who decides to go away to another country and never to come back. Why is that person to be kept as a member for a month afterwards?

That was dealt with on the Committee Stage.

It was dealt with inasmuch as we discussed it. Now we have an amendment providing for the continuance of that kind of anomaly.

I am very anxious to meet the convenience of Deputies. As a Deputy in opposition, I realised the hardship which was often imposed on the Opposition in dealing with amendments, if the usual Parliamentary form of deleting certain words and substituting others were to be adhered to. It was suggested that it would be more convenient if, where there were a number of verbal alterations to be made in the text of a Bill, we should make them in a comprehensive form, so that they might be easily read, but if that is to be made the excuse for discussing a principle which has already been accepted, I am afraid I shall not be able, on other occasions, to facilitate Deputies in the way in which I have endeavoured to facilitate them in regard to these Report amendments.

In respect of Section 12 (d), the Minister has made an amendment, and, when that amendment comes to be discussed, I submit that I am entitled to discuss the section.

And the amendment made there is the insertion of the words "otherwise than by death."

That is an amendment to the section, and when the Minister saw some light in regard to that, he might very well have dropped the other matter of continuing an anomaly of this kind. As we are discussing amendments Nos. 3 and 4 together, I want to refer to the new sub-sections set out in amendment No. 4. The purpose of one of them is to authorise the Minister to issue authority to a person to inspect a trade union office. So far as trade unions themselves are concerned, there is always provision in the rules whereby a member can inspect the records at the union headquarters, and no responsible trade union would dream of denying its members that right. As a matter of fact, that is the invariable practice, but the Minister is now coming into the scheme of things, with power to issue permits to people to inspect trade union offices, and, as the Minister indicates here——

If the Deputy likes we can retain the original sub-section (2) as adopted in Committee, and I need not move amendment No. 4.

I do not like the sub-section at all. I do not like the Bill at all. I do not think you can get any good parts in a bad egg, and that applies to this Bill. To imagine that there is any portion of it good is just to do violence to one's intelligence. This new amendment No. 4 gives the Minister power to authorise a person to inspect trade union records and to pry into trade union business, and, as a matter of fact, the way in which the section is phrased indicates that the Minister can give a person a permit to carry out quite a prolonged inspection, because the Minister takes power to prescribe the number of days over which an inspection may be spread, and it is quite easy to see that an Act of this kind might very well be used to cause a good deal of mischievous annoyance to trade unions, if the Minister or his advisers were so disposed. I do not see why the Minister should have these powers at all. I do not think they are any acquisition to him, unless he wants to equip himself with mischief-making powers. There is no necessity at all for the Minister to investigate thebona fides of a person having an interest in a union. The person whom I regard as having a bona fide interest is a member of a union, and I have never known a trade union yet to refuse permission to a member to inspect any records or documents at union headquarters. If that is the well-established practice, what is the purpose of injecting this new requirement into trade union practice—a requirement which anthorises a person to go to a trade union office and, on payment of a fee, to carry out a kind of inquiry there, the fee in this case being purely nominal, and, in another case, giving the Minister power to issue permits? The Minister might very well, for his own sake, and to avoid annoyance, decide not to take the power he seeks in amendment No. 4.

Amendment No. 3 agreed to.

Amendment No. 4 agreed?

This amendment has been introduced to ensure that trade unions will not be asked, in a vexatious way, to throw their registers open for inspection. I am not wedded to it. We can keep sub-section (2) in the Bill as it stands, though I think this amendment is better. It means that, before a person asks, as he will be entitled to ask as of right, to inspect a register, he will have to prove to the Minister that he has really somebona fide interest in it.

A man could go to the trade union headquarters and ask them to show such and such a document.

There may be a person who was expelled from membership. Let us not forget that trade unions will be very powerful bodies. We must allow private individuals who claim to be members of them some rights and some protection. I do not think that the amendment is worth a division and, therefore, if the feeling is that the sub-section as it stands is better, well and good; but I think that, from the point of view of the trade union, this is a better amendment. It certainly very definitely limits the range of persons who might claim to have abona fide interest.

A person may be expelled under Section 12 from a union and he may go to the Minister with a grievance and ask him for authority to inspect the records at that union headquarters. The Minister is authorised by this amendment No. 4 to issue a permit in that case for the carrying out of the inspection of the document at union headquarters. The Minister says that that kind of person who claims to be a member must get some protection. He may be a person who has worked in a strike and let down everybody else, but the Minister wishes to take power to give him the right.

The Minister is taking power. He can give it.

A person may be expelled for reasons other than that of having worked during a strike.

I know that. He never is expelled without very good cause and, if he is expelled without just cause, he has the courts of the country open to him. The Minister in this case is taking power to give a permit to inspect to a person who in fact may not be a member of the union at all but who may be an expelled person—one who still is a nominal member, for a month after his membership ceases. I object to the Minister having those powers.

Amendment No. 4 says:—

If satisfied that the applicant has abona fide interest in inspecting such register.

I cannot imagine what the interpretation of "bona fide interest” would be Would the Minister explain what he would regard as a bona fide interest in inspecting a register? The issue of the authorisation, according to the section, would depend on that. Bona fide interest has a very wide interpretation and on that interpretation will turn the issue of the authorisation to inspect the register. Would it mean that the person who wants the inspection wants to see the names of the members; or does he want to see the amounts that have been paid; or is it the inspection of the register of the funds of the union; or what exactly would it imply?

I am afraid I could not answer as to what would constitute abona fide interest. If a person came along and said to me: “I am a member of the union, I have paid subscriptions for a long time and should have my name on the register, but I am told now that I never was registered as a member. I think I am entitled to inspect the register.” If the Minister is satisfied that that person is telling the truth, then I would say he would have a bona fide interest in the inspection. As the section stands, any person can claim to have a bona fide interest. The onus is now on him to satisfy the Minister that, in fact, he has such interest and is not going there merely for the purpose of obstructing the union in its business or to interfere in some way with the proper administration of the office.

Does the Minister understand that under the existing rules of most organisations a member has that right to inspect and get any information he wants at headquarters?

The only person who would really come under this would be an expelled person or some one who wants to create mischief.

I do not know; there may be others.

I cannot visualise any others.

I cannot give a whole range of hypothetical cases.

The point is that the ordinary regular member of any organisation or trade union at the moment has that right and does exercise it. The only other person who would seek to acquire that right would be someone who was expelled or who wanted to create mischief in a particular trade union. It is a very wide amendment, as it really applies to people other than the members of the union, that is, to outsiders who would seek an authorisation.

The Bill and the section as originally drafted provided for a good deal of Ministerial interference with trade union activity which the Minister would be very well advised to keep clear of. When I hear the Minister say that he is now basing the case for this amendment No. 4 on some idea he has in mind that it would give protection to some member wrongfully expelled, I do not know what to think of it. The Minister knows that, under the rules of every registered trade union, provision is made for the expulsion of members for certain offences. Personally, I know of no case, over a long number of years, where any member was expelled contrary to rule. If members are so expelled, they have the courts at their disposal to remedy their grievance. If the Minister intends to give protection to members who are rightly expelled under the rules of a trade union, he will cause a good deal more unnecessary interference by Ministerial sanction in a matter that he would be well advised to avoid.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 52; Níl, 15.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fuller, Stephen.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hogan, Daniel.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Kelly, James P.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • McCann, John.
  • McDevitt, Henry A.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Dockrell, Henry M.
  • Meaney, Cornelius
  • Morrissey, Michael.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Mullen, Thomas.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Conn.

Níl

  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Davin, William.
  • Everett, James.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Hannigan, Joseph.
  • Hickey, James.
  • Hurley, Jeremiah.
  • Keating, John.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • Norton, William.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Redmond, Bridget M.
  • Reidy, James.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies Hurley and Hickey.
Question declared carried.

I move amendment No. 5:—

In page 6, lines 46 to 59, and in page 7, lines 1 to 25, to delete Section 13 (1), paragraphs (c) to (g), and substitute the following new paragraphs:—

(c) such trade union shall maintain at the said office a register of its members (including former members other than those dead and those who have been non-members for more than five years or since before the grant of such negotiation licence) and such register shall, as regards each such member, show—

(i) his name and address,

(ii) the date of commencement of his membership,

(iii) where his membership has ceased, the date of the cesser and whether it was caused by resignation, suspension, expulsion or otherwise, and

(iv) where his membership has ceased by suspension or expulsion, the date of the order directing and a reference to the rule or other provision authorising such suspension or expulsion,

(d) such trade union shall keep at the said office such register of members open during ordinary business hours for inspection by any interested person who pays such fee, not exceeding 5/-in respect of each day (or part of a day) during which the inspection continues, as such trade union determines,

(e) such trade union shall from time to time as occasion requires give notice in writing to the Minister of the name of a person ordinarily resident in the State whom it considers suitable for accepting service of documents on its behalf and any document whatsoever (whether for the purposes of this Act or for any other purposes) may be served on such trade union by enclosing it in an envelope addressed to such person at the said office and by delivering such envelope at the said office or by sending it thereto by registered post, and such document shall thereupon be deemed for all purposes to have been properly served on such trade union,

(f) such trade union shall give notice in writing to the Minister of every of the following changes not later than 21 days after the making thereof, that is to say:—

(i) every change in its rules or constitution,

(ii) every change in its committee of management or other controlling authority.

(iii) every change in its trustees, and

(iv) every change of its secretary or other principal officer, and

(g) a person who ceases, otherwise than by death, to be a member of such trade union shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to continue to be a member thereof for one month after such cesser.

I do not see any substantial difference between this amendment and the amendment which was submitted on Committee Stage. The only point of difference refers to the omission of the names of men who are dead. Save for that, there is no change and we considered the previous provision very objectionable. It imposes certain obligations on trade unions which open the way to inspection and other things to which we object. The amendment is in the same form as it was on Committee Stage, with the exception of the point I have mentioned, and the amendment on Committee Stage was not acceptable to the Labour Party.

This amendment is designed to cover the same ground as amendment No. 3, which has just been adopted in relation to Section 12. It is designed to relieve trade unions of the obligation to keep a register which includes the names of persons who are dead or who have ceased to be members more than five years before. If the amendment were not adopted, the original section would stand. This was intended really to meet the objections which were made to the section on the Committee Stage.

The proposal to retain the name of a lapsed member on the register for five years is silly. It is like keeping dead men's votes on the register for parliamentary purposes.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 6:—

In page 7, Section 13 (2), to delete lines 26 to 28 and substitute the words "If there is, in relation to any authorised trade union in respect of which this section applies, a failure to comply with any requirement of this section, such of the members and officers thereof as consent to or facilitate".

The point was made in Committee, in relation to Section 13 (2), that a trade union with headquarters outside the country might not be a legal entity. This provides that members and officers of the trade union, rather than the trade union itself, shall be liable for the non-fulfilment of the conditions of the Act.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 7:—

In page 7, to add at the end of Section 13 two new sub-sections as follows:—

(3) Any person may apply to the Minister for an authorisation in writing to inspect any register of members of a trade union kept in pursuance of this section and the Minister, if satisfied that the applicant has abona fide interest in inspecting such register, shall issue to the applicant an authorisation such as aforesaid in respect of such period as the Minister thinks proper.

(4) In this section the expression "interested person" means, in relation to a register of members of a trade union,—

(a) any person having an interest in the funds of such trade union, or

(b) any officer of the Minister authorised by the Minister in writing to inspect such register, or

(c) during the period in respect of which an authorisation under sub-section (3) of this section is issued in relation to such register, the person specified in the authorisation.

This amendment meets the same points with regard to the inspection of the register as were covered by amendment No. 4.

Paragraph (b) is very objectionable.

What is meant by that paragraph—

"any officer of the Minister authorised by the Minister in writing to inspect such register"?

Does that mean an officer of the Minister's Department?

Any officer of the Minister. There is that power at the moment, but in this case the officer would have to be armed with the written authority of the Minister.

We had something like this already in connection with amendment No. 4. Is the purpose of this inspection merely to inspect the register and the names of members, or does it give the person authorised to carry out the inspection a sort of roving commission to inspect funds and other things?

No, merely the register of members.

The person inspecting cannot look up information about funds —what a member has paid and whether that member is in benefit or has lapsed? What exactly is the purpose of the inspection?

It might be to verify that a man's name is on the register when he has been told, perhaps, that he is not. There are several purposes for which the inspection might be used; I cannot contemplate all the hypothetical cases that might arise.

When we were discussing an earlier amendment the Minister said that an inspection might take part of a day and might last even for days. Now he tells us the purpose of the inspection is merely to see if a person's name is on the register.

A good deal would depend on the size of the register. We would have to allow each specific case to be dealt with.

If a member of a union goes to America or Australia and automatically ceases to be a member and he subsequently writes to the Minister from some foreign country inquiring whether his name is on the register, would that be a justification for the Minister to send his officer to see if the man's name is on the register for five years or less?

Suppose a person goes to America or Australia, having been a member of a trade union to which the admission to membership is very jealously safeguarded, and suppose he took no steps to maintain himself as a member, and, after two or three years, came back and expressed a wish to work at his trade again and rejoin the union, and was told he could not be admitted because he was not properly qualified, a nice point might arise as to whether, in fact, he was qualified, and perhaps one of the strongest proofs would be the circumstance that the union had previously admitted him to membership, so that there could not be any just ground for not again admitting him to membership. Again, only one union may be allowed to organise the members of a certain trade, and admission to membership may be almost an essential condition of a man being able to work at his trade in this country. For that reason it is essential that people who have abona fide interest in the register should have an opportunity of inspecting it on conditions which would reasonably safeguard the convenience of the union.

If the rules prevent a man from being re-admitted, what purpose will be served by sending down some nosey parker to inspect the register?

Any person may apply to the Minister for an authorisation in writing and, if the Minister is satisfied such person has an interest, he will give that person the necessary authority. I have in mind a case which occurred some two years ago. Two individuals walked into a trade union and asked to see the register, evidently being anxious to find out where a certain man lived. They wanted to get him for a specific purpose and it was not on behalf of the State they were looking for him.

Naturally the Minister would ask what a person wanted to see the register for.

A man who is on the register gets a membership card, the number on which corresponds to the number on the register.

Take the case of a man who migrated and who came back after two or three years. He might not be allowed to rejoin the union. It might be alleged that he was not a skilled tradesman and was not entitled to work at his trade.

That might be the rule of the society.

It might be, but when we are putting trade unions in this special position, we have to think of the rights of individuals.

Would you not agree that it is only the members of a society who should have the right to inspect the register, or an officer of the Department?

It might happen that a person connected with a trade union, who was still living in this country, would find his name was not inscribed on the register or perhaps he would have some dispute with an official of the union who might say his name was not on the register. He might have to satisfy himself that his name was on the register and he might be anxious to vindicate himself. There are dozens of cases which might arise. It has been alleged that this provision could be abused, that a person might want to inspect the register in order to find out the address of a member of the union, possibly for the satisfaction or the recovery of a debt. I do not think the Minister would regard that as abona fide purpose. It would not constitute a bona fide interest under the Act and if I were the Minister I would not give that person the right to inspect the register. A considerable number of cases might arise. A dispute might take place in a works as to whether a person was or was not a member of a particular trade union. Perhaps the only way in which that dispute could be settled would be by establishing that fact to the satisfaction of the Minister or to the satisfaction of an arbitrator or some other person called in to try to settle the dispute. In that case, such persons who wish to inspect the register would have a bona fide interest.

I am not objecting to anybody from the Department going in to inspect the register but I cannot understand why anybody else should have that right. A man cannot be on the register as a member unless he has a card issued to him bearing a number corresponding to the number on the register. If he is not able to produce his membership card he is not on the register as a member. I am at a loss to know what is the object of this proposal.

Would the Minister not agree that any of the duties which the Minister has mentioned as justifying the proposal that a person other than a member of the union or an officer of the Department might inspect the register, could be carreid out on behalf of that person by an officer of his Department?

That might be a very onerous duty.

In what way?

An inspection of the register might take two or three days.

Or two or three weeks.

Why should the State then pay an officer of the Department for doing work for a private individual? I think that would be ridiculous.

The only thing I have to say is that the Minister has not much knowledge of how trade unions segregate different sections in the register. Each particular section of industrial workers occupies a particular part of the ledger. The docker is not in the same place as the carter. I cannot see the idea at all of these inspections. There may be 200 members on the register, but if the union has not issued 200 cards with numbers corresponding to numbers on the register, many of those on the register may not be members at all.

There might be 10,000 general labourers registered at one of the headquarters of the unions.

They cannot be registered at headquarters, because the headquarters do not register all members.

They must do it henceforward. They will have to keep a full register of their members at headquarters.

All the members?

All the members?

And each man's name must be registered?

I cannot understand the idea behind all this.

Amendment put and declared carried.

I move amendment No. 8:—

In page 8, Section 14, to delete in line 5 the word "six" and substitute the word "three".

In paragraph (g) of Section 14 there is a proviso that where an application has been duly made, the deposit in accordance with such application will be returned in whole or in part upon, or as soon as conveniently may be, after the expiration of six months from the making of the application. This is a relieving amendment. It proposes to reduce the waiting period from six months to three months.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move amendment No. 9:—

In page 8, Section 15 (2), to delete lines 24 to 26 and substitute the words "If, in relation to any trade union required to send a statement under this section, there is a failure to send a statement or there is sent a wilfully false statement, such of the members and officers of the trade union as consent to or facilitate the failure to send a statement or the sending of the false statement and, in the case of a trade union registered under the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1935, the trade union itself shall each be guilty of an".

This amendment is similar to amendment No. 6. It makes the officers of a trade union which is not registered in this country responsible for the noncompliance of that particular trade union with any of the conditions of this Bill.

The only thing that is not understandable is the provision in regard to "such of the members and officers of the trade union". Why put an obligation on the members?

They are responsible only if they connive, actively connive, at the officers not doing anything which they are obliged to do under this part of the Act.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 10:—

In page 9, Section 19, to delete all from the word "has" in line 7 to the end of the section, and substitute the words "means a trade union which is the holder of a negotiation licence granted under Part II of this Act."

The object of this amendment is to provide that the phrase "trade union" wherever used in Part III of the Bill means a trade union holding a negotiation licence. The point was made that Part III might apply to any registered trade union which was not an authorised trade union, and that a registered trade union which had not deposited the appropriate sum might go to a tribunal asking for a determination that it alone should have the right to organise a particular class of persons. This amendment is designed to make it clear that Part III of the Act only applies to trade unions which have secured a negotiation licence.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 11:—

In page 9, Section 20 (1), to delete in line 11, the word "two" and substitute the word "four".

There are a number of amendments all relating to the trade union tribunal— 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16. Perhaps we might be able to discuss all these together. The real change which is proposed is that the tribunal should consist of five members, one of whom, the chairman, will have exactly the same qualifications as are already set out in sub-section (2) of Section 20 as amended in Committee. As it was originally introduced, and as it came from the Committee, the Bill provided for a tribunal consisting of a chairman and two ordinary members. In the course of the discussion in Committee it was pointed out that it might be somewhat anomalous to have perhaps one of the ordinary members who might be an employers' representative sitting with the workers' representative to consider an application from a workers' trade union andvice versa, that there might be a workers' representative sitting with an employers' representative to consider an application from an employers' trade union.

In order to meet that I am providing that instead of two ordinary members there shall be four, two of whom are to be appointed from a panel of persons nominated by the authorised trade unions of employers or by persons or bodies in the opinion of the Minister representative of such trade unions or of industry generally, and the other two ordinary members consisting of persons chosen from a panel nominated by authorised trade unions of workers or by bodies representative of such trade unions. Out of these two panels of persons so nominated the Minister will choose four, two of whom shall be chosen from the panels nominated by the employers' trade union and two from the panels nominated by the workers' trade union. When an application comes from an employers' trade union before the tribunal for a determination providing that that employers' trade union shall have the sole right to organise any particular class of masters, the chairman, in hearing that application, will be accompanied by the two ordinary members who have been chosen from the panel nominated by the employers' organisation. On the other hand, if an application comes before the tribunal from a workers' trade union asking for a determination that it alone shall have the right to organise workmen in a particular class, then the chairman, in hearing that application, will sit accompanied by two ordinary members who have been appointed by the Minister from a panel of persons nominated by the workers' authorised trade unions and by organisations representative of these trade unions as a whole.

This is the main purpose of these amendments. They follow, I think, very closely the amendments which were down in the names of Deputy Norton and I think Deputy Davin, and not moved on the Committee Stage of the Bill.

I do not recollect in whose names amendments to the Bill appeared originally. I agree that it is probably right to have a tribunal consisting of five instead of three members. The proposal before the House is, I think, one of the most fatuous that could be conceived—that machinery should be set up and divided from the statutory point of view, in the way set out. If the ultimate arrangement is going to be as simple as the Minister thinks, it is that when a trade union applies for a determination that it alone shall have the right to organise workers, the two representatives of the trade unions on the tribunal will decide that. On the other hand, when the masters apply for a determination the two representatives of the masters on the tribunal will decide.

With the chairman.

What the chairman is there for is more than I know. This whole proposal, in regard to the tribunal, is a most astounding one. If the aim were to have an understanding, a bringing together of various people, the harmonising of the work of organisations in industry, one would imagine that this tribunal would be availed of for the purpose of doing that. Instead, in regard to particular applications, two representatives of the masters or two representatives of the trade unions are to sit on the tribunal with the chairman when dealing with applications relating to their particular organisation. The representatives of both sides are not being brought together on the tribunal: there is to be a scooting away so that they will not be in touch with one another whenever there is any practical work to be done.

Under the original scheme of the Bill, both sides were to be brought together on the tribunal. Why we should have this scheme introduced now passes my imagination. I realise this was not the Minister's original scheme, but is he now accepting the proposition that both sides should come together only in name and divorce themselves from one another in action? If so, I think that so far as this part of the measure is concerned, he should scrap it completely, have it redrafted, and then put before the House what exactly he wants to do in practice. From the amendments before us, I find it impossible to see what exactly the Minister wants to achieve in actual working out. In contrast to the original proposal in the Bill, this amendment represents an astonishing type of development. Originally, you had a chairman and a representative from each side. You had a group of three, one representing workers and one representing masters, with a chairman. Now there is going to be no such joint consideration of the applications that come before the tribunal. Apparently, when an application is made the tribunal will divide up into a plus or a minus, a black or a white, a male or a female section, the members of it working completely divorced from one another. I think that is an absurd proposition.

I am afraid the Deputy has not grasped the fact that these determinations may not always be made by two ordinary members of the tribunal. In fact, it is provided here that:

At every sitting of the tribunal, the tribunal may, save as otherwise provided by this Act in relation to the reconsideration of a determination, act by a majority.

Now it is quite possible that the chairman, and one of the ordinary members, may constitute that majority. It is probable that it will be of more frequent occurrence than otherwise. The Deputy made the point that he did not see what use the chairman is. The chairman is the third party of the tribunal and, of course, as the third party he can operate in the event of a disagreement between the two ordinary members. Perhaps he will endeavour to get agreement among the ordinary members, but where he finds that is impossible he will have to decide which of their views he will adopt as his. That is the use of the chairman, and that is what the Deputy described as a fatuous proposal.

Again, the Deputy said there is no nexus between the members of the tribunal who are representatives of trade unions and the ordinary members who are representatives of workers' organisations. You have the chairman as the nexus. He will sit on the hearing of all applications coming from both sides, and he is going to be the person who will be representative not merely of the class, workers or employers, as the case may be, which is not before the tribunal, but of the general body of the community as a whole: he will be there to exercise a beneficial, moderating influence which, no doubt, will very often be required in order to secure a satisfactory determination in regard to these applications. That, again, shows that the point which the Deputy attempted to make has no substance in it. The most important person on the tribunal is the chairman — the nexus between the employers' organisations on the one hand and the workers' organisations on the other hand. He will have that knowledge of the conditions in industry, of industrial organisations generally, which will enable him to exercise, as I have indicated, a very beneficial influence in the counsels of the tribunal. Once again we find that Deputy Mulcahy simply does not understand the amendment.

The one thing which makes me wonder is why it was that Deputy Mulcahy, when the original proposals were before the House, saw fit to vote against them and did not then use all the arguments which he has been using to-day. I did indicate, when this section was being debated in Committee, that while I felt the form of the tribunal which I proposed had certain merits, though undoubtedly a great deal of the criticism offered in regard to the proposals had some substance in it, I was not wedded to the particular form of tribunal as it originally appeared on the Bill. At the same time I did think it had something to recommend it: the suggestion that there should be a person representative of employers and a person representative of workers sitting on the tribunal to hear all applications alike, whether they came from employers' organisations or from workers' trade unions seemed to me to have the merits with which Deputy Mulcahy now credits it, but when I put that proposal before the House and stated the arguments in favour of it, I had, I think, more speeches from Deputy Mulcahy in opposition to it, and certainly I had his vote in opposition to it.

The Minister speaks of the chairman now as a nexus. I do not know what that may be but the position is that when, let us say, a trade union of masters applies to the tribunal for a determination that they shall have the right to organise masters of that particular class, the tribunal then consists of the chairman and the two masters' representatives. The question is decided entirely by a majority of that tribunal. If the masters' representatives on the tribunal agree, then the chairman has no function in the matter. That ends that. Let us say, a week or two afterwards, the workers' trade union applies; they go before the tribunal and then the chairman and the two workers' representatives on the tribunal deal with the matter. They settle that. At what particular point in the various transactions has the chairman become the nexus? Is it not the fact that under the present scheme, in so far as deciding what particular trade union will have the sole right to organise either the workers or the masters of that particular class is concerned, these questions will be decided in future in respect of workers by the workers' representatives on the tribunal and in respect of masters by the masters' representatives on the tribunal. The chairman simply sits in. He may help them, but where he becomes a nexus between masters and workers I do not know. I think it would be a much better machinery for bringing the masters and workers together if, with or without the chairman, the masters' representatives and the workers' representatives could sit down as a tribunal and judge these things. That is why I say it is fatuous to be coming together in order to split up.

It is more fatuous to do what the Deputy is doing, that is, praising a good proposal too late.

I must say, if the Minister thinks that we cannot criticise the fatuity of some of his modern proposals except by implying that the proposals he brought before the House were quite satisfactory, then the Minister has very little sense of logic and I am sorry that he has forgotten so soon the things that he must have understood pretty pointedly in the discussion on Committee Stage with regard to some of these proposals.

The Minister has recovered his old talking form, but I wonder would he tell us whether he is satisfied now that he can find in the Law Library a practising barrister who, as he said, has an inside knowledge of the working of trade union organisations.

I did not say that.

They only want a nexus.

Amendment put and agreed to.
The following amendments were agreed to:—
12. In page 9 to delete Section 20 (2), (3), (4), and (5), lines 14 to 28. —(Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.)
13. In page 9, before Section 21, to insert a new section as follows:—
21. —(1) The chairman of the tribunal shall be a practising barrister of at least ten years' standing or a practising solicitor of like standing and shall be appointed by the Minister for such period not exceeding five years as he thinks fit.
(2) The chairman of the tribunal may at any time be removed from office by the Minister and may at any time resign his office.
(3) The chairman of the tribunal shall be paid such fees or other remuneration as the Minister for Finance determines.
(4) If the chairman of the tribunal is for any reason temporarily unable to attend the sittings of the tribunal, the Minister may appoint another person, having the qualifications stated in sub-section (1) of this section to act temporarily as the chairman of the tribunal during such inability. — (Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.)
14. In page 9, before Section 21, to insert a new section as follows:—
22. —(1) The Minister shall maintain two panels of persons eligible for appointment as ordinary members of the tribunal, the one (in this Part of this Act refered to as the masters' panel) consisting of persons nominated by authorised trade unions of masters and bodies representative, in the opinion of the Minister, of such trade unions or of industry, and the other (in this Part of this Act referred to as the workmen's panel) consisting of persons nominated by authorised trade unions of workmen and bodies representative, in the opinion of the Minister, of such trade unions.
(2) Each body mentioned in sub-section (1) of this section shall have the right to nominate one person to the masters' panel or the workmen's panel (as may be appropriate). —(Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.)
15. In page 9, before Section 21, to insert a new section as follows:—
23. —(1) Of the ordinary members of the tribunal, two shall be persons appointed from the masters' panel and two shall be persons appointed from the workmen's panel.
(2) Every ordinary member of the tribunal shall be appointed by the Minister for such period not exceeding five years as he thinks proper.
(3) Any ordinary member of the tribunal may at any time be removed from office by the Minister and may at any time resign his office.
(4) Every ordinary member of the tribunal shall be paid such fees or other remuneration as the Minister for Finance determines.
(5) If any ordinary member of the tribunal is for any reason temporarily unable to attend the sittings of the tribunal, the Minister may appoint another person from the same panel as that from which such member was appointed to act temporarily as a member of the tribunal during such inability. —(Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.)

I move amendment No. 16:—

In page 9, before Section 21, to insert a new section as follows:—

24. —(1) Three members of the tribunal shall sit at every sitting thereof and such three members shall be—

(a) where the relevant application to the tribunal was made by a trade union of masters—the chairman and the members appointed from the masters' panel, and

(b) where such application was made by a trade union of workmen—the chairman and the members appointed from the workmen's panel.

(2) At every sitting of the tribunal, the tribunal may, save as otherwise provided by this Act, act by a majority.

Is the amendment agreed to?

Amendment put and declared carried.

I move amendment No. 17:—

In page 9, Section 21 (1), to delete lines 36 to 43 and substitute the words "and having considered all the circumstances of the case, shall, as they consider proper in the public interest, either—

(a) grant such determination, or

(b) refuse to grant such determination, or

(c) determine that two or more specified trade unions alone shall have the right to so organise masters of that class."

This amendment is to prescribe something which I thought it would not be necessary to prescribe but which it was suggested here during the course of the discussion on the Committee Stage it might be advisable to enjoin specifically on the tribunal, that is to say, that in coming to a decision in relation to an application the tribunal shall not only consider all the circumstances of the case, as was provided by the original section, but shall also do as they consider proper in the public interest. The purpose of the amendment is to put in the words "as they consider proper in the public interest".

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move amendment No. 18:—

In page 10, Section 22 (1), to delete lines 9 to 15 and substitute the words "as they consider proper in the public interest, either—

(a) grant such determination, or

(b) refuse to grant such determination, or

(c) determine that two or more specified trade unions alone shall have the right to so organise workmen of that class".

This is a similar amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move amendment No. 19:—

In page 10, before Section 22 (2), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) The tribunal shall not grant a determination under this section that a trade union registered under the law of another country and having its headquarters control in that country or two or more such trade unions shall alone have the right to organise workmen of any particular class.

Would the Minister, for the sake of the members of the tribunal, throw some light on the reason why he introduced this amendment?

Just to ensure that the sole right to organise any particular class of workmen shall not be conferred upon a union having its headquarters outside this country. I felt, on reconsideration, that that might happen. When the point was made to me I pointed out that, in my view, the tribunal would not conceive it to be in the public interest to confer the sole right to organise any particular class of Irish workmen upon a body which was not registered under our Trade Union Acts. We are now stopping the tribunal from making a determination in that form. It does not mean that the tribunal would not be able to say that one union having headquarters outside this country together with another union having headquarters registered here should have the sole right between the two of them to organise. But I think it is not in the public interest that we should confer a monopoly right to organise upon a body which is not registered under our Trade Union Acts.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move amendment No. 20:—

In page 10, before Section 22 (3), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(3) Before granting under this section a determination that a particular trade union or unions shall alone have the right to organise workmen of a particular class, the tribunal may, if it thinks proper, require such trade union or unions to satisfy the tribunal that such trade union or unions will provide suitable employment or reasonable compensation for any officers of a trade union who will lose their employment in consequence of such determination.

This is to meet a point which was, I think, suggested by Deputy Cosgrave. He pointed out that perhaps some hardship might be occasioned to people who had devoted a considerable part of their time to the trade union movement if a determination of the tribunal did not safeguard their rights either to secure suitable employment from the trade union which would be getting the sole right to organise, or if not getting suitable employment, of getting reasonable compensation.

According to the wording of this amendment, there is no obligation on the tribunal to do what is suggested in the latter part of the amendment.

I think we will have to leave in "if it thinks proper". There is such a wide variety of cases which might arise, and of circumstances which might have to be taken into consideration, that we shall have to leave it to the sense of equity of the tribunal to consider each of them on its merits, but the attention of the tribunal is particularly directed to this aspect of all the applications, and I am sure it will, accordingly, give it very careful consideration.

If you do not leave the discretion there, you would have 10,000 trade unions registered within the next fortnight.

That is the first time Deputy Dillon spoke on this Bill, and it is not a very intelligent contribution.

Deputy Davin has not the faintest notion of the meaning of this amendment.

I certainly have. It is interesting to note that Deputy Dillon has spoken once during the discussions on this Bill.

Amendment No. 20 agreed to.

I move amendment No. 21:—

In page 10, section 24 (1), to delete in lines 48 and 49 the words and brackets "(in this sub-section referred to as the first determination)" and to delete lines 54 and 55 and substitute the words "until at least three years after the grant of such determination".

Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 carry the same verbal change. Deputy Benson called my attention to the rather peculiar phraseology which was employed in the Bill as originally introduced. I have discussed the matter with the draftsman, and he has agreed with me that it would be better if we deleted those references to a determination which was referred to as the "first determination". Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 carry the same verbal change in that respect, but amendment No. 21 goes something further than that. In the section as amended in Committee there was a proviso that, where two or more trade unions were granted a determination that they alone would have the right to organise a particular class of persons, neither of those trade unions could subsequently apply for a fresh determination until a period of at least 12 months had elapsed. I think Deputy Hurley pointed out that perhaps that time was too short; that in the period there might be such intensive organisation and rivalry on the part of the trade unions that the purpose of that particular section of the Bill might be defeated. I have considered that point, and in amendment No. 21 the period is now being extended from 12 months to three years.

Amendment No. 21 agreed to.

I move amendment No. 22:—

In page 10, Section 24 (2), to delete in lines 56 and 57 the words and brackets "(in this sub-section referred to as the first determination)" and to delete in page 11, lines 6 and 7, the words "the first" and substitute in each case the word "such".

Amendment No. 22 agreed to.

I move amendment No. 23:—

In page 11, before Section 25, to insert a new section as follows:—

25. —Any trade union aggrieved by a determination of the tribunal may, within one month after the grant thereof, give notice in writing to the Minister that they require such determination to be reviewed, but the giving of such notice shall not affect the operation of such determination.

This amendment, and amendments Nos. 24, 25 and 26, make provision for an appeal from the determination of the trade union tribunal. Amendment No. 23 provides for a new section permitting any trade union aggrieved by a determination to give notice in writing to the Minister within one month that they require such determination to be reviewed. In the event of such notice being received from a trade union, the Minister will then proceed to constitute an appeal boardad hoc. The appeal board is to consist of a judge of the High Court' or of the Circuit Court, who shall be nominated by the President of the High Court, together with two ordinary members nominated by the Minister. In nominating these ordinary members, the Minister shall, if the appeal is from a determination of the tribunal affecting organised trade unions of employers, select the two ordinary members from the panel of names which had been previously submitted to him by the authorised employers' trade unions, or by representatives of such trade unions or of industry generally. If the appeal, on the other hand, is from a workers' trade union, then the two ordinary members of the appeal board must be selected by the Minister from the panel of names which had previously been nominated to him by the workers' trade unions or by a body representative of such trade unions. There are the following reservations, that the ordinary members so selected shall not have been members of the tribunal when the determination to be reviewed was given, and shall be persons who, in the opinion of the Minister, are not directly interested in any of the trade unions concerned in such determination.

Under amendment No. 25, which proposes to insert a new Section 27 dealing with the functions of the appeal board, the appeal board shall review the determination made by the tribunal, and in doing so is to receive any evidence tendered by persons who claim to have an interest in such determination. After hearing this evidence, if the appeal board, having considered all the circumstances, are unanimously of the opinion that the determination is not in the public interest, or that, in case such determination relates to one or more trade unions of workmen, the tribunal when making such determination, did not adequately safeguard the rights and claims to benefits enjoyed by any workmen and adversely affected by such determination, or the position of officers of trade unions so adversely affected, or that the tribunal did not make such determination in a sufficiently precise form, the board shall, upon grounds stated by it, refer such determination back to the tribunal for reconsideration. In any other case the appeal board shall decline to interfere with the determination of the tribunal. The first point to note in this connection is that the appeal board must be unanimous. As the tribunal may have been unanimous in making its determination, it is only right that the appeal board should be unanimous too. On the other hand, of course, the tribunal's determination may have been made by a majority, but even then it is only right, if the determination is to be reviewed or upset, that the board should be unanimously in favour of reviewing it. Unless there is this unanimity on the part of the appeal board, the determination of the tribunal must stand. There are good reasons for that, because this trade union tribunal must get authority, and unless it can be shown to the satisfaction of three reasonable men, three experienced persons, that the determination is not in the public interest, or that it fails to fulfil the conditions of the Act in so far as it does not adequately safeguard the rights and claims to benefits enjoyed by any workmen adversely affected by the determination of the tribunal, or does not adequately safeguard the position of officers of trade unions so adversely affected, or is not in a sufficiently precise form, then the determination of the tribunal must stand.

Now, when it goes back to the tribunal for reconsideration it is essential that the appeal board should state, for the guidance of the tribunal, the grounds upon which it feels that the determination should be reviewed. When the determination goes back to the tribunal for review the tribunal must consider this reference back, bearing in mind, of course, that the reference back is by the unanimous decision of the appeal board, and with that as a background it must reconsider the grounds upon which the determination was referred back. If, having been referred back, the trade union tribunal is unanimously of the opinion that the previous determination should stand, then the previous determination, I think, ought to stand, because the trade union tribunal is the permanent body which will carry the responsibility for reorganising the trade union movement and for smoothing out and dissipating, so far as that can be done by human agency, all the causes of internal strife and of rivalry which have arisen in the trade union movement. Accordingly, since they have that as a permanent responsibility, and since we must have some finality in the matter, if they, having reviewed the reference back of the appeal board, are unanimously of the opinion that in all the circumstances the original determination must stand, then I am saying that the determination must stand. But if, in any other case, the chairman of tribunal is of opinion that the determination should be revoked, or that a new determination should be made embodying the views of the appeal board, then the chairman of the tribunal has the option either of making a new determination, embodying the views of the appeal board, or revoking the determination previously granted and restoring the position as it existed prior to the grant of the determination and prior to the application to the trade union tribunal.

Now, that procedure is, perhaps, somewhat peculiar, but it has been designed with reference to the particular circumstances of the case. Remember, we have a chairman who is a lawyer and who represents, so to speak, the honest broker between two ordinary members, representatives of the trade union movement, whether of masters' trade unions or workers' trade unions.

They may, naturally, take opposing views in relation to a reference back. If they can prevail on the chairman, or if one or other of them can induce the chairman to take the same view in regard to this matter, then you have a majority of the tribunal in favour of an amendment of the original determination to meet the views of the appeal board, and I suppose everything, accordingly, would be in order. Supposing, however, that the two ordinary members stick their heels in the ground and say: "We are not going to have any reference back to this appeal board; we feel that everything is all right," then the third person, representative of the community as a whole—and, not having been actively associated with the trade union movement, being, I hope, freer from bias or prejudice in favour of one side or the other—steps in and says: "I have to have regard to the unanimous view of the appeal board, and accordingly, since I am put in that position, and since neither of the ordinary members are going to meet the views of the appeal board to the extent to which I think they ought to be met in order to get us all to move together in that direction, or are not going to meet them at all, I am going accordingly to do one of two things: either revoke the previous determination and restore thestatus quo ante or, if you people will give me your advice, I may amend the determination in such a way that it will embody the views of the appeal board in a way which will be acceptable to you.”

The position, in short, is this: that with the appeal board and the tribunal sitting together, if the question of an amendment of or a revocation of the original determination arises, you have in favour of the amendment or the revocation, as the case may be, the three members of the appeal board, plus the chairman of the tribunal, and as against that you may have two ordinary members of the tribunal.

It is, perhaps, a rather complicated procedure, but one of the difficulties which we have had, when considering originally the question as to whether there should be an appeal from the tribunal or not, was the danger of embarking upon protracted legal proceedings. We were afraid that we were going to get this whole question of trade union reorganisation brought into the atmosphere of the courts, that thousands of pounds might be spent, perhaps, in trying to upset the determination of a specialised tribunal, and that, by embarking on these legal proceedings, you were, perhaps, only going to intensify the bitterness which might exist between two unions. I think that, bearing in mind the particular circumstances of the case, the arrangement that is here proposed is, on the whole, the best that can be devised.

I suppose, Sir, we can discuss amendment No. 25 on this?

Yes. Amendments Nos. 23 to 26 are being discussed together.

Well, I suppose nothing could be so muddled that you could not make it worse, and that appears to be the kind of inspiration behind the amendments which we have now had from the Minister. I could not imagine a more unsatisfactory and more muddled method of appeal than that which is enshrined in these amendments. When the Bill was being discussed in Committee a strong point was made that this tribunal of three people would have the power to wipe out of existence an old trade union organisation and give to another organisation the right to organise workers of a particular class, and that in the event of a determination of that kind the smaller organisation would then go out of existence in respect of new members—it might just hang on to those who were members of it at that date, but its sources of recruitment and the inflow of members would be completely stopped by the determination. I made a point, when discussing the relevant section in Committee, that if a tribunal was going to be given such very wide powers, it was rather amazing that we did not provide for an appeal against the determination of that tribunal. I quoted cases then, showing that, under various other classes of legislation, appeals to the court were provided for. In the Bill, as we saw it in Committee, no such provision for an appeal was made.

Now we get a type of appeal machinery which seems to me to be thoroughly unsatisfactory. For instance, it is provided in the amendments that if a trade union is aggrieved by the determination of the tribunal it may give notice to the Minister that it desires the determination to be reviewed, but the giving of notice of the desire to have the determination reviewed does not, apparently, affect the operative character of the determination because, although the appeal is to a higher tribunal, the judgment of the lower tribunal still runs and is operative and effective on the date when the new appeal tribunal gets the case before it. Now, the appeal tribunal will consist of a judge of the High Court or of the Circuit Court, plus two workers' representatives in the one case, or, in another case, two employers' representatives.

It is provided here that if the appeal board is unanimously of opinion that the determination should be reviewed by the tribunal, then the appeal board sends back the case to the tribunal and the tribunal proceeds to examine the matter further. Then it is provided that if, after examining the matter further, the tribunal is unanimously of opinion that no change in such determination is necessary, the tribunal may decline to interfere with the determination as originally given or to take any notice of any recommendation made by the appeal board. In the event of the tribunal not being unanimous in the viewpoint that it was necessary to review the determination, because certain members disagreed, then the chairman is put in the position that, as one of the three, he may come to a decision which may be opposed to the majority view of the members.

I do not know what object the Minister is seeking to achieve by an appeal board of this kind. If you set up an appeal board, it seems to me that you must give the appeal board supreme power to make a determination. To set up an appeal board to review a determination of the tribunal, then to send the case back to the tribunal and have it rejected again by the tribunal, which may really affirm its first decision, seems to me to be setting up a particularly muddled type of machinery. Common sense suggests that, if there is an appeal to an appeal board or to a court, there is implied in that that the authority to which the appeal is made is the higher authority and, being the higher authority, it ought to have the power not merely to review, but to alter or revoke the determination of the tribunal. That is not given in this case and, because of the fact that it is not given in this case, all the other unsatisfactory procedure enshrined in these amendments flows from that position.

There is no reason why the tribunal should exercise any care whatever in arriving at a decision with the shadow of this appeal board behind it. If the tribunal knew that its decisions were subject to alteration and revocation by a higher body it might very well be very careful in coming to a decision. But it knows now that, although there is an appeal board set up, in fact it can tell the appeal board that it will do nothing whatever to alter its first determination, notwithstanding how convincing the reasons may be for a review or revocation of the determination. It seems an extraordinary position that the chairman of this tribunal can be a solicitor or barrister of ten years standing, that we are providing a right of appeal to a judge of the High Court, and when the judge of the High Court says to the solicitor or barrister of ten years' standing: "I think you did not act wisely or legally in connection with that determination——"

The legal point is met differently.

There is no appeal.

If the tribunal acts illegally, they have the ordinary appeal to the courts in that regard.

It may be true that they have the right of appeal to the courts, but that certainly is a very expensive motion to bring under the machinery of a Bill of this sort. We have a situation under this scheme where a judge of the High Court may say to the tribunal, the chairman of which will be a barrister or solicitor of ten years' standing: "I do not think you exercised your functions in the way you should, having regard to the provisions of this Act", and if a judge of the High Court says that to a barrister of ten years' standing, then the barrister is entitled to reply to the High Court judge: "That is no business of yours, I am still sticking to my first determination." That seems a most unusual way in which to provide for an appeal. I think this is a most unsatisfactory piece of machinery, and I do not believe it will work. I believe that the appeal board will simply resign and refuse to function once the tribunal disregards its first request for a review of a case. I believe that the tribunal will do what it likes in this matter, once it knows perfectly well that the most that can happen is that it may get its determination back, but that it will have power to disregard the request of the High Court judge for a revision of a determination.

Is it not obvious that the Labour Party have not spotted what is behind the machinery of this appeal procedure? What the civil servants are trying to do is to present the trade union movement with a pigs and bacon commission procedure: that if the appeal board sends back a decision for review, the two trade union representatives are kicked out through the window, and the whole business is left in the hands of a barrister of ten years' standing. Do you think that is a good thing to do? Suppose you get a decision from the trade union tribunal, with representatives of the employees and the chairman; that for some reason the appeal board refers that back and you have the two trade union representatives adhering to their view as against the appeal board, do you think it is a good thing to say that the whole future of this trade union question may be determined by a barrister of ten years' standing? That is what it amounts to. The moment the barrister of ten years' standing can get the appeal board to send back the trade union tribunal's finding for review, the two trade union representatives go out of the window, because you must get a unanimous finding from the tribunal on the appeal board's reference back, and the chairman takes over the function of amending or cancelling the original finding. The chairman can precipitate that whenever he wants, by simply refusing to agree with the two trade union representatives, and the moment he refuses to agree, he himself becomes the dictator.

All the abracadabra in this one and a half pages of amendments is designed for that single purpose. In the event of the tribunal coming into conflict with the appeal board, it is to throw the two trade union representatives out of the window and get the barrister of ten years' standing to determine a finding which will be acceptable to the appeal board. The Minister knows that. If that is what the Minister has in mind, he should get up and say so and let the House decide on its merits whether that is a good plan or not. I understood that the whole of this machinery was of a conciliatory character, and I think that is what the Minister really has in mind. It is not for the purpose of imposing Draconian decisions either on employees or employers, because I think we are all agreed that that would not get anybody anywhere. The whole purpose is to provide conciliatory machinery. Do you think that that "quick one" is calculated to lubricate the wheels of the conciliatory machinery? I do not think it will. I want to repeat that I appreciate the Minister's difficulties in meeting these particular problems. They are very formidable and I think that whatever proposal he brings forward will be met with trenchant criticism. No matter what method of appeal, or tribunal, or arbitration he proposes, it will be met with furious criticism. Deputy Davin stated earlier that I had not spoken on the Trade Union Bill. I made one of the most intelligent speeches on the Bill since the discussion began but Deputy Davin, being a stupid man, would not understand it.

On the Committee Stage?

Yes. Deputy Davin must have been asleep or in his habitual state of torpor. I suggested that this Bill should be referred to a commission for honest discussion and intelligent investigation of the problems with which it is designed to cope. That is a proposal that all sides of the House agreed was a sensible one but, of course, in the atmosphere which we find ourselves it is one that no side of the House will seek. If the Bill in this form goes through it will create bitter resentment. I believe that a system on the lines suggested by Deputy Norton could work, in which the appeal body to be constituted would be the final authority, if we had an intelligent commission sitting down to listen to everybody's difficulty and inspired by the sole desire to get an agreed proposal. I can see so clearly the Ministerial mind in this proposal that I can understand what he is up to. He is not trying to get a satisfactory appeal system, but he is trying to get something which will give finality sometime. He hopes to get that through the instrumentality of the chairman of the tribunal in the event of there being a conflict between the tribunal and the appeal board. I am quite convinced that Deputy Norton was right when he said that if you establish a body consisting of two trade unionists and a barrister of ten years' standing and provide an appeal body from that, the chairman of which is to be a High Court judge, if the President of the High Court so decides, and the other persons to be chosen for their special discretion and prudence, that body should be sufficient to make a satisfactory appeal tribunal, as that term is commonly understood by the people. In the ordinary course if we go to the District Court we can appeal to the Circuit Court and it is the common practice that that is the finish and that a person has to be content with that judge's decision. If one goes to the High Court he can then go to the Supreme Court and there finish. We know that anomalies arise. There must be finality somewhere. It has worked out in human experience as far as I know that men having exhausted the court of first instance go to the Court of Appeal and that is the finish.

I think the weight of jurisprudence is against the double appeal that there is under the British system, consisting of the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords, because it is rightly felt that when a person goes to the Court of Appeal there ought not to be any further proceedings. Here you have a clear case where you have a tribunal and an appeal court. You have the astonishing proposal that when the appeal court has rejected a verdict they send it back to the tribunal for review, with a clear understanding that a final determination has now to be made in all probability by a barrister of ten years' standing, the two trade union representatives being eliminated from the proceedings by their failure to agree with a barrister of ten years' standing. It is creating the position under amendment 26 (b) of throwing the whole decision finally into the hands of a barrister of ten years' standing. That may be a good plan from the point of view of the Civil Service, so to get finality. It may work, but I do not think it worked satisfactorily in getting the correct price of bacon. It is certainly not going to work equitably in adjusting the rights of citizens. Remember, it is his function to adjust the relationship of the appeal court and the parties so that their interests will be equitably dealt with. I cannot imagine anyone feeling satisfied, if the major part of the tribunal goes out through the window, that his fate ultimately should depend on a barrister of ten years' standing who admittedly is not a trade unionist, but who is required to look at the whole problem from the point of view of detachment and remoteness. I do not believe that any Deputy could give us an amendment that would provide a better scheme. I do not believe there is a trade unionist in a position to say that he has a better scheme. The only way it could be done is by a commission that would deliberately seek out a scheme of arbitration that would carry conviction not only with employers and employees but that would see that justice would be done.

I am afraid I cannot accept the subtlety which Deputy Dillon ascribed to me. I started with the idea of trying to get some machinery that would bring order into the chaos which exists in the trade union movement. One of the ways, definitely, was to rationalise trade unions in their distinctive lines of activity. Some Deputies asked: Supposing the tribunal acts unjustly and unwisely, and without full advertence to the facts of the situation, will you not permit some appeal? I have given a good deal of thought to that, and I have come to the conclusion that there is no use in carrying this sort of thing into the arena of the law courts. The matters to be decided here are not the interpretation of laws or the construction of statutes, but the practicalities of our industrial organisation.

Those who have practical experience of the problems involved can deal with these things best. You have, as a sort of honest broker, the chairman, representative of the public interest. We have taken, as chairman, one who might be described as the representative of the public interest. He has to be a man of some standing, not a man actively engaged in industry as a worker or employer, but a man who, by reason of his profession, would have industrial contacts, and would know something about the general organisation of industry. It has been assumed here, and it is one of the lines on which the debate has run, that the chairman must be a barrister of only ten years' standing. On the contrary, that is the minimum experience which he must carry. He must be a practising barrister or solicitor who has been in practice for at least ten years. It will be my endeavour to get a person of greater experience if I can.

We take this trade union tribunal and start off with the idea that it is going to carry the main burden of responsibility for all the work to be done under the Act, and we say that when an application comes before it, asking for what I might describe as a monopoly right to organise either employers or workers, as the case may be, this tribunal, consisting of a lawyer and two people of long experience in industry, either as employers or workers, shall decide the issue by a majority—the trade union tribunal acts by a majority. Then one of the parties interested in the application before the board says to the Minister that it has been aggrieved by the determination and wishes to have the determination reviewed. What do we do then? We constitute a boardad hoc. Deputy Norton spoke as if this appeal board were a permanent institution. It is not. It has to be set up to consider each separate case. I do not anticipate that there will be many appeals from the tribunal, because I am hoping that the tribunal will recognise that its determinations must, so far as they possibly can, in the public interest, be satisfactory to all the individual interests concerned. But, in any case, when a trade union feels that a determination is unjust to it, it asks for an appeal board, and we set up this ad hoc appeal board, consisting again of a legal personage as chairman and two ordinary people, but people who have special knowledge of the problems involved, because if the trade union aggrieved happens to be a trade union representative of the employers, the two ordinary members are taken from the panel of employers, and, if the trade union happens to be a workers' trade union, the two ordinary members are taken from the panel nominated by the workers' authorised trade union. This ad hoc tribunal perhaps hears fresh evidence, reviews all the circumstances and then, if it is unanimous, if the chairman and the two ordinary members agree, refers the determination back to the trade union tribunal for review.

What do we then propose to do? Remember that the appeal is from an aggrieved party, and that it has received the unanimous support of the appeal board, which, in its reference back, states the grounds upon which the determination should be reviewed by the permanent tribunal. The permanent tribunal—I think that the use of "permanent" emphasises the special characteristic of the tribunal— then sits down, and, in the light of the reference back by the appeal board and on the grounds stated by the appeal board, considers the case.

And the two trade unions' representatives go out through the window.

Not necessarily.

At the chairman's option.

They may go through the door, but, in any case, they will go.

Whether they do or not, let me state what happens. Deputy Norton challenged the procedure, not on the grounds that the two ordinary members of the tribunal went out of the window, but that the appeal board was going out the door, because his criticism — and it cancels Deputy Dillon's——

—— was that if the three members of the permanent tribunal, having reviewed the determination in the light of what has been said to them by the appeal board, unanimously decide that the original determination should stand, then it stands. Deputy Norton said he thought the effect of that provision would be that the appeal board would immediately resign.

I said that, in fact, there is no appeal at all.

The Deputy said that the appeal board would resign, quite forgetting that the appeal board disappears the moment it has made a reference back. It is anad hoc board, and once it has reviewed a determination and stated its opinion in regard to it, which must be unanimous if it is going to eventuate in a further review of the application, it disappears, so that there is no question of resignation, or anything else. I think that, constituted as it is, it is rather unlikely that the permanent tribunal would unanimously agree that no action should be taken in regard to a reference back on the part of the appeal board. I think it is unlikely, but still I think it necessary if the permanent tribunal is to acquire the authority which I think it should possess in order to be able to deal with this problem, that, if the three members are unanimously of the opinion that, notwithstanding what the appeal board has said, the original determination should stand, it should have the power of maintaining its original position.

As I say, on the whole, I think it likely that the third member of the tribunal, the chairman, who has not been an active trade unionist on one side or the other, will say to himself: "Here is an appeal board, constituted as it is, and, if it finds that the trade union which has appealed to the Minister has, in fact, a grievance, in my view the tribunal is bound to have regard to that fact, and I must then proceed to honour the decision of the board if it be necessary to do so."

Now there is nothing, either in the personnel or the constitution of the permanent tribunal, as provided for in the Bill, which would suggest that, in a determination to be made by the tribunal, we should find the two ordinary members on one side and the chairman on the other. In fact, what I see is more likely to be the case is that, where there is a difference of opinion on the part of the tribunal as to what course should be taken in regard to any application which comes before it, the difference will be between the two ordinary members, and it will be the chairman's duty, if he can, to adjust those differences, and, if he cannot, to decide the application by going with one side or the other. That being the situation, the appeal board unanimously refers back the determination to the permanent tribunal. What is going to happen? There will be cast on the chairman the responsibility, in the most usual case, of reconsidering his original views, in the light of what the appeal board has said, and, as the appeal board has found that the trade union has been aggrieved by the original determination upon the grounds stated, that is, that such determination has not been in the public interest, that the rights of workmen have not been protected or the rights of officers of the trade union have not been safeguarded, or that the tribunal did not make the determinations in a sufficiently precise form— upon any one of these grounds the appeal board may refer back a determination for reconsideration. The chairman, in the light of this finding, proceeds to reconsider his attitude, if he cannot carry the ordinary members of the tribunal with him, he, in the light of his special responsibility, then decides——

To throw them both out of the window.

——whether he will sustain the finding of the appeal board. He can either decide to adopt the views of the appeal board and make a fresh determination, embodying them, or he can decide that he will restore thestatus quo ante, revoke the determination and leave the trade union previously aggrieved in exactly the same position as it was in before the determination was made.

I think that procedure has a great deal of merit, notwithstanding what has been said against it. It has at least this merit, that you have the unanimous opinion of the appeal board, of thead hoc board, supported by the chairman, and, if you want to count heads, intelligences, minds or voices, you have four of each on the one side. If, as again is not at all likely and not at all certain, as against these, you have the two ordinary members of the tribunal, it is regrettable that they cannot see their way to conform to the common wisdom of the unanimous appeal board. plus the chairman, but that is the sort of thing that happens in everyday life. As we must have some finality, I think it is right that the four voices or minds or votes—if you put it that way—should decide the issue as against the other two, and there is no question of throwing the other members of the trade union out of the window. The probabilities are that, when the reference comes back from the appeal board, they will consider that reference back in the same judicial way, as the chairman of the permanent tribunal is bound to consider it, and they will see the wisdom of either adopting the views of the appeal board or of revoking the determination and restoring the status quo.

When you bear in mind that these tribunals have to operate in regard to a particular type of issue—issues which cannot be decided by statute and which do not depend upon legal interpretations, but upon the views which practical men take of the practical difficulties involved in the problem—I think the appeal system which we have suggested is one which is likely to be satisfactory. Certainly I think it has met the criticism which was raised by Deputy Norton—that there was no appeal from the findings of the permanent tribunal. It gives a person who has been aggrieved by the findings of the permanent tribunal the right to have those findings reviewed by an impartial body. It gives him at least that right; and by its constitution, by reason of the fact that its chairman is appointed by the President of the High Court and that there are on it two ordinary members familiar with these problems, that bodyipso facto must carry a great deal of weight, particularly with the permanent tribunal. In these circumstances, I think we have provided, if not a very satisfactory appeal procedure, at least the best that can be devised to meet the special circumstances of the case.

I am not speaking in the spirit of an attack on this amendment, because I have no better one to propose. At the moment I do not think I could be expected to propose one without having an opportunity to meet interested parties and discuss the whole problem in its proper background. I would, however, direct the Minister's attention—allowing for his difficulties and sympathising fully with his approach to this appeal proposal— to the fact that, if we cut out all the trimmings, this simply means that, if an aggrieved trade union can persuade the appeal tribunal to refer back to the trade union tribunal, it is the Minister who will determine it.

No, the chairman.

Wait a minute. It is the Minister who finally will determine the issue, and from that decision there is no appeal. The chairman of the trade union tribunal can, by his own act, secure to himself the function of finally determining on the reference back, by precipitating a cleavage in the trade union tribunal. If you look at Section 20 of the Bill, you will see that every member of the tribunal may be appointed by the Minister for such period as he thinks fit and may be removed from office or may resign. Suppose the Minister took the view that the appeal board had referred back this decision of the tribunal on the ground that such a determination was not in the public interest. I think the Minister very properly would watch vigilantly the subsequent proceedings as, whatever about the trade union tribunal, the Minister's primary function is to protect the public interest. Probably he would send for the chairman and say: "Look here, a grave matter of public interest has arisen, the appeal tribunal has referred this decision back to you on this grave matter of public interest and I expect you to take full cognisance of what the appeal tribunal says." The chairman knows perfectly well that, if he replies: "I have no intention of doing so; I will stick to my guns and can tell the Minister that the other two members will stick to their guns also," the Minister could say: "You made the greatest mistake in your life there, my boy, because you are sacked right now. Out you go." Is not that so? The Minister then appoints a new chairman, who at once becomes the chairman of the trade union tribunal. It meets to deal with the reference back and the new chairman immediately says to the two other members: "We understood from my predecessor that you were going to put your heels in the ground, but I do not care a damn, as the moment lack of agreement is registered I become the sole judge and I am going to make the decision that the Minister appointed me to make, and from that there is no appeal."

I do not wish to be a destructive critic, but I point out to the Minister that there is no use in having criticisms of this kind made on the appeal procedure after it is enacted into law. If I do not happen to think of this criticism now, somebody else will think of it later. The only answer to this criticism which the Minister could make—and make effectively—is: "Put up something better." To that I rejoin that he has a right to ask that, but not under these conditions. I believe there are men on these benches, on the opposite benches and on the Labour Party Benches who could put up a better proposal, were they afforded the opportunity to get the technical information requisite to provide an appeal tribunal appropriate to the special work to be done.

Who knows better than the Minister for Industry and Commerce that the officers of his own Department concerned with the settlement of trade disputes are required to have qualifications which are quite exceptional in the Civil Service? They are not the kind of qualifications that are naturally expected in the Civil Service, but are over and above that. This is not a Civil Service problem, but a special problem of human relations, and a bureaucracy is not well fitted to deal with it. A bureaucracy is inclined to say that the form of tribunal should be something like that fixed in connection with bacon, functioning under this Act and that Act and the other Act. They would say: "Let us get a bit of this and a bit of that, and so prepare a new jig-saw to fit into this. If the Minister is patient enough and does not lose his temper, nobody will have a better plan; they will carp and criticise and, at the end of the debate, the Minister, if he is skillful, will say: ‘I am not wedded to this particular plan but I am prepared to consider any other plan'. There will be a few futile squawks in the Seanad, such as we are familiar with, and nothing will happen. Nobody will have the energy to sit down and put up an alternative scheme and, by a process of exhaustion, our scheme will go through." In many cases that kind of thing works in that way. But I am not sure that you are wise in approaching this problem in that way. In a democratic assembly, a bureaucracy can push 99 per cent. of their stuff through because it is not so outrageously intolerable that a democracy will rise and actively resist it. But very often these queer, creaking pieces of machinery that bureaucracies produce give rise later to all sorts of misunderstandings and ill will. The Minister or the Government responsible for them is in a peculiarly awkward position if he has accepted Party-political responsibility for them. If it is a Fianna Fáil plan or the Fine Gael plan it is likely to have a poorer chance of success than if it were a plan born of co-operation amongst all of us. If it were a plan based on a commission's findings, the commission being representative of all interests concerned, then, if it did break down, the general inclination would be to amend it and eliminate its evil elements so as to make it work. Nobody's scalp would fall in those circumstances. But, if a makeshift plan of this kind fails to work, there will be whoops of joy from all those concerned to criticise legislation, as such, and it will be pointed out that this was the kind of rotten, half-baked proposal that was rammed through Dáil Eireann.

I do not know why I should be advising the Minister how to avoid the pitfalls, but I feel—and I think everybody else in the House feels—that it would be most unfortunate if this particular trade union legislation came to a head in violent, bitter resentment between different sections of the community. The Fianna Fáil Party, the Labour Party and my own Party feel that, and all of us will let it go through simply because somebody would lose face if the procedure were altered at this stage of our proceedings. I believe that the Labour Party, the Fianna Fáil Party and the Fine Gael Party would go into conference on this matter, all of them loudly protesting that they did not want to do so, that they would be damned before they would carry this baby and that they did not think it reasonable that they should be asked to accept such responsibility. But all of them would do it, nevertheless. Out of that conference, we should get some scheme. It might not be perfect but we should get a piece of machinery that would work. I do not think that this tribunal procedure will work satisfactorily. I lose heart in pointing out its flaws because I am conscious that I have no satisfactory alternative to put up. I do not think that anybody in this House has got a satisfactory alternative because nobody has the means of acquiring the necessary technical information to prepare it.

The Minister made great play with the fact that the appeal body is anad hoc body. That is clear on the face of the amendment. When I said that the appeal board would resign when a determination which it referred back to the trade union tribunal was reaffirmed by that body, I meant to indicate that nobody would serve on these ad hoc appeal bodies if they saw clearly that no good object would be attained by serving on them once the trade union tribunal could reaffirm its original decision. The Minister told us quite candidly that, in his opinion, even if the tribunal's determination was not approved by the appeal board, nevertheless, the tribunal ought to have the right to stand by its determination and refuse to alter it or revoke it. When the Minister says that, he knows perfectly well that no appeal is provided whatever. The tribunal may have made the determination, in the first instance by a majority vote. The appeal board will consider that determination and may say that, for certain reasons, that determination should be reviewed. The case goes back to the tribunal and what happens? By the same majority, if you like, or by the chairman, acting singly, the tribunal will reaffirm its first decision.

It cannot.

It cannot do what?

I think that the Deputy is under a complete misapprehension. The tribunal cannot adhere to its original determination by a majority vote, nor can the chairman decide, of his own volition, to reject the views of the appeal board. If there is a division of opinion amongst the members of the permanent tribunal in regard to the reference back of the appeal board, then the reference back of the appeal board must carry either to the extent of being adopted by the permanent tribunal or to the extent of revocation by the permanent tribunal of its previous determination.

If the appeal board is unanimous, the original tribunal must accept its ruling.

I am not worried about the point Deputy Dillon has made about the two trade union representatives or the two employers' representatives being irritated into objection, and the chairman then operating. The point is that the tribunal has power to reaffirm its own determination, and that seems to be completely in conflict with the theory of an appeal. The Minister said there should be provision for review of the findings of the tribunal, but "review", in that case, is just a euphemism for reaffirmation of the first determination of the tribunal by the tribunal. So long as the tribunal has the right to put down its feet and stand firm on its first determination, then you may fool yourself as much as you like by constituting an appeal board. There is, in fact, no appeal once the first authority has the power to treat with the utmost contempt any decision arrived at by the appeal board, which ought to be the supreme authority.

Cannot the Minister "sack" the chairman of the tribunal?

The Minister can manipulate things any way he likes in that respect, but my point is that there is no appeal at all. If I were interested in having my name associated with the passage of this Bill, I should take this piece of dead timber out of it. It is merely dead timber. The whole Bill and the whole tribunal will probably be dead, too, the Minister will learn, to his disappointment, before he is very much older. If one were to study this document as the product of a legislative assembly, one would wonder why this piece of dead timber was allowed to get into it. This method of appeal is thoroughly unsatisfactory from that point of view.

It is only a humbugging scheme of appeal that we are providing. This is put in for the purpose of deluding people into believing they have a right of appeal. They have no right of appeal at all, once the tribunal has the right to reaffirm its own determination; so long as that stands, there is no right of appeal. It would be far better to give the right of appeal to our ordinary courts. The union could go to the court, make its case, and that court would be the final authority to indicate whether a determination is right or wrong, whether it is justified or not justified. When the union would get a verdict from the court, that verdict would stand; it either would reject or affirm the first determination. Under the proposals now submitted the tribunal can stand fast and refuse to alter a decision, having made that decision in the first instance. That is thoroughly unsatisfactory from every point of view.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 54; Níl, 11.

  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fuller, Stephen.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hogan, Daniel.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Kelly, James P.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • Loughman, Francis.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • McCann, John.
  • McDevitt, Henry A.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Meaney, Cornelius.
  • Morrissey, Michael.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Mullen, Thomas.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Conn.

Níl

  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Davin, William.
  • Everett, James.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Hannigan, Joseph.
  • Hickey, James.
  • Keating, John.
  • Murphy, Timothy J.
  • Norton, William.
  • Pattison, James P.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies Murphy and Hickey.
Question declared carried.
The following amendments were agreed to:—
24. In page 11, before Section 25, to insert a new section as follows:—
26.—(1) Whenever the Minister receives a notice under the next preceding section in relation to any determination of the tribunal, the Minister shall constitute a board (in this part of this Act referred to as an appeal board) to review such determination and shall submit such determination to such board for review.
(2) Every appeal board shall consist of—
(a) a chairman who shall be a judge of the High Court or Circuit Court nominated by the President of the High Court, and
(b) two ordinary members nominated by the Minister—
(i) in case the relevant determination relates to one or more trade unions of masters, from the masters' panel, and
(ii) in case it relates to one or more trade unions of workmen, from the workmen's panel.
(3) A person nominated under paragraph (b) of the next preceding sub-section of this section—
(a) shall not be a person who was a member of the tribunal when the determination to be reviewed was given, and
(b) shall be a person who, in the opinion of the Minister, is not directly interested in any of the trade unions concerned in such determination.
(4) Each ordinary member of an appeal board shall be paid such fees or other remuneration as the Minister for Finance determines.—(Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála).
25. In page 11, before Section 25, to insert a new section as follows:—
27.—Where a determination of the tribunal is submitted to an appeal board for review the appeal board shall hear every person who desires to be heard and appears to have an interest in such determination and shall receive any evidence tendered by such person, and the following provisions shall thereupon have effect, that is to say:—
(a) if the appeal board, having considered all the circumstances of the case, are unanimously of opinion—
(i) that such determination is not in the public interest, or
(ii) that, in case such determination relates to one or more trade unions of workmen, the tribunal, when making such determination, did not adequately safeguard the rights and claims to benefits enjoyed by any workmen and adversely affected by such determination or the position of officers of trade unions so adversely affected, or
(iii) that the tribunal did not make such determination in a sufficiently precise form,
the board shall, upon grounds stated by it, refer such determination back to the tribunal for reconsideration,
(b) in any other case, the appeal board shall decline to interfere with such determination.—(Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.)
26. In page 11, before Section 25, to insert a new section as follows:—
28.—(1) Where a determination is referred back under the immediately preceding section to the tribunal for reconsideration, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) if the tribunal is unanimously of opinion that no change in such determination is necessary, the tribunal shall decline to interfere with such determination,
(b) in any other case, the chairman of the tribunal shall either (as may be appropriate having regard to the views of the appeal board) revoke such determination without giving a new determination or make a new determination embodying the views of the appeal board.
(2) Where the chairman, under paragraph (b) of the foregoing sub-section, makes a determination, such determination shall be deemed to be a determination of the tribunal and shall be final and not open to review. —(Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.)

I move amendment No. 27:—

In page 11, Section 26 (1), to insert in line 30, before the word "accept", the words "so long as such determination remains unrevoked".

This is a drafting amendment. Under the sub-section as it stands the determination would stand for all time. This provides that it shall only stand so long as it remains unrevoked.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 28:—

In page 11, Section 26 (3), to insert in line 30 before the word "accept" the words "thereafter, so long as such determination remains unrevoked".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 29:—

In page 11, Section 26 (6), to delete lines 56 and 57 and substitute the words "If, in relation to any trade union, there is a contravention of any sub-section of this section, such of the members and officers of such trade union as consent to or facilitate such contravention and, in the case of a trade union registered under the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1935, the trade union itself shall each be guilty of an offence under".

This is an amendment to deal with the case of a trade union which is not registered in this country. It has been suggested that such trade unions have no legal entity here and that, accordingly, it might be difficult to enforce the sanctions provided for in the Bill. This amendment makes the officers and such members of these unions as consent to or facilitate the contravention of any provision of the Bill, liable for penalties.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 30:—

In page 12, before Section 27, to insert a new section as follows:—

27.—(1) Where—

(a) a determination is granted under this Part of this Act that one trade union alone shall have the right to organise masters or workmen of any particular class, and

(b) while such determination remains unrevoked, a person claiming to be a master or workman of that class duly applies to be admitted as a member of such trade union and undertakes to comply with its rules,

such trade union shall either—

(i) if satisfied that such person is of bad character or has previously been expelled from such trade union for a gross breach or continuous breaches of its rules, by order (in this section referred to as a refusal order) refuse to accept such person as a member, or

(ii) in any other case, accept such person as a member.

(2) Every refusal order shall state the grounds upon which it is based.

(3) The person to whom a refusal order relates may appeal to the justice of the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where such person ordinarily resides for an annulment of such refusal order and such justice may, as he thinks proper, grant or refuse to grant such annulment.

(4) In an application to the District Court for the annulment of a refusal order, no ground other than a ground stated in such order shall be advanced in opposition to such application.

(5) Where a refusal order is annulled under this section, the trade union concerned shall accept as a member the person to whom such refusal order related.

(6) Where a trade union—

(a) in a case to which sub-section (1) of this section applies, fails to either make a refusal order or accept the relevant applicant for membership as a member, or

(b) when required by virtue of sub-section (5) of this section to accept as a member any person, fails so to do,

such of the members and officers of such trade union as consent to or facilitate such failure and, in the case of a trade union registered under the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1935, the trade union itself shall each be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds.

This amendment deals with a case where a determination has been granted giving to one union the sole right to organise any particular class of persons. It proposes that where such determination is granted, and while it remains unrevoked, if a person claiming to be a master or workman of that class duly applies to be admitted as a member of such trade union and undertakes to comply with its rules, the trade union, unless it is satisfied that the applicant is a person of bad character or that he has been previously expelled from the trade union for a gross breach or continuous breaches of its rules, shall accept such member, or if it refuses to accept him, shall state the grounds of the refusal order and the reasons why it has arrived at that decision.

When such a refusal order has been made by a trade union, the person to whom the refusal order relates is given the right of appeal to a justice of the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where such person ordinarily resides, for the annulment of such refusal order. The justice may, as he thinks proper, grant or refuse to grant such annulment. If the annulment is granted, the trade union shall accept as a member the person to whom the refusal order related.

There are one or two points which I should like the Minister to explain. Supposing a trade union had a monopoly to organise a particular class of workers—for instance, unskilled workers in the building industry. If there were, in that particular area, 200 workers already organised in that union, and if there was not sufficient work for these 200 workers, and a dozen or two dozen other workers made application to join that union, does this mean that the union will be compelled to take in these workers even though they may have no hope of getting employment in that particular industry?

That is so.

Does the Minister realise what that means? I have another class of workers in mind— dockers. Let us suppose that a port can give casual employment, providing a very poor standard of living, for 300 dockers. Say that 20 or 30 other workers want to join that union, must the union take in these additional workers, even though there is no hope of employment for them at the port?

In the special case which is covered by the amendment, if one trade union gets the sole right from the trade union tribunal to organise a particular class of persons, whether employers or employees, then the trade union must admit to membership any person who complies with the rules. Say it is a craft union, if the person applying for membership has duly served his apprenticeship and has been duly admitted a member of the craft, and if the union has secured the sole right to organise workmen in that particular craft, and this workman applies for membership of the union, he must be admitted unless he is either a person of bad character or a person who has been expelled for a gross breach or continuous breaches of the rules, in which case the trade union will issue a refusal order, hand it to him, and he then can appeal to the district justice of the district in which he ordinarily resides.

If the district justice, on the evidence tendered in support of the order, decides that the order is properly made, that the person is of bad character or that he has been expelled for a gross breach or continuous breaches of the rules, he will refuse to annual the order. If on the other hand he decides, in the light of the evidence adduced, that the person is not a man of bad character, or that he has not been expelled for a gross breach or continuous breaches of the rules, he will issue an annulment order. In that case the person becomes entitled to be a member of the union and the union must admit him to membership. I have dealt there with the case of a craft union because in that case apprenticeship rules and other conditions have to be fulfilled.

Coming to the case of a general union, the same thing will apply. If this union has secured the sole right to organise general workers, the same position is created. That union must admit to membership persons of good character who have not been previously expelled from the union for a gross breach, or continuous breaches, of the rules.

What will happen if there are two unions catering for such workers?

If there are two unions, the question does not arise because there is not a monopoly.

But suppose the two refused to accept him?

Then we shall have to allow the situation to stand as it is at present. The basis that I am going on is, that if one union will not cater for him another union will, because there will still be a certain amount of competition and so on between the two unions. I am only dealing with the case where a definite monopoly is created in favour of one union. In that case I say it is essential that a citizen of good character who normally would be entitled to join a union should be admitted into that union because his livelihood, as Deputy Hickey has pointed out here in relation to the dockers and builders' labourers in Cork, his right to earn a living in this country, may depend on his right to secure admission to a trade union. It is with that in view, where we grant a monopoly to a trade union, that I think this is an essential provision.

Take the case of an organisation catering for general workers. A number of men may become redundant in a chemical factory, a bacon factory or a timber yard. They are members of a particular organisation though belonging to different sections of it. When they become redundant they may turn to other places to look for employment, places which for the time being may have very little employment to offer, such as the docks or the building industry. Will the organisation catering for those working at the docks and in the building industry have to take those redundant men in if they make application? I am not concerned with the individual of bad character. What I am concerned with is the number of men that will flow from one industry to another and from one district to another in which their particular union is organised. Does this section mean that men must be admitted into an organisation catering for workers in a particular industry even though it is not able to find employment for the men it has already organised?

Deputy Hickey's point is, I think, a valid one, but there is another side to the story. Does the Minister stand for the principle that a trade union, coming under this particular amendment, should have the right to stipulate that the one qualification for admission to, say, the plumbers' union shall be that the applicant's father was a plumber? Does the Minister approve, in the case of a monopolistic union, of that peculiarly pernicious class legislation of which trade unions are sometimes guilty, in which they will require you not only to be a good craftsman but to come of a certain caste of men: the substitution of a new aristocracy, admission to which is denied to the average man far more exclusively than the most tyrannical proposals ever made in the courts of Louis Quatorze or Queen Victoria because there, at least, one could qualify for admission to the aristocracy on one's achievement. I understand that there are certain craft unions in this country to which you cannot have access unless your father was a member of the craft.

There is the question of self-preservation.

But is not that true?

The Deputy says it is true. Let me pursue this. There are certain craft unions to which you cannot get admission unless your father was a member of it. I am putting it to the House that that is an utterly damnable principle, because that is to justify the worst doctrines upon which the most corrupt aristocracies in the world were founded: that no matter how worthy a citizen you may be, no matter how courageously you may have served the State, if you were not born to the purple you never can earn access to it. It is true that if a boy's father was not a plumber he cannot become one. It is also true, I think, of carpenters that if a boy's father was not a carpenter he never can become one. The same thing applies to certain other crafts, but I am not able to give particulars of them because nobody will set up a commission to inquire into the facts. Nobody knows the facts in connection with these craft unions. I think that if I went to some trade unionists to try to find out, I would get my nose bitten off me, because they do not like to talk about these things.

I want to be taken as dissenting most vigorously from that system, and to suggest to the Minister that it ought not to be allowed. Deputy Hickey's point is, as I have said, a valid one— that if there is only work for 300 plumbers in the country there should not be an invitation to 500 men to come along and take up plumbing. I am not suggesting that should be done at all. I am not advocating the watering of craft union membership in order to make the existing craft unions vulnerable to attack on wage rate levels. What I am saying is that I am quite prepared to stand for a system whereby the plumbers' union will satisfy the Minister that a fair number of plumbers in this country should be 400. That is the number of persons, let us say, who are to qualify as plumbers, and to be subject to agreements with the trade union as from the 31st December. Let us suppose that there are 27 vacancies in the plumbers' union. An examination, practical and theoretical, will be held on the 1st February in a particular year for persons who have served their apprenticeship to the trade. As a result of that examination, 27 will be granted membership of the plumbers' union for the future. It is rather odd that Deputy Briscoe should consider that proposal rather strange. Surely he, of all men, should resent privilege and the abrogation of certain people from all rights in the community.

I had to laugh at the last bit of it.

Why? Is there anything odd to laugh at that 27 men should secure membership of a craft union on merit without regard to race, origin or whence they came?

That is not the point.

What amuses the Deputy?

The Deputy has not gone back far enough—to the apprenticeship stage.

In my opinion, admission to apprenticeship should be made available to everybody. If the Deputy wants to become a barrister he can enrol at the King's Inns, and if he is such a dull boy that he can never qualify, that is his funeral. Why should not anyone who desires to become a plumber have the right to get apprenticed to it?

But how is he to make his living afterwards?

It will be his father's business to think of that. The father will know that unless the boy is clever enough, at the end of his apprenticeship, to pass the examination I have spoken of in order to qualify for membership of the plumbers' craft union, he will never be able to earn a living at it, in the same way as the parent who sends his child to do the medical course at University College knows that if the boy does not qualify at the end of six years as a doctor he will not be allowed to practise.

Is the Deputy not now justifying the aristocracy that he was condemning a moment ago?

No. Why should there not be an aristocracy founded on merit and open to any citizen of the State?

What the Deputy is complaining about comes under the Apprenticeship Act.

What I complain of is, why should I be debarred from becoming a plumber because my father was not one? I think that what I complain of applies to other craft unions as well as to plumbers, but, as I have said, I am not able to find out the number of craft unions that it applies to. The only way in which that information can be got is by setting up a commission, and if I had my way I would do that.

I am sure the Deputy would, and a great deal more.

Of course, these are the kinds of thorny problems that nobody wants to touch on for fear that the trade unions will all leap on their backs afterwards. I do not care two jots about the trade unions. I want to direct the attention of the House to this: that if a grocer's assistant wants to come up from rural Ireland to take a position in the City of Dublin, he must first of all get a card from the Licensed Grocers' and Vintners' Assistants' Association, and, so far as I am aware, the admission fee to that association for a country boy coming up from rural Ireland is from £25 to £35. Is not that true?

Are you sure of that?

No. Is it not true?

I have never heard it.

I could not say definitely whether it is true at the moment or not but it is not an unusual thing for a trade union branch to impose a qualification of that kind, not for the purpose of getting the money—because they do not want it—but for the purpose of keeping the person out when they have already a large number of unemployed people on their books.

I sympathise with that. I am grateful to Deputy Norton for being frank about the matter and I agree with him: I do not think it is for the purpose of blackmailing the individual but it is for the purpose of placing an insuperable obstacle in his way, to prevent him from coming into the city. Deputy Davin and Deputy Hickey seem to approve of that——

Both of them are country boys, but since they have become city boys they have changed their tune.

The Deputy's figure is wrong.

If they were as familiar as I am with the conditions they might not be so sympathetic with that prudent provision by the city branches of these labour organisations. Here again I say that is giving rise to a very malignant form of privilege.

In so far as there is malignancy about that privilege, it is imposed in the main in the case quoted by the Deputy by people who originally were country boys.

The Deputy's figure is grossly exaggerated. I know it.

I am not arguing about a pound one way or the other. I know there was a fee which, Deputy Norton agrees with me, in certain cases was demanded, not for the purpose of getting money into trade union funds, but for the purpose of putting an obstacle in the way of the proposed entrant into the city trade. Again I say that if there is to be discrimination of that kind, if the circumstances of employment generally in the city make a restriction on the numbers employed in the city desirable in the interests of everyone, that restriction should be imposed only as a result of some test of merit, leaving it to the person who is prepared to work hardest and make himself most highly qualified in his craft or employment free to win by his own merit access to the desired place.

What about the hardships imposed by the Employment Period Order on poor fellows who cannot get work? I have not heard Deputy Dillon saying anything about that.

Deputy Hickey is not going to make me say anything rude to him because he is a man whose head is sometimes as soft as his heart and I sympathise with him. I am not going to quarrel with Deputy Hickey so he may just as well stop making rude interruptions while I am talking. I put it to the Minister that it is only right and just that that discrimination should end. I cannot too strongly emphasise that my sole interest in this matter is to ensure that these privileges, such as membership of these craft unions, shall be awarded on merit and not on privilege. That is a sound general principle which should apply to every walk of life in a democratic country. I believe that the present system gives rise in certain cases to tyrannical discrimination and I think that discrimination should be brought to an end. I think a discrimination founded on the capacity of the working man to pay £20 or £30 entrance fee is a discrimination that should be nauseous to any man who has any sense of fair play or justice. I think discrimination founded on the paternity of the candidate for admission is archaic, antediluvian and breathing of the worst type of European aristocratical approach to life and I invite the Minister, when he is making this proviso, to attempt to abolish the other abuses to which I have referred when speaking in regard to this amendment.

Deputy Dillon made a statement and gave figures in support of his argument that a certain fee was demanded from "country boys", as he said, who wanted to become members of the Grocers' Assistants' Association.

The Grocers' Assistants' Association is not affiliated to the Irish Trade Union Congress, but if they are to be condemned on the strength of the statement made by the deputy leader of the principal Opposition Party in this House, I suggest, before the Minister accepts the figure of £25 to £35, he might make his own inquiries and satisfy himself on the point.

The point which Deputy Hickey has made in connection with this amendment is one of very considerable substance, and it is only necessary to deal with it now because we apparently made no provision for it, and did not think it worth while to make provision for the point, until the Report Stage of the Bill.

On the contrary, there was an amendment in the name of Deputy Dockrell which was discussed on Committee. I indicated that I was accepting that amendment in principle, and would bring in an amendment on the Report Stage drafted to cover the point. There is no use in the Deputy saying it is only brought in now when I saw an amendment down on the Order Paper which I was prepared to accept on the Committee Stage of the Bill.

That amendment, in fact, was to the case of a determination in favour of two trade unions.

I thought Deputy Dockrell had one down to the case of a determination in favour of two trade unions.

No, one alone.

This Bill was drafted, this Bill got a Second Reading, and the Minister's own amendments to the Committee Stage were circulated before he thought of introducing a provision of this kind. Deputy Dillon has been very critical of the position of certain trade unions—a very small number, I think, of very small craft organisations—which restrict employment at the trade to sons of craftsmen. There is some explanation for it. It is not wholly a desire to maintain any particular privilege, and it is particularly true in the case of craftsmen who work outside, in small groups, singly, perhaps. In such a case the position arises in this way, I think, in the main: Take the case of a plumber's son who wants to get employment as a plumber. Nobody will take him. No craftsman will take him. He cannot go and say: "I want to become apprenticed to a plumber." He has got to get the plumber. Where can he get the plumber—because in these cases the payment for the young boy is negligible? He cannot exist on attaching himself to a craftsman nor can the employer insist on the craftsman taking an apprentice around with him and instructing him. What happens there is that the son naturally gravitates towards the father's employment because there is a link-up in the training that does not exist in the case of any young lad working with any craftsman who is not his father. Much of it springs from that. It is understandable to an extent when you know how these people work on their own, out on isolated jobs, and when you bear in mind too that an employer cannot take in a young apprentice and say: "You attach yourself for the next five or seven years to John Murphy, craftsman," because John Murphy has a viewpoint on that and he is not going to spend his time teaching another young lad when, apparently, he finds it altogether much easier to teach his own lad. That is the main psychological basis of the thing.

It also applies to the cooper unions, where they work out.

That is the explanation of it. You can have two views of it. The explanation I have given is not so easily surmounted unless you can get plumbers working in shops, inside, where you can get a factory scheme of organisation. That is not always possible in the case of plumbers or in the case of the coopers, which has just been mentioned by Deputy Briscoe.

What would be the Deputy's view with regard to fellows who learn the trade in a technical school?

Very candidly my view in respect of employment is that once the employment is available there ought not to be any kind of privilege by being the son or daughter of a particular person. That is my candid point of view, and it has always been that, but I recognise that there are difficulties of the kind to which I have just adverted. The point which Deputy Hickey raised was one of considerable importance. Deputy Dillon mentioned the case of a young shop-boy in the country who wanted to come to Dublin and go into the grocery trade. In that particular case the lad approached the union, I understand, and was asked for a very substantial fee as a condition of membership. He could not get employment in the trade in the city unless he was a member, because the firm had agreed to take their employees through the union, and he could not get a membership card of the union unless he was prepared to pay a very high fee. The fee was not required from the boy for the purpose of augmenting the trade union's funds; it was put there as something which would constitute a barrier. I should prefer to put it another way. I should prefer to say: "Under no circumstances will I give you a trade union card, because of the fact that we have so many hundred people on our books, and you had better stay where you are, because there is no employment for you in Dublin". I think that would be understandable. Deputy Dillon even conceded——

I would prefer that; leave the right to get a card, if cards become available, to open competition founded on merit.

That is how most unions do it.

I would prefer to say: "We cannot issue a card, because there is no employment for you in the trade, and so far as we can see there is none likely to become available." Is there anything wrong with the union saying that?

Not provided there is agreement as to what is a fair number of fellows to have in the trade.

Let us suppose somebody discovers that loading ships at the docks is a good occupation—that the pay is good. Is it desirable to encourage people to look for membership of an exclusively dockers' union, and to guarantee them membership of an exclusively dockers' union, if in fact the person is not a docker by vocation, and if there is not much likelihood of his getting employment on the docks? I can understand its being desirable that a person should get a membership card of a union once employment is available, but I do not see why a union should be compelled to issue membership cards to people who are not likely to be able to get employment at the occupation which they want to follow. Apart from refusing a membership card in the case of a person of bad character, I think they should also have the right to refuse a card where it appeared to them that it was not desirable to issue it because of the uncertainty of the prospects of employment. The case made by Deputy Hickey is a strong one and a valuable one. I think it is an understandable one. I think it is a very good way of telling people that there is no use fooling themselves about the possibility of getting employment once they get a membership card of a trade union. I think the Minister should make provision for dealing with cases of that kind.

It is simply encouraging people to come into the cities or industrial areas when there is no employment for them.

I had been entirely in favour of the amendment which Deputy Dockrell had down on the last stage, and which is now put forward by the Minister, but the point made in the House to-night is worth considering. I have only had one experience of those fees which are demanded of young people who try to get into trades, and that was in connection with the inquiry that went on in respect of the bread trade last year. It was there sworn that a pretty heavy fee was demanded of entrants, and it was pretty well admitted that, while people, say favoured employees or even favoured friends of an employee, might get others into certain sections of the bakery business although they were not sons of operatives of that type, the rule generally was that men introduced their own families, and it was understood and accepted by the employers in that connection that that was an understandable practice.

There is one other point which has not been mentioned here, and it is that, in consideration for the heavy fee which was paid, the trade union which admitted an individual to membership undertook to find him so much in the way of work per month, or to pay him certain rates. Of course that makes it all the more understandable why trade unions should exact a rather high fee in order to keep people out, because they do not want a number of people as a drag on their funds when they cannot get employment, and it is a still more cogent argument for the Minister to consider. We have it as an established practice that trade unions try to restrict membership to the families of certain people who are already in the business, and that they do exact fairly big premiums from entrants. They do that for purposes which I think have been explained clearly for the first time to-night. A trade union might possibly have reason to reject claims for admission on grounds other than bad character or gross and continuous breaches of the rules. I do not know what machinery might be established, but I am sure those people intimately connected with this matter could suggest machinery for having some sort of waiting list of people to be admitted at certain times, but there apparently would be a hardship on certain trade unions as at present constituted having forced upon them a membership greater than that for which they can cater. I would suggest that the Minister should consider that matter. Another point in connection with the amendment is that the appeal is to the District Court. I assume that is to make it cheaper——

It is a court of summary jurisdiction dealing with questions of fact.

You can get cases dealt with in a short and summary fashion in other courts as well as in the District Court.

The facts, I think, are easily ascertainable.

A new situation has arisen. There is to be an appeal to the district justice for annulment of a refusal order. The district justice may grant or refuse to grant the annulment. The simplest thing to determine will be the point with regard to bad character or an allegation as to breaches of the rules. I do not know why the Minister has resort to the District Court. The District Courts are possibly more crowded than any of the other courts; they certainly are more crowded in the city. It does not seem to me that there is going to be a more speedy hearing of the cases in the District Court than there would be elsewhere. I have a feeling—I have referred to it in this House more than once—that the District Courts are the courts which come most close to the lives and business of the people, and that they are possibly the most valuable courts we have. But I think there is something more than the mere ascertaining of fact, a complicated background of fact, to be done here, and that it would require something more than the scant attention which possibly the District Courts of Dublin, with their immense amount of business, could give to this matter.

If the Minister is thinking in terms of cost, if he is thinking in terms of saving the expense of an action, say, in the Circuit Court, then he might copy what was set down in some of the other Acts, say the Road Transport Act, where there is a question of confiscation of outsiders' property. There the law was so drafted that it was impossible for an applicant in a particular case to bear any but his own costs. The Minister might, if he is thinking in terms of expense, let it be set down that on no account would an applicant who was appealing against a refusal order have to pay any costs except his own. I can see that a case might be made against that; a trade union might say that quite a number of people of bad character, who would clearly be prevented from membership of the union, could put the union to the expense of defending an action in which the union would have to find its costs in the other court. That, however, is a sort of situation which would not often arise.

In listening to this debate it seems to me that I have a great deal of sympathy with the case made by Deputy Norton, but I do not think that it arises to the same extent under this section as he makes out. My recollection of apprenticeship in connection with a number of trades is that that is governed by a percentage of the apprentices to the effective operators. It varies from industry to industry, but I think that from one-fourth to one-fifth would be somewhere about the proportion. Now, while some employers may abuse that, or try to abuse it, by taking on too many apprentices—and, mind you, that is a very great evil from everybody's point of view, because they get rid of them when things are slack—as against that there are other employers who, possibly, do not do their duty and do not take on any apprentices. So it seems more or less to iron out. While that is governed by agreements, I think that in the main it is fair and reasonable as between masters and men, but this section seems to be about something quite different, namely, paragraph (b), which says:—

...while such determination remains unrevoked, a person claiming to be a master or workman of that class duly applies to be admitted as a member of such trade union and undertakes to comply with its rules.

Now, that refers to a fully-fledged man who contends that he is either a fully-fledged tradesman or a fully-qualified worker in that branch of the industry. From time to time people turn up who have had rather a chequered career, who have not gone through the regular formula of serving an apprenticeship in a well-known firm, or to a well-known master, and passed up into the ranks of journeymen.

There may be men who, by reason of exceptional skill or ability, have got into the trade, possibly, not in the standard way. Sometimes, however, those men are highly qualified and there is a danger that such a man may be denied the right to earn his bread because, mind you, when a man is refused a trade union ticket in his particular calling you might as well follow him about and take his food for him, because he cannot earn his livelihood. While that is a thing that, I think, would only arise in very exceptional circumstances, still horrible injustices might be perpetrated and I think there ought to be some way in which a man, who, at least, considered himself to be qualified, would be able to bring his case in some way before some independent, representative body of people.

Before the Minister dwells further on this matter I want to impress upon him that while, of course, there is force in the case made by Deputy Norton and others, that there must be some proviso against indefinitely watering the membership of a craft for which there is a limited amount of employment, I want to emphasise the desirability of basing that limitation on merit and not on some wholly fortuitous circumstance which may operate to exclude the most meritorious applicant for admission to the craft. Deputy Dockrell, speaking from his wide experience, suggests that the number of cases which do not fit in with the existing machinery for admission to the crafts is infinitely small. May I remind the House that one of the problems with which those who are concerned with the redemption of youths and with the education of orphans, are hag-ridden is the fact that they never can turn these youths out into the world as anything but common labourers. Take the case of the average industrial school or reformatory—the reformatory which gets a boy who has gone off the rails and stands badly in need of redemption, or the industrial school where the bulk of the children going in are orphans, with no parents to start them in life. You are at once confronted with the problem that no matter what trade you give them in order to fit them for the battle of life they are helpless because, when they leave the school, or reformatory, you cannot get them into any of the craft unions, or certainly you cannot get them into a great many of the craft unions.

An elaborate ritual for apprenticeship or otherwise is laid down as an essential preliminary for admission to these unions, without any regard to the merit of the applicant on the occasion of his application. Surely it is fair to say that if the trade unions lay down certain standards of efficiency as a pre-requisite for admission, they should say: "So far as we are concerned, we do not care how or where the applicant acquired that degree of efficiency; we do not care whether he is a plumber's son or whether he is an orphan; whether he has only one parent or no parents; if he is an honest boy, trying to make his way, prepared to fall in with the rules of the craft and do his work efficiently and in a way which will bring no discredit to the union—then he is eligible for admission just like anybody else, and cards will be given, within the capacity of the union to admit members, strictly on the basis of merit." Now, it may be that in one year, perhaps, eight boys will be admitted, some of whom will be related to or connected with craftsmen and others of whom will not be so related. In 1942, for instance, there might be five vacancies in a craft, and two of them would go to craftsmen and the others not, and so on. It might be that in 1943 they would be all crafts-men's sons. My contention is that admission should be regulated exclusively by natural ability in every case.

I think that any social worker will concede that one of the major problems of social work in this country, as in every other country, is the appalling prospect that no matter how hard you may work for a youngster to get him on his feet after some initial misfortune in youth, he is virtually condemned to become a common labourer. We are all familiar with the picture of highly intelligent youngsters who are farmed-out through the country as common labourers, living under the most appalling conditions, because it is impossible to give them a technical training since, if you give it to them, it is a waste of time and there is no hope of their ever using it. I believe that here is another point upon which, with goodwill, we could get agreement and succeed in establishing a most valuable reform, and that would be that membership of a craft in this country would be the award of merit, and of merit alone, and that the antecedents of the applicant would have no effect whatever on his chances to practise a craft in common with other craftsmen in the trade.

I think Deputy Dillon is exaggerating the difficulty—I do not say consciously exaggerating—of boys securing apprenticeship to certain crafts. The generality of crafts take boys independently of what the father is.

I think it is only in the case of a few of the small ones that the condition to which Deputy Dillon referred now applies, but even there the operation of the Apprenticeship Act of 1931 comes into play, because arrangements have been made under that Act whereby entrants for apprenticeship in crafts—a substantial number of crafts—must have served two years at the technical schools, and must have a certificate of a certain degree of efficiency from the principal of the school. It is only when they have gone to such a school, done two years there and got a certificate of efficiency that they can become apprentices.

They have to show a certain standard before they can get into the technical schools.

As a matter of fact, the Apprenticeship Act is turning out a very much better class of apprentice than was available before the operation of the Act. I think Deputy Dockrell knows that. A boy has to have a minimum standard of education; he has then to concentrate for two years on the subject to which he is apprenticed; he has to get a certificate of a certain degree of efficiency and employers will only take boys of that kind into the various crafts. Again, when a boy goes in as an apprentice, his trade union membership is fixed for all time. Let us say he is apprenticed as a carpenter and qualifies after five or seven years, as the case may be. The union negotiates agreements for him while he is an apprentice; his membership of the trade union is all right. From that day on he usually holds the card of that union. Some of these craftsmen, as a matter of fact, even continue their membership of the craft union here when they go to Great Britain in order to keep alive the right to membership of the union and because of the fact that it is a passport to employment at any time in that particular trade. In many cases, of course, there is also an arrangement by which the card of an Irish organisation is recognised as equivalent to the card of an English organisation catering for the same class of worker.

Deputy Dillon should not be under any misapprehension about the matter. The problem Deputy Dillon is up against is that of finding employment for young people. It is the problem of dearth of employment; it is not because of any restrictions put on by unions. Unions do insist on a ratio between apprentices and journeymen of one to four or one to five, as the case may be. There again, Deputy Dockrell, speaking with his wide experience of the matter from which he is likely to draw a different impression from that which I would draw, admits that, looking at the matter from the point of view of the employer, that is a desirable restriction. Otherwise you would simply flood an industry with apprentices for whom employment will not be available. Deputy Dockrell, looking at the matter from the employer's point of view, admits that that is undesirable.

Supposing employers have agreed with the trade union that a certain number of men will meet the requirements of a particular industry, what is the use of bringing more men into that industry? This Bill will compel the union to take them in.

There are two aspects of this matter which we have to consider. First of all, we have the proposal as it relates to the craft unions. So far as they are concerned, they are very fully safeguarded, because, as Deputy Dockrell pointed out, a person applying for membership must comply with the rules; that is to say, he would probably have to comply with all the requirements with regard to apprenticeship and other matters of that sort. Therefore, so far as the particular position of these unions is concerned and the tradesman who would normally seek membership of them, I suppose nothing we are doing in this Bill affects it much one way or the other or makes any great change in the present situation.

But the matter becomes very different when we contemplate the situation which may arise if a large general union were to be given the sole right of organisation, say, in the Twenty-Six Counties or in one of the provinces of Ireland. If we do that, obviously we must ensure that any man of good character and good standing has a right to join that union. It is in fact the general union that we are considering here more than the craft union. I cannot see how we can grant to any private organisation what would be a monopoly right to control and regulate employment for the general body of the people of this country. The great mass of our urban population, at any rate, are general workers, unskilled labourers, and I do not think we can allow any limitation to be put upon their right to get work. We cannot agree that a general union, say, down in Cork has the right to say they will not let an able-bodied man who wants to earn his bread in this country into the union and, consequently, into employment in Cork City, if he can find a job. I am afraid that is the situation which would develop if we had not some such safeguard as is embodied in this amendment. We have heard a great deal about the desirability of imposing these limitations upon admission to the union, but that is what these limitations amount to. First of all, they would reserve to a particular section of our people what may be a virtual right to live by their own labour. It throws upon the rest of the community the obligation of maintaining men who, because of these particular regulations, may not be permitted to find work. I think that that is not a position which the Government, at any rate, should stabilise by legislation. I know it has grown up. I suppose circumstances have compelled workers to seek these means of protecting and safeguarding their own livelihood. But, remember, they are doing that at the expense of others. Fundamentally, I suppose the only things with which a man is born are his strength, his energy and his capacity to work. If he is prevented from working by the deliberate exercise of a monopoly on the part of some section of the people, how is he to live?

Then free entry into whatever occupation a man wants to follow ought to be given.

I am contending that, so far as fundamental labour is concerned, so far as the use of a man's physique and ordinary untrained ability are concerned, he should have the right to employ them to earn his own bread.

I only want to point out that it was not always your view. You backed a resolution in this House to restrict people going to universities for certain professions.

I said that, so far as a man's fundamental ability to earn his own bread and to utilise to that end his own strength and natural untutored ability are concerned——

You closed down the profession of the law and the clerical profession to certain people.

If the Deputy wishes that these closed boroughs should be open to the general population, I am not objecting.

Why not to the poor and the rich?

The fundamental issues are not the same. I am talking of the basic strata of society, the basic aptitude with which all human beings are endowed, the ability great or small, in some measure, to use their own hands to earn their bread and the right to use their natural abilities for that purpose. Some persons have certain opportunities that are not open to others, and I suppose there again we have to deal with vested interests over a long period, which we cannot overthrow now. One thing we can do is to prevent a new vested interest being created, and particularly a vested interest which would adversely affect the great majority of our people. If a man cannot find employment at labouring work, simply because he did not happen to be born in Cork, or did not happen to be born in Dublin, or around the docks, where is it all going to end? How is this community going to maintain that position on the assumption that we have all common responsibilities, obligations and duties towards each other? Surely if we are going to get a position in which a man born in Cork County cannot go into Cork to work unless he happens to be a member of a union in Cork, and if that union will not permit him to join, might it not be as well for Cork to partition itself from the rest of Ireland the same as the Six Counties has done; to let Dublin do likewise, and to let us revert to the situation in which we have nothing but city economies and village communities, in which no member will have any responsibility or any obligation outside the immediate boundaries of the place in which he was born?

That is not the theory upon which we have been operating here. If there are men unemployed in Cork, Deputy Hickey wants everyone, not merely the people in Cork, not merely the trade unions, but every citizen to accept responsibility for them. He wants the workers of rural Ireland, of Dublin and other urban areas to shoulder their share of the responsibility of maintaining Corkmen, who Deputy Hickey suggests ought not to be allowed to join trade unions in order that they might get work, simply because the people who happen to be in these trade unions at the moment think there is just enough work for themselves. I do not think we could allow that situation to develop. There might be something to be said for it, and an argument could be advanced in support of it, if it were the case that members of the trade unions were accepting full responsibility for the maintenance of such of their members as might be unemployed. But that is not the general practice. On the contrary, these unions do try to make the community as a whole responsible for their unemployed members.

Consequently, I think we must, by means of some such provision as is now under consideration, ensure, if a union is given a monopoly to organise a particular class of people in this country, that that union will not be permitted to debar from membership persons of good character, persons who, from the point of view of the union, are well conducted and comply with its rules. If the union is a tradesman's or a craft union, naturally these men would have to be skilled at their craft. If they are general workers then the only condition imposed would be that the man to be admitted is of good character and is prepared to abide by the rules.

I assure the Minister I do not want to create any vested interest but, as one who has been dealing with workers and employers for 25 years, I am afraid the Minister does not yet understand what I am trying to come at. I am not talking of any union that is concerned with a man who comes from Dublin, Cork, Waterford or Limerick. We have men in my union from all over the country. They are working in different areas as well as in the docks in Cork. What I want the Minister to remember is that we have a number of men unemployed, some general workers, others in the coal trade, the shipping trade and the fertiliser trade and many of them have been with firms from 10 to 20 years. At certain periods from 60 to 100 men may be let off because the work is seasonal. In the intervening period a number of other men may come along and want to join the union as general labourers. When they are asked where they are going to get employment they may say that they are going to get work in a fertiliser factory. We point out then that there may be 50 men out of that factory. Another man may want to join the union because he is going to get work at the docks, but in Cork we have 500 men available for work there, although there is employment for perhaps only 200. The amount of work available is not sufficient for all. Another man may want a job in a coalyard, and he is told that there are already 32 men out of work in that trade, some of them with 14 years' service.

It is not a question of preventing any man getting a livelihood in the city, but of doing justice to all. Would it be doing justice to men who had from ten to 20 years' service with a firm, and who are out because of slackness in the trade, to take in others? Are they not entitled to some protection? The State will not come to their assistance; the employers will not come to their assistance. These firms say that when they are busy again they will take their men back. Their only protection is that when the factory, the coalyard, or when shipping is busy, they will get preference. I speak from experience. It would be unfair to suggest that a trade union official would prevent a man getting employment when he was not crushing out somebody more deserving. I am prepared to challenge any statement to that effect. This is only a question of doing justice to individuals who might be pushed out to get others in. It is not a question of giving a man a card or making him pay an entrance fee. I know cases where men were allowed to work for three months because the job was casual. The craft unions were able to protect themselves, because their membership is limited. In the case of the general workers' union, we know from experience that stevedores and men in other firms take on new men for obvious reasons. We find in other cases that some men get employment because of influence that is brought to bear. Is that fair to others who may have 20 years with a firm, but who are put off because of slackness? What becomes of the men who are cast off? If an unemployed man goes to another employer and explains that he was with a particular firm for a number of years, he is not wanted. It is not a question of encouraging the creation of vested interests; it all comes down to the social system we are operating.

If the Minister stood at a dock some morning he would find 500 men looking for a job on a ship for which only 22 could be taken on, and he would find that a man who is a general labourer and who never worked two days at dock work for ten years might be the first man taken on by a particular foreman, for reasons which the Minister can well understand. Is it fair that such a man should be taken on before 300 other men who have stood at that dock stand morning after morning, in rain and snow, in the expectation of a job on a ship? The same applies to coalyards, the fertilising company, and the building jobs. I am pointing out the problem that will be created by putting this into the Bill—that every man who applies for membership other than a bad character, must be allowed into the union. It is not a question of creating vested interests at all.

Deputy Hickey's argument amounts to this: that the men who are outside unions at the moment and who have no cards will never get a chance of working.

No. On a point of explanation, we have allowed men to work who have never been members of a union. We do not even ask them to become members, because we know the job is casual, but what we do say —and in this the employers agree—is that the men who follow the industry should get preference in respect of whatever employment is available. Any other men can come in afterwards.

In regard to the general labouring classes, I can say that men come to me every other day and tell me that they could get a job if they could only get a card, but that they will not be given a card by the union. I can substantiate that statemen in 10 or 20 cases, and I think this amendment is very necessary.

I think Deputy McCann misunderstood the gist of Deputy Hickey's remarks. Deputy Hickey's contention is that, instead of any hard-and-fast rule being laid down the whole question should be governed by the principle of supply and demand, and that when the demand is small the work should be restricted to men who have considerable experience rather than that new entrants into any particular work should take precedence over them. That, in a nutshell, is Deputy Hickey's argument.

What about the peak period in the building industry?

There is no restriction so far as a peak period is concerned.

What about the men who get cards in such a period?

They will be recognised all the time.

What about Deputy Hannigan?

He is only an apprentice at the moment.

I have become the victim of this cross-fire.

I support Deputy Hickey's point of view, and I think his argument applies more to men engaged at the docks than to any other body of workers. So far as the craft unions are concerned, they practically settle themselves. As Deputy Dockrell and Deputy Norton have pointed out, the work in so far as their particular trade is concerned is settled almost from the beginning of apprenticeship. The Minister, in arguing against the case made by Deputy Hickey, stated that the rest of the community will have to take on the obligation of keeping certain men who do not get cards.

With regard to the position at the docks, in almost all the seaport towns, outside Dublin, Cork, and, perhaps, Waterford and Limerick, all the dock labourers are casual and there are too many men already engaged casually to do whatever little work there is to be done at the docks. Some of the merchants, however, are in the habit of bringing men in from the rural areas. Time and time again, they give them a job on one boat or on two boats. They come into the towns to live and it is then that they become a charge on the ratepayers. They get no more work after unloading two or three boats and it would be far better for these men if they were to stay in the rural areas, because they would be far better off. They do not understand the conditions of town life in a great many cases and they are brought in, in some cases, I am sorry to say, because they are prepared to work for lower wages than the town docker. I do not think we need go behind the door to say that, because that is the position. Two or three are brought in and put in with a gang of 20 or 30 dockers. They get a particular boat to unload and they are then thrown on the scrap-heap, and if the Minister asks his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, to examine the position in respect to recipients of home assistance in town areas, he will find a very large proportion of rural labourers amongst them, because they have been brought in from time to time to do casual work, got a few months' work and have then been cast aside.

I do not think that what Deputy Hickey suggests is unreasonable— that men engaged year after year as dock labourers, be they casual or otherwise, ought to have some protection. The amount of work they get over the year is very small, and, if you bring in others to take that bit of work from them, it certainly does not represent a cure for unemployment. It merely makes the position completely worse and the result is that, instead of having a small number of men unemployed in a city or town in which there is a dock, you have a greater number for the whole year round. So far as the Apprenticeship Act is concerned, I asked the Minister, in the course of the debate on his Estimate last week, when it was proposed to put the Apprenticeship Act into operation. I am aware that it is in operation to some extent in Dublin, and the way it is working is very satisfactory, I understand. It is a pity the Minister would not try to put it into operation in some of the other large towns in the country. There are a great many cases—I am not referring to the building trades at the moment —of industries all over the country where boys are brought in at the age of 15 or 16 and kept working for two or three years on a certain machine. They become expert at that and are kept there without being taught in any other branch of the trade. At the end of two or three years, when they should be getting more wages, they are thrown out. It is unfair to the boys, to their parents and to the country, to allow these boys to be brought in. There is a large number of people—young men between 19 and 25—at the present moment walking the streets and towns of this country, because of the fact that no protection has been afforded to them. The Minister has the machinery, but the protection is not being given.

Under this amendment?

A great deal of latitude has been given, and I think the Minister will agree that he himself indulged in it.

The Chair has not heard it.

You could not hear it, Sir, not being in the Chair. I agree with the point put forward by Deputies Dillon and Norton. I have never held the view that a person should not be allowed to become a carpenter or plumber except by hereditary right. I agree there should be some kind of qualifying examination to enable people to get into a technical school, that they should acquire some theoretic knowledge of the trade before they are taken on as apprentices. As regards industrial schools, I think that very few boys there are kept at carpentry or plumbing or any particular trade. They do a little of everything. The point has been raised as to how long would they be at that trade, and for what whole period they should be at that particular trade in the industrial school to be recognised by the employer or trade union concerned? I suggest that that is a different matter altogether. As far as technical schools are concerned, that is a very desirable provision. I would ask the Minister to consider the point of view put forward by Deputy Hickey. I have experience as long as Deputy Hickey in this matter, and know that those are the difficulties that confront the trade unions. This results in creating a number of unemployable people, so to speak—people who come in from the rural areas and are employed for a certain period by an employer for a certain purpose, and then thrown on the scrap heap. In that way large numbers of unemployed arise as years go on.

The principle at issue is so big, between Deputy Hickey and the Minister, that it is rather unsatisfactory to get down to small details, but I would like to clear up one or two. I understand that the Minister's point of view is that, although in fact there are only two grounds of refusal possible under the clauses he is inserting, there is, in fact, a third in the background. There are only two set out—bad character and breach of rule. The Minister makes the point that, because a person claims to be a workman of a particular class and undertakes to comply with the rules, that will mean he must be a qualified person. It is far from meaning it. He might consider this again and see if it would not be possible to insert a third ground of refusal, that is, that the person is not qualified.

I understand that the Minister's argument was that he only allows a refusal on two grounds—bad character and breach of rule—but he says that, in the preliminary part the person has a claim to be regarded as a workman in a particular class by undertaking to comply with the rule, and that that means he either is properly qualified or if he is not, he will find himself pitched out because of breach of the rule. It would be a far more open way to work this by inserting a third reason for refusal—that the person is not qualified, in other words, that he has not complied with the rules regulating admission of members to the union. This is a rather roundabout way. A man may be admitted because breach of rule or bad character cannot be put against him, and then he will not find himself able to comply with the rules and will be put out. Then, of course, a new application will be made and he would be ruled out this time because of breach of rule.

How would the Deputy deal with the general labourer?

The general labourer is in a class by himself. He will not come under this. The specialised trade union is not concerned, and the rules applicable to specialised trade unions will not deal, with the general labourer at all. I do not think it is right to bring the specialised trade union down to the lowest common denominator, so to speak, to the unorganised general labourer. That is apparently, what it does. There is another small point. Is it intended that the appeal to the District Court should be final?

I would say so.

It is not specifically stated. If the Minister wants that, I suggest that point be looked into. In many other Acts it was intended to give one appeal and then finish, but it was found that this was prevented by the general Acts covering District Courts where, when a case is brought in the District Court an appeal lies to a higher court, unless it is specifically prohibited. It is not prohibited here.

I find it difficult to make up my mind between the points of views expressed. I start off with the view that I would like to see all careers of any kind open to talented people and am, therefore, completely against any restriction on entrance. I am completely against any restriction on a man becoming qualified in one or a number of occupations. I have heard arguments in the House on what follows from the unrestricted application of that principle and it seems to me that there is a case to be made. The case undoubtedly in part confines itself to the view that, if you have unrestricted entrance to specialised businesses, the way is open to abuse by employers and the situation in the background is that you get people qualified or having charge, who know that others are in a weak position, and they are employed over and beyond other people who—as Deputy Hickey has put it—follow the industry up and down in good and bad times. I was opposed to the general principle of the open admission of any people to any job.

If you have got a body of workmen to cohere around a particular business and to follow it, it seems to me that the work should be restricted to those and that a chance should be given to those following that particular type of industry. To that degree, I have the greatest sympathy with the case that Deputy Hickey has made. I am just fumbling around with these points, as I cannot deal with this with any preciseness. Is it not possible to have this very open entrance granted here restricted in some way to meet the point of view that has been expressed? Having only two grounds of refusal— bad character and breach of rule— would bring the consequences which the Deputy has spoken of.

I think Deputies Hickey and Dillon have raised a matter of immense importance at this stage of the Bill, and I would like to suggest that the Minister might give this matter further consideration. You have to face certain almost permanent economic facts about this country in connection with the movement of labour, and one is that people unconsciously try to reach the American or English standard of living. People are leaving the rural districts at a faster rate than that at which labour can be found for them, so far as I can see, in a definite period of time. They do that in order to leave a larger income to any who remain on any individual agricultural holding.

Although I actually agree with the principle expressed by Deputy Dillon, as regards the right of a man to look for work wherever he pleases, it is quite obvious to any Deputy representing the small provincial towns or Dublin City that numbers of people are coming into the cities. They often have the greatest possible ambition, and secure temporary work partly with the object of waiting until they go to Great Britain and partly to see whether they can find permanent work. As a result we get a kind of reservoir of semi-permanent unemployed, consisting of people who come into a town and succeed in getting one or two jobs and then are found either not competent or that the work is not continued for them on some particular scheme. They remain on insurance and then go on to public assistance after a certain period of residence. In Longford and Athlone there is a residue of that type of unemployed, and it is a great evil. I am sure it occurs in other countries besides our own. I think it occurs more in this country on account of this tremendous desire to get off the land with the object of improving themselves. They have in mind always the securing of the standard of living reached in America and England. This is a matter that requires consideration.

There should be some arrangement in the Bill to insist on a standard of fitness or a standard of examination, or there should be some arrangement to accept certain classes of occupation, so that the Minister could prevent the increased seepage of labour from the country into the towns, and so prevent such circumstances arising as those mentioned by Deputy Corish—people leaving occupations as agricultural labourers, where they could do a certain amount of agricultural work, and coming into the towns. They may come, for instance, into Wexford, to get a docker's job, or into places like Longford to get work on the building of a cinema, where there is a lot of unskilled labour. They hang on in the town as objects of a miserable kind, and do not go back to the country. I would like to think that the Minister had power to exercise some discretion in order to prevent this transfer of labour. On the other hand, I am in the same difficulty as Deputy McGilligan. I see the necessity for preventing exclusive action by certain trade unions who will not admit people who are not sons of those already in the business. I do not envy the Minister his job in trying to assess the relative value of the two considerations and secure justice for the community.

I am afraid this discussion has gone off the rails. There is nothing in this Bill which would permit me to regulate the entrance of individuals into occupations of any kind. The principle of the Bill does not cover that. All that this amendment proposes to do is to safeguard the right of every person to secure a trade union card. Once the trade union card has been secured, I presume the trade union will regulate the activities of its members in the way trade unions are accustomed to do. There is nothing, so far as this amendment is concerned, which would prevent their doing that.

Once a man joins a union, he will have equal rights with the man who has been there for twenty years.

The tribunal, in making a determination, might go a little further because it must have regard to the rights of the workmen which might, perhaps, be adversely affected by its determination. So far as the Bill is concerned, no amendment I could introduce, which would be consistent with the principle of the Bill, would permit me to regulate the entrance of individuals into occupations.

I wonder if we are not in danger of losing grasp of the fundamental principle in this matter. The fundamental principle is that anybody born in this country has the right, by the labour of his own hands, to provide for himself. That is not merely a right but a duty and an obligation.

Hear, hear!

It is only when it becomes impossible for him to fulfil that duty and obligation that the community has any responsibility, good, bad or indifferent, in relation to him. Suppose we were to impose all the barriers against people coming in from the country to the towns which Deputy Childers has suggested, what would be the natural consequence? If people could not get into Irish towns, they would, undoubtedly, try to obtain admittance to towns elsewhere. If they are driven off the land, because conditions on the land become unattractive, and they cannot get into the Irish towns, they will go to the British towns. If they cannot get into either the Irish or the British towns, what is going to happen them on the land?

Ultimately, I think, the general tendency of our population to decline in number would be considerably accelerated. If the net result of imposing these barriers on the free movement of our population within our own shores were to be a decrease of population, no national benefit would result. We cannot have this free movement of population inside our own shores unless our people have a considerable amount of liberty to exercise the elemental faculties of mankind——

The right to work.

With our somewhat limited natural resources and the limited opportunities which we may have of disposing of our surplus agricultural produce abroad in the future, if, in consequence of an attempt on the part of some sections of the population to maintain a standard of living which is very much higher than that of the rest of the population, we come to the position that the community will not be able to maintain what Deputy Hickey, when discussing the opportunities for employment in Cork, subconsciously segregates as the surplus population——

I did not make that point.

If, because of the demand of one section of workers, employment were to be limited or restricted in the manner in which it would have to be limited or restricted if Deputy Hickey's ideas were to be carried to their logical conclusion, the situation would be that we would not be able to maintain that surplus population and we would have that tendency of our population to decline considerably intensified and accelerated. If we are to maintain ourselves even in our present situation, upon those standards which Deputy Hickey professes to regard as inadequate, there will have to be greater freedom of opportunity in this country and people will have to be permitted to avail of such opportunities as they can find for themselves in a more unrestricted way than, perhaps, they have been able to do heretofore. I am, perhaps, speaking somewhat off the mark in relation to this amendment.

It is a Manchester School lecture.

The amendment was put down for one purpose—to ensure that, if a trade union got the sole right to organise a particular class of workers, the ordinary, common man, by reason of that sole right having been given to that organisation, will not have his opportunity for earning his own livelihood thereby restricted.

I was delighted to hear the Minister say that every worker has the right to live. He has the right to live and to work. He has the right to a means of livelihood, which livelihood thousands of our working-class people have not to-day. I want to contradict the statement made by Deputy McCann. If Deputy McCann were in a job for five, ten or 20 years and, because of the economic system under which we live, he was cast off, on a week's notice, after a long period of faithful service, and another man taken on in his place, does he think that justice would be done to him?

It was a question of casual labour.

I have not a parochial mind. I was not dealing with Cork or thinking of Cork. The Minister provides that every man who applies for membership of a trade union must be admitted if the union is catering for that class of worker.

Only in cases in which a trade union has secured a monopoly.

I know that. We have a very sparse population and, if we had work for all of them, this matter would not arise at all. In an organisation such as I have knowledge of, men in the building trade can, if there is no work for them there, transfer into the docker section, or from the docker section into the brewery section, and so on. It is not a question of locking men out of employment. The Minister must take into consideration the types of employers that trade unions have to deal with, year in and year out. I am speaking with an experience of 23 years behind me, and I suggest that what you propose here is not going to work out in accordance with the Minister's expectations.

There should be such a thing as a register of workers, and it would be well to specify the number of men required for each industry. Take Liverpool as an example. Liverpool is a place where there are many Irish workers engaged along the docks. The position was becoming so serious there prior to the war that they were contemplating the introduction of a system of registering dockers. No matter who would present himself for work, a registered docker would be the first to be employed. I am not asking any more than that. I am asking that workers should be protected in some way, and not scrapped, as many of them are, by employers. Many foremen who offer jobs to men know very well that they have thrown off, in the preceding week, ten, 20 or even 30 men who may have given long years of service. Why engage a man who probably never worked for the firm before, and put off men who have given the firm 20 and 30 years of valuable service?

That has often been done to arouse a certain amount of prejudice and opposition to the actions of trade unions. I would not refuse any man a day's work so long as he is not putting out some fellow who has given years of valuable service, so long as a grave injustice of that type is not being done. If you are asking trade unions to include in their organisation every man who wants to become a member, you must also help the unions to protect those who are scrapped, largely because of their long years of service in certain industries. We merely want to protect those men; we merely ask you to give a little more consideration to the justice of their claims.

I am rather amazed at the statement made by Deputy Hickey. I am aware of several cases of tradesmen living within four or five miles of Cork City who cannot get employment in the city because they have not cards. They were actually refused cards.

There are thousands of men idle in the City of Cork—they cannot get work.

I have definite cases in mind that might open the eyes of some Deputies. Suppose I am a builder and I want to employ labour, am I supposed to take into my employment men who will probably turn up drunk on a Monday morning and come into work drunk on two or three days of the week?

Do not remind me of the builders' labourers who were engaged on schemes in the suburbs of Cork. That is a matter of which Deputy Corry has good knowledge.

I took very good care to follow that up.

I know you did, but there were some men there who were not employed on their merits.

Yes they were, on their merits. If there is to be a definite line drawn that no rural man is to get employment——

There is no such thing.

If the law that Deputy Hickey tries to enforce here were actually enforced some 30 years ago, then Cork City would never have got the benefit of Deputy Hickey. Let us at least be fair in this. Deputy Childers seems to be on the same line. There seems to be an anxiety to establish one definite rule here and that is that so far as the countryman is concerned he is to be kept with his nose to the grindstone. Countrymen are simply to be hewers of wood and drawers of water.

All the legislation enacted here is for the purpose of raising up the city people, the professional classes, and no others. So far as the rural community are concerned, they are to be cut out of any decent employment; they are to be employed just as ordinary labourers or agriculturists. I have seen too much of that. I have seen 15, 20, or 25 rural carpenters who could not get employment in Cork in the building trade, simply because they had not cards, and I have seen city men getting contracts for the erection of hundreds of rural houses who brought out city carpenters and refused to employ rural carpenters because they had not the necessary cards.

What about the labourers who are employed in one housing scheme, of which you know a good deal?

They were men gathered from the district and they were paid out of the county rates.

Indeed they were not.

We took good care that they were rural men. Apparently there is to be a definite rule made in the cities that a rural man will not get an hour's work. You will now find that the knife cuts both ways.

Who is suggesting that a rural man should not be employed?

What else is the suggestion? I know one unfortunate man who got employment as a boiler man in a laundry, and I saw what happened to him. Officials of the organisation went down to call out all the hands employed in that industry simply because there was one man idle who, in their opinion, should be employed. The man who got the job was a rural man who had been working in the city for several years.

Why was the other man put off?

The other man was drunk four days out of every seven, yet so long as that drunken man was there the organisation endeavoured to compel the employer to take him on in preference to anyone else.

Tell the story as you know it.

What about Bere Island?

I may tell Deputy Hickey that I know the whole story and what I am saying is the truth.

What about Haulbowline? What was the qualification there?

Every man had to be a member of the Fianna Fáil Party.

Nothing of the kind.

That was proved here.

The Dáil should not be asked to review Cork disputes.

It would be a very prejudiced court to review them in, if we reviewed them in this House. I could not for one moment allow Deputy Hickey or Deputy Childers to get away with the arguments they were trying to shove over here. They are a bad combination, anyway.

I cannot subscribe to all the arguments made against the amendment. Even the intervention of Deputy Childers would not enthuse me to vote against it. He said there was a desire amongst the country population to come into the towns. I think he might have changed the word into "necessity", because there is a great necessity for large families in the country to get out of it. Those people have the right to live and they must go somewhere. There is an old saying that the lowest forms of humanity were the hewers of wood and the drawers of water. Even if they get to that standard of proficiency where they can hew wood and draw water, apparently they are going to be denied employment simply because they happen to be born in the country.

All my sympathies are with the desire of the Minister to ensure that if we have unions—and my sympathy is with unions; my actions in connection with this Bill are evidence enough that I have sympathies in that direction— they should cater for all workers. I will not stand for the principle that although it is desirable that members of any occupation should be members of a trade union, in certain circumstances it should be possible to deny a man that right. I could not stand for that.

I could understand the policy advocated by the Minister, Deputy Corry, and others who support him, if every able-bodied person in this State were assured to-day or to-morrow that work would be made available for him—the full week's work and the full year's work which every citizen under the Constitution has a right to expect from any good Government in this civilised country. I wonder does the Minister know what is meant by pushing this proposal to its logical conclusion under existing circumstances in any industry where there is a big surplus of available labour? Let us say, for the sake of argument, that at the present time there are 2,000 dockers in the City of Dublin who know their jobs, and that there is only three days' work available for each of them. Their work is work of a semi-specialised character. Does the Minister, by pushing this proposal too far, suggest that if 1,000 other able-bodied citizens, who never had any previous experience of dockers' work, apply for membership, they should be taken into the dockers' union, so that 3,000 men would be competing for the same amount of work instead of the 2,000 who are getting only three days' work at present, the result being that there would be less than three days' work available for each man in future? Dockers who, as I have said, are men engaged in a type of semi-technical or semi-specialised work, are very careful, as far as I know, about allowing other workers not previously employed as dockers into the dockers' union, or into that section of a union which caters for dockers, so long as there is not a sufficiency of work for those already employed in that occupation to maintain themselves and their dependents in decency and comfort. If the Minister means by this proposal that they should be compelled to do so, I say it is most unreasonable I think it is something that could not be justified under existing circumstances, no matter what may be the circumstances of the future. I say personally that I would agree with the argument of the Minister and of Deputy Corry if they could ensure—and it is their job as the Government Party—that there would be a full week's work and a full year's work for every able-bodied citizen. Only in such a situation could they justify the arguments which they have put forward.

I think that this has been one of the most interesting debates, apart from the fire imported into it by Deputy Corry, that we have had for some time.

Like many other Deputies, I am in some difficulty. I think many extraneous matters have been introduced into the arguments. It is quite obvious, if there is not sufficient employment in this country, and if, as is taken for granted both by Labour Deputies and by the Minister, opportunities for employment are strictly limited, the question is: who is going to emigrate? Deputy Hickey says that the men who have followed a particular job year after year are not going to emigrate. The Minister says that people from the country are not going to be compelled to emigrate. The fact is that opportunities for employment are limited, and that is what creates the problem. I do not know exactly how, at the moment, that problem can be solved by an amendment or by a clause of this Bill. I do not think it can be solved in that way. We are facing, it seems to me, what I might call two principles or two expedients, if you like—one, the right of the ordinary citizen to have a free entry into a particular trade, not merely in theory but in practice, and the other, the right of the man who has followed a trade for a long time, through good and bad times, to an assurance that if there is an improvement, or that if employment mounts up, he will have first chance. The ordinary Deputy like myself has to make up his mind on this amendment, bearing in mind that there is not a sufficient amount of employment to satisfy everybody, which of these principles he feels bound to vote for. Remember somebody is going to be hit; either the countryman or the man in the town is bound to be hit when there is not sufficient employment available. I have to make up my mind which of the two principles is the more fundamental and, as I have not been convinced to the contrary by the able speeches of the Labour Deputies, I feel bound to opt for liberty.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 63; Níl, 10.

  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Bennett, George C.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Henry M
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fuller, Stephen.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hogan, Daniel.
  • Hughes, James.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Kelly, James P.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kissane, Eamon
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • Loughman, Francis.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • McCann, John.
  • McDevitt, Henry A.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • Meaney, Cornelius.
  • Morrissey, Michael
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Mullen, Thomas.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • O'Sullivan, John M.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Conn.

Níl

  • Corish, Richard.
  • Davin, William.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Everett, James.
  • Hannigan, Joseph.
  • Hickey, James.
  • Keating, John.
  • Murphy, Timothy J.
  • Norton, William.
  • Pattison, James P.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies Murphy and Hickey.
Amendment declared carried.

I move amendment No. 31:—

In page 12, to delete Section 27, lines 1 to 11, and substitute a new section as follows:—

27.—(1) The Minister may make regulation in relation to all or any of the following matters, that is to say:—

(a) the times and places of the sittings of the tribunal and of appeal boards;

(b) the persons to whom and the times and manner in which notice of the sittings of the tribunal and of appeal boards shall be given;

(c) the admission or exclusion of the public to or from sittings of the tribunal and of appeal boards;

(d) such other matters in relation to the practice and procedure of the tribunal and of appeal boards as the Minister may consider necessary or expedient for the proper conduct of the business of the tribunal and of appeal boards.

(2) Every regulation made under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling such regulation is passed by either such House within the next twenty-one days on which such House has sat after such regulation is laid before it, such regulation shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder.

This amendment merely makes provision for the regulation of proceedings before the appeal board as well as before the tribunal. It also includes provision, which may meet the point made by Deputy McGilligan in regard to the desirability of tabling the regulations, permitting the Óireachtas to adopt, if it so desires, a resolution annulling the regulations.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 32:—

In page 12, to delete Section 28, lines 12 to 41, and substitute a new section as follows:—

28.—(1) The tribunal and an appeal board shall have all such powers, rights, and privileges for enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath (which any member of the tribunal or an appeal board is hereby authorised to administer) or otherwise and for compelling the production of documents as are vested in the High Court or a judge thereof in respect of the trial of an action, and a summons signed by the chairman of the tribunal or an appeal board shall be equivalent to and have the like effect as a formal process issued by the High Court for enforcing the attendance of witnesses or compelling the production of documents, as the case may be.

(2) If any person—

(a) on being duly summoned as a witness before the tribunal or an appeal board makes default in attending, or

(b) being in attendance as a witness refuses to take an oath legally required by the tribunal or an appeal board to be taken, or to produce any document in his power or control legally required by the tribunal or an appeal board to be produced by him, or to answer any question to which the tribunal or an appeal board may legally require an answer, or

(c) does any thing which would, if the tribunal or an appeal board were a court of justice having power to commit for contempt of court, be contempt of such court,

the tribunal or such appeal board may certify the offence of that person under their hands to the High Court, and that court may, after such inquiry as it thinks proper to make, punish or take steps for the punishment of that person in like manner as if he had been guilty of contempt of the said court.

(3) A witness before the tribunal or an appeal board shall be entitled to the same immunities and privileges as if he were a witness before the High Court.

This amendment is to provide for the powers of the appeal board as well as of the tribunal, and for the regulation of proceedings before the appeal board. On the Committee Stage, Deputy McGilligan raised the point that individual members of the tribunal should not have power to issue a summons. This amendment meets that point by confining the power to sign summonses to the chairman of the tribunal and of the appeal board.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 33:—

In page 12, before Section 20 (2), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) A trade union giving to the Minister a notice requiring a determination under this Part of this Act to be reviewed shall, as a condition precedent to the acceptance of such notice, pay to the Minister the prescribed fee.

This merely provides for the payment of a fee by a trade union on giving notice to the Minister that it requires a determination under Part III of the Act to be reviewed by the appeal board.

Why ask for a fee on a request for a review?

Because a certain amount of expense will be involved in connection with a review. It is the usual procedure.

But is not all this question of costs dealt with in amendment No. 34?

What is the fee to be?

A nominal one I presume. Whatever the usual fee is.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 34:—

In page 13, lines 1 to 11, to delete Section 30 and substitute a new section as follows:—

30.—(1) The costs in relation to sittings of the tribunal of the parties appearing at such sittings shall be in the discretion of the tribunal and the tribunal may direct to and by whom and in what manner those costs or any part thereof shall be paid.

(2) The costs in relation to sittings of an appeal board of the parties appearing at such sittings shall be in the discretion of such board and such board may direct to and by whom and in what manner those costs or any part thereof shall be paid.

(3) Where the tribunal or an appeal board awards any costs under this section, the tribunal or such appeal board (as the case may be) may themselves tax the amount of the costs or may direct in what manner they are to be fixed.

(4) Costs awarded under this section shall, in default of payment, be recoverable as a simple contract debt in any court of competent jurisdiction.

The purpose of this amendment is to extend to proceedings before the appeal board the provision which already exists in regard to costs in relation to applications to the tribunal.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 35:—

In page 13 to delete paragraph 1 of the Schedule, lines 21 and 22, and substitute two new paragraphs as follows:—

1. Where the number of members does not exceed 500 the deposit shall be £1,000.

2. Where the number of members exceeds 500 but does not exceed 2,000, the deposit shall be £1,000 together with £200 for each additional 300 members (or part of 300 members) in excess of 500 members.

The purpose of this amendment is to give effect to the representations which have been made that the minimum fee set out in the Schedule, as it originally stood, was too high. The minimum is now reduced to £1,000 in the case of a union the membership of which does not exceed 500. There is a further provision that where the membership does exceed 500 the deposit shall be increased by £200 for each additional 300 members or part thereof.

Would the Minister give one or two good reasons as to why there should be any deposit?

They have already been given.

I object to the proposal in this amendment as I objected to the provision in the Schedule as originally drafted and amended in Committee. I object to this on the ground that no case whatever has been made by the Minister as to why a trade union should be required to make this very substantial deposit to the court as a condition of its continued existence as a trade union. This deposit, a minimum of £1,000 rising to a maximum of £10,000, will continue to be kept in the courts so long as the trade union continues to exist as a trade union. That sum of money, therefore, is taken away from effective operation by the trade union. It must be kept in the courts so long as the union wants to have a recognised legal existence as a trade union. But no case whatever has been made by the Minister as to why a union should be required to make these deposits. The only purpose one can see of requiring the unions to make such deposits is to drive a number of them out of existence because they will not be able to raise the necessary deposits. But even if the unions could raise the deposits, even if their financial resources were such as to permit them to raise these deposits, I still think it is an unfair requirement to impose upon a trade union. No trade union in any other country in the world has found it necessary to pay a deposit of any kind as a condition of its legal existence in that country. We have now progressed sufficiently towards regimentation of trade unions to insist here that trade unions must make a deposit with the courts rising from a minimum of £1,000 to a maximum of £10,000. As I said, if they cannot pay the deposits required under the Schedule to this Bill then they must go out of existence. The Minister, of course, does not care whether they go out of existence or not. Throughout the discussion of this Bill he has shown no sympathy whatever with the work of trade unions, and no desire whatever to help them. Cases have been quoted where small local organisations which did valuable work on behalf of local workers will not be able to raise the deposit prescribed in this Schedule, but notwithstanding that fact, the Minister shows the utmost complacency about what happens to those organisations once this Bill has been passed. Cases have been quoted from his own benches of small organisations negotiating on wages and conditions of employment which cannot raise the deposits provided for in the Schedule and the Minister knows perfectly well that in these cases these small local organisations will go out of existence even where they are national organisations in the sense that they represent groups of workers throughout the State.

Where their membership is small, again, they will have to go out of existence if they cannot raise the deposits, or will have to try to get some other organisation to absorb them into membership. Many of them may find that it is not possible to get other organisations to absorb them into membership, and in that case there is no alternative for them but to go out of existence.

I think these provisions of the Schedule are something that cannot be defended on any ground. The Minister has made no case whatever for the imposition of this requirement of a deposit except that, apparently, he wants to have money at the disposal of the courts which can be utilised for the purpose of "getting after" trade unions if they do not conform to whatever standards of conduct the present Minister may expect from them. The Minister is insisting on this deposit because he knows it is one of the ways of killing small trade unions. I have never regarded the strength of a trade union as residing solely in its bank balance. I regard the strength of a trade union as lying in its ability to do things and to look after the interests of its members. Many organisations probably have very little money because of the manner in which they look after the interests of their members, while others, with substantial deposits, probably have them because they were not spent in the way they might well have been spent in promoting the interests of their members.

In this Bill, for the first time, we are making the legal recognition of a union conditional upon the union being able to make a cash deposit. Once it does that, then we take no notice whatever of its other qualifications, or of whether it does anything in an unsatisfactory way or how many unsatisfactory things it may do or how many negligent things it may do. The one test we are now imposing for the legal recognition of a union is its ability to make these substantial deposits. No case whatever has been made as to why they should be asked to make these deposits. Although the Minister is amending the Schedule and reducing the minimum deposit from £2,000 to £1,000, I am still opposed to any union being required to make any deposit as a condition to its remaining a legal entity in this country. We are doing something here now which has not been done in Britain or in any other country in the world. We are doing it for the first time and for no reason whatever except that the Minister, apparently, wants to smash small unions. If they are smashed this time they are being smashed, not in the interests of national progress, but they are being smashed so as to make their members an easier target for the employers, who will find substantial benefits for themselves in their depredations on the standard of living of the workers, aided and abetted by this Government through its Emergency Powers Order No. 83.

I want to suggest to the Minister that the amount stipulated for in this amendment of his is excessive. I always identify in my mind the trade unions with the friendly societies. I remember when I was responsible for the Ancient Order of Hibernians' National Health Insurance Society in Northern Ireland, we found ourselves frequently confronted with the situation in which efforts were made to require deposits and cash balances analogous to those held by certain other societies in Northern Ireland. It was represented to us that the demands made upon us were not in excess of what everybody else was prepared to pay, but the difference between those other societies and ourselves was that we had practically all the casual labourers in Belfast, because most of the casual labourers in Belfast happened to be Catholics. We had an immense number of unemployed men on our lists, and the result of it was that we were poor, and it put us to the pin of our collars to keep the wolf from the door, month by month, and year by year, simply because we were catering for a class of insured persons who were poor. Now, had a standard analogous to this been established of very large deposits founded on membership, our membership would have sunk us, because our membership was immense. But the larger our membership became the greater our poverty, whereas many of the societies which had very small memberships were immensely wealthy, and could put up almost unlimited sums. I often suspected that a competition was being initiated of that kind to persuade the Northern Government to stipulate for very high deposits in the hope of squeezing us out altogether and of holding us up as an improvident kind of cods who, with this immense membership, were unable to amass funds which somebody unversed in the intricacies of that kind of organisation might very easily expect us to amass.

I have carefully read through two volumes of the debates on this Bill, and I have not seen any justification for laying down a large deposit here at all, and I have not heard anyone make any argument for it. I can understand if we anticipated that huge actions were likely to lie against the trade unions, and the necessity for having money within reach if heavy penalties were to be levied upon them, requiring them to put up money. If this related to a trade union which was registered outside the jurisdiction, where we could not get at it if heavy penalties were imposed upon it, I can understand unions being required to put up very large deposits. I can understand, if they were friendly societies on a large scale with registered offices outside the jurisdiction, their being required to lodge large sums of money within the jurisdiction to protect their membership who live in Eire.

I think there is a lot in what Deputy Norton has said. This large deposit is designed to squeeze certain unions out. I put it to the Minister that that is a very bad way to squeeze unions out. I objected on an earlier section to any kind of class test in respect of persons who sought admission to unions. I detest having any test founded on money imposed on assemblies of working-men. Why should a rich union be entitled to registration if a union of poor men is denied it? Suppose the union has not got the deposit; is that any crime? Is it in any sense wrong for a large body of men to form themselves into a union for an excellent purpose, and to find themselves very short of funds?

What would have happened to Catholic trade unions in France if a stipulation of that kind obtained under French law? They would never have got going. The communist and socialist trade unions would have smashed them. I venture to say that when the Catholic trade unions started in France they had not sixpence to rattle on a tombstone. They were collecting amongst well-wishers throughout the country to try to keep themselves in their offices, never mind paying £10,000. What would have happened in Belgium if such a stipulation obtained under the law there? Suppose somebody wanted to start Catholic trade unions in this country, where would they get the deposit? Suppose a thousand men here desired to establish Catholic trade unions on the French or Belgian lines, in opposition to the existing trade unions, does the Minister think it a desirable thing that those trade unions could not be started because they had not got the money? I do not think it is. I could understand a nominal deposit, such as £50 or £100 being asked for, to prove thebona fides of the promoters, lest there be a multiplicity of unions started for some purpose of internecine strife amongst the trade unions in the country, but a sum which constitutes a very serious burden should not be demanded. When referring to the figure in this amendment, I should like if the Minister would turn for a moment to what he thinks would have happened to the Catholic trade unions in France and Belgium if a similar stipulation had been in the law of those countries. I do not think they would ever have been established. Does he think that a good thing? I should be grateful if he would give us his view on the desirability of applying a monetary test to unions of working-men, and declaring that only rich unions are to survive in this country, while unions of poor men are anathema to the Government and must be eliminated. I do not think that is a principle that any democratic Government could stand over, and I shall be glad to hear the Minister's views on the matter.

I was opposed to the original sum put down in the Schedule, because I objected to the purpose which it was intended to fulfil or certainly the end which it was bound to bring about. I think it was bound to lead, and lead quickly, to the disappearance of a number of very excellent institutions in the country, the smaller trade unions. I think the sum of £1,000—though I admit £1,000 is better than £2,000—would still have that decided tendency. Even in the case of a man like the Minister, paying super-tax, he would probably find £1,000 easier to get than £2,000. It seems to me that it will not benefit the employers in the long run. I think there are two types of men keen on a Bill of this kind, short-sighted employers on the one hand, and big bosses of labour on the other hand. I cannot see anybody with a long vision being in favour of this Bill except he belongs to one or other of those classes. With the disappearance of the small unions you may for a while seem to get rid of a number of irritating things, but I fear it will be bad both for the employers and for the workers in the long run. It is because that deposit will have the effect of destroying the small unions that I am opposed to it. It is obviously designed to bring about the quick disappearance of that type of union. The sum is altogether too high. It is unreasonable to expect small unions, if you want to give them a chance to continue in existence, to lock up £1,000 of their funds. In the case of many of them their funds are exiguous enough without having so much of their money unprofitably tied up. I do not know on what grounds the Minister justifies this figure of £1,000. Is it to meet the possible damage that he suggests the union can do? What is that figure meant to meet? What is it meant to accomplish beyond the main purpose of wiping out those smaller unions? The Minister may not object to the taunt of Deputy Norton that in this matter we are pioneers. I wish we had taken the lead in other matters rather than in this case. It seems to me that the figure is altogether too high. I agree with Deputy Dillon that, if you want to prove thebona fides of the unions—though the principle would still be bad—a nominal fee might be charged, but I can see only one purpose in demanding a fee of £1,000 from a small trade union of workers, or, possibly a still smaller trade union of employers in some of our country towns. At a time like this, with the amount of money they have already locked up in the way of increased tariffs and so on, they might find it difficult to run their businesses if they have to lock up another £1,000.

They would find it quite impossible.

From the point of view of the workers—and it is those small unions of workers I have particularly in mind, because I think they fulfil a very useful function—and also from the point of view of any body of traders that might wish to form a negotiating body, I think it is unreasonable to ask them to put down a sum of this kind before they can be recognised.

We have had most of this out on the section already and on the Schedule. We certainly had it out on the Second Stage of the Bill. The chief purpose of this Bill is to bring about the rationalisation and reorganisation of the Irish trade union movement; to compel trade unions which are small in membership and which are jealous competitors with each other for additional membership to consider their position and to see to what extent, by amalgamating with kindred organisations, they can first of all get rid of this rivalry and put themselves in a position to manage their own affairs efficiently.

Now, there are trade unions with a small membership, and, perhaps, comparatively limited funds, which do organise and administer themselves efficiently, but the generality of the small trade unions do not, and the generality of the small trade unions, from the point of view of industry as a whole, are not good influences because of the rivalry which exists between them, because of the fact that their administration is in some cases poor, and because of the continuous disputes which take place in regard to the rights of their members when they appear upon jobs where other trade unions claim rights also. In these circumstances, I think that we have to take this as a fair indication of the general efficiency and ability with which a trade union has been managed and with which its affairs have been conducted: That if it has been prudently managed, it will have reasonably substantial funds. That has been my general experience. Looking over the lists of trade unions I have found that those which have been prudently managed, which have certain standards of conduct in relation to their members and in relation to industry in general, are in a reasonably substantial position. I think that we are not doing any injustice to the members of the smaller unions when we are compelling those who are in charge of those smaller unions to reconsider their own position and see what they can do in conjunction with others who may be similarly situated, and in conjunction with the stronger unions, to put themselves in a better position, as I feel, to protect their members and to remove these causes of strife and bitterness, not merely in the trade union movement where they originate, but in industry in general where their effects are more felt.

I do not think there could be any other way in which we could secure this reorganisation except by compelling unions to give a substantial indication of their financial soundness, because the ability of the trade union to look after its own members depends very largely upon that. We could not possibly have set up a sort of inquisition to go into the affairs of every trade union and to ascertain whether or not each particular organisation was being properly run. We could not set up a general court to try trade unions on the grounds that, by reason of their own factiousness inside the trade union movement, they had occasioned national loss and industrial disorganisation. We can only impose what I have described as a rough and ready test such as this is—the sort of test that is imposed in relation to other concerns and businesses. If a company wishes to engage in the business of life insurance, it has to make a deposit. If people are going to engage in certain other undertakings, or to enter certain employments, they have to give deposits, simply as an indication, in many cases, of their stability and generalbona fides.

Now, in addition to that, it is quite clear that some barrier had to be erected, that some limitation had to be imposed upon the readiness and the facility with which it was possible to establish new trade unions in this country, new bodies going out and entering into this field of industrial organisation, which remember has certain monetary attractions to offer to those who are prepared to undertake it. I feel as I have said, that it was necessary that some sort of limitation should be imposed upon them. The only limitation that we could reasonably impose, I think, was that those who were going to enter into this field of class organisation—because that is what it is; no matter whether it is the employer class or the employee class that you are going to organise, it is a class organisation—would have to give some guarantee to the State that they were persons, who, at least, could command the financial confidence of those who were prepared to support them. There are many ways in which it would be possible for them to provide themselves with the financial backing.

I do not think we can find that there is any great substance in the argument put forward by Deputy Dillon to the effect that if a condition of this sort had been in existence, say, 60 or 70 years ago, it would not have been possible for the Catholic trade unions in France or in Belgium to have been organised. We are dealing here with a country where the trade union movement has long passed out of its infant and adolescent stages. We are faced here with the position of a fully developed trade union movement with, in my view, at any rate, some undesirable features, features which it has not been able to cure of itself. Accordingly I say that we cannot draw any analogy between the situation as it exists here in Ireland to-day, and the situation as it existed in France 60 or 70 years ago. We are dealing with a fully developed movement in a country where, in my view, I do not think there is very much scope for new organisations going into this field. I do not know whether it would be generally contended that there is any opening for what would be described as a Catholic trade union in Ireland. So far as we can see, the overwhelming bulk of the trade unionists in Ireland are practising Catholics, and I do not think there is any ecclesiastical authority that would take exception to the general philosophy which informs the general body of the trade union movement in this country. So that, I do not know—at least, I cannot myself see— that there would be a field here for that special, sectional type of organisation which, undoubtedly, was necessary in France and some of the Continental countries. We have not got the need for it here, and therefore I do not think we could reasonably say that because a body, calling itself a Catholic trade union, could not be started in this country unless it was prepared to make the necessary deposit, that was a major objection against this Bill, because we can quite readily, I think, say that the need for such a body is not generally recognised to exist in any circle in the Twenty-six Counties.

As to the difficulties and hardships, which, it is said, this will impose, I cannot see, knowing the general resources of our trade unions, how this requirement is going to inflict any great hardship upon any well conducted and properly organised trade union here. In so far as the requirement of a deposit might occasion any hardship, due to the special circumstances of this particular time, powers have been taken, under Section 8, so long as the Emergency Powers Act is in operation, to reduce the deposit to be required by no less than 75 per cent. So that, in the case of the minimum deposit which the amendment now proposes, if the Minister is satisfied that a union, because of the particular circumstances of the time, is finding undue difficulty in making this deposit, he is empowered to reduce the amount of the deposit required under the Bill to 25 per cent. of the minimum sum: in other words, to £250.

I think that a trade union should be able to deposit £250, which, remember, will remain the property of the trade union, which will earn an income for the trade union at least as great as the trade union would derive if the deposit were lodged, as in the case of some trade unions, in the bank. So far as the trade union, which is in possession of £250, or £1,000 as the case may be, is concerned, this provision does not, I think, inflict any loss on it. If the trade union had £1,000, that £1,000 would probably be invested in Government stock or in the stock of a local authority, earning anything from 3½ to 4½ per cent. interest. The deposit can be made in the form of approved securities. The income from these securities will inure to the trade union which makes it.

Deputy O'Sullivan made a case for a trade union of employers which might exist in a country town. If the local employers wish to have a local union and wish to carry on negotiations of the sort contemplated in Section 6 of the Bill, I suppose they will have to make the deposit. But, it seems to me that it is open to employers to federate with one of the larger employers' organisations, to allow them to make the deposit for the general body of the membership, and to conduct the negotiations on behalf of the employers in the country town. That could be quite easily arranged, because the employers in that town can become a separate group in the employers' federation. No doubt if they were organised in that way in a group, they themselves would actually conduct the negotiations themselves, but they would have the advice and the assistance of the experienced officers of the federation as a whole. But, if they do not want to do that, if they want to organise themselves as a separate association or trade union, even still I do not think that they would have any great difficulty or that any great loss would be inflicted on them because, as I have said, the deposit can be made in approved securities bearing interest, which again is paid over in due course to those who make the deposit. I think that if, in the present circumstances, a number of substantial employers in any country town could not raise £1,000 amongst themselves, or could not go to a bank and get an overdraft for £1,000, deposit the securities with the bank and pay over to the bank the interest that those securities would earn, then they must be in a very parlous condition indeed.

You would be surprised.

I would be surprised if, in one of our leading Connaught business towns business men could not come together and persuade a bank to advance them a sufficient sum to enable them to buy gilt-edged securities—it may be difficult to describe any securities as gilt-edged ones at the moment—could not at least get sufficient to allow them to purchase £1,000 worth of interest-bearing Government securities and deposit these with the accountant of the Courts of Justice on the understanding that the interest would be paid over by that accountant in due course to the appointed agents of the depositors, the bank which advanced the money. Certainly I should be very much surprised indeed if an arrangement of that sort were not possible.

I would be equally surprised if an arrangement of that sort were not possible in regard to some of the workers' trade unions, about which we have heard so much during the course of the debate. We hear of these organisations which have been established in country towns which have accumulated £200 or £300, and which have been apparently very efficiently run. I would be surprised if in these circumstances the trade union concerned would not be able to secure from its bankers an overdraft secured by the collateral which would be deposited with the accountant of the Courts of Justice which would enable the trade union to fulfil the terms of the Bill and to make the deposit, on the understanding, of course, that if the deposit was ever reclaimed by the trade union it would be paid into the bank. If that were done, and I do not see any great difficulty in doing it, it is obvious that this provision here would not impose any undue burden on any properly and decently-managed trade union; not even the Tipperary Workingmen's Trade Union, or those other trade unions of which we have heard so much.

I really cannot see why all this pother has been raised in regard to the provisions of this Schedule. To my mind they are moderate provisions; they are provisions which can be quite readily fulfilled by any properly and well-conducted body of employers or employees. As the deposit does act as a deterrent, as it does impose a very necessary limitation on the formation of new trade unions in this country, particularly of those break-away unions which are the product of internal feuds, it will be very beneficial from that point of view.

In addition to that, in so far as it compels trade unions which have been badly managed and which are in a shaky condition to consider amalgamation with each other the deposit will result in the eradication of points of difference and sources of strife between them, and in that way do a great deal of good to the trade union movement. I am fortified in that belief after a very exhaustive study of the proceedings of the sub-committee of the commission of inquiry which the Irish Trade Union Congress itself set up. Deputy Norton knows that a number of the signatories to memorandum No. 2, and a number of the signatories who submitted memorandum No. 1, were all agreed that something should be done to secure an amalgamation of these trade unions and a reorganisation of the Irish trade unions upon a more rational basis than existed.

Everybody who has taken any interest in the conduct of this measure through the House knows perfectly well that the contents of the Bill have been under consideration by the Minister and his official advisers for at least 12 months, and during that period I know of no labour dispute of any importance.

That has nothing to do with the Schedule.

I know of no period in which there was less trouble so far as trade union rivalry and jealousy are concerned, and I know of no period when there was greater necessity for unity.

That has nothing to do with the Schedule.

I know of no measure that has caused greater discussion——

The Deputy must remember that the measure is not now before the House. We are dealing with the Schedule.

If the Minister will admit that this question has been under serious consideration for 12 months, and as he admits that he has studied very carefully the inner workings of the trade unions——

Will the Deputy come to amendment No. 35?

The Minister must admit that the Schedule, even as now amended, means the death sentence for many small trade unions, both amalgamated and Irish, if this measure ever comes into operation. If he has made a careful study of the inner workings of trade unions he ought to be well acquainted with their numerical strength and financial standing. This death penalty clause is brought in at a time when there was never a greater call on the reserve funds and the other funds of big and small trade unions, and that call is likely to increase as the times get worse. The Minister will be the last person to say that these demands are likely to decrease. I know of one of the oldest craft unions, with a very small membership, that has been in existence for over 70 years which for some time past has been paying benefit to the majority of its members. I am sure the Minister has knowledge of the financial standing and numerical strength of that union. The sum demanded in the Schedule, as now amended, will, in my opinion, put that union out of existence. Much as I dislike the attitude of the Minister on a question of this kind, I am slow to believe that that is deliberate on his part. I cannot get it from the Minister that he has at any time studied the returns of the various unions or registered friendly societies.

If the amendment proposed is so disturbing would the Deputy like me to withdraw it?

The representatives of the trade unions made their complaints to the Minister in private conference and they strongly objected to any sum being demanded as a deposit from any of the unions, recognised or otherwise. The Minister knows that. I dare say the Minister was one of the first to read a famous leading article that appeared in a journal that presumes to speak on behalf of a big organisation of employers. In the last edition of that well-known journal, which is carefully read I am sure by the Minister every month, the writer speaking on behalf of the rotten employers says the Bill in this respect does not go far enough; it does not go far enough to kill the trade unions.

What is the Deputy quoting from?

I am speaking from memory of an article that appeared in a recent issue of a journal, a copy of which I have reason to think Deputy Dillon and every other Deputy received.

Put a name to it— courage.

I do not want to advertise a journal of that particular type in present circumstances.

Having described it you ought to name it.

I am not pretending to quote the article fully.

What is the journal?

With the permission of the Chair, I may at a later stage name it for the purpose of obliging Deputy Dillon and also quote from the article, which he knows of as well as I do. Deputy Dillon reads a great deal. That is clear from the very eloquent speeches he delivers in this House occasionally, and from the very eloquent speech backed up by very sound arguments, which he delivered on this Schedule.

The Deputy is getting complimentary late at night. He must have had his tea.

The Minister made no attempt to answer the sound arguments put forward by Deputy Dillon on behalf of those who are opposed to this demand for an unreasonable deposit. The Minister said it was a rough-and-ready figure. It is very rough on some of the unions and means that they will not be heard of any more inside the trade union movement if this Bill becomes law, and if they decide to recognise it as the law of the land. The Minister spoke about unions that were prudently managed, and said it would not be desirable to set up a court of inquiry to find out their present financial standing for purposes of this kind. Some of the small unions are hard hit in present circumstances by the very generous sum per week that they pay out in benefit to members who are unemployed and also in other circumstances.

What guarantee have the members of these small unions that they will get the same benefit in future from any other organised body under the terms of this Bill, as a result of being unable to find the deposit demanded by the Schedule? The representatives of organised workers here are unanimously opposed to the demand for the sum required as a deposit for the purpose of qualifying for future existence under the Bill. The sum demanded as a deposit is the hallmark of class legislation, and it has not been applied to any other class in the community.

I think the Minister set out to try to achieve a very excellent purpose and that he sought to dispense with the present type of trade unions. I think he signally failed in that purpose, and now attempts to achieve what could be achieved by an agreed measure if we had time to sit down to discuss it in an atmosphere other than that which pertains in this House. What he is going to achieve is this. He is going virtually to reach a position here in which we will have something analogous to that which obtains in the United States of America.

Is the Deputy dealing with amendment No. 35?

Of course. When we have a position in which we have the C.I.O. on one side and the A.O.F. on the other, two huge unions, the industrial gentleman to whom Deputy Davin referred will discover to his cost then that the only time there will be peace between these two great unions will be when they combine to disembowel him. But in the process this country may find itself with a problem similar to that which is at present bewildering the United States of America, which has far greater resources for dealing with such a problem.

Everybody is agreed that there is some difficulty with regard to the multiplicity of unions. Everybody is agreed that something ought to be done. A great many people fail to see the danger that lies ahead of this rough-and-ready method, to adopt the Minister's term, of amalgamation of unions. We have the raw material in this country of a Lewis-Green conflict and the Minister knows that. The Minister is as familiar with the problem of organised labour in the United States of America as I am, so that it is not necessary to elaborate any references to the great industrial struggle in America for the purpose of relating it to our circumstances here, but all elements supporting this Trade Union Bill, from the blood-sucking tariff racketeer to whom Deputy Davin referred all the way down to the simplest and least initiated member of the Fianna Fáil Party, may wake up to discover some day that they have opened Pandora's box and let loose something they are quite unable to control.

What has this got to do with the Schedule?

If the Chair would pay a little attention, it would realise that I have explained that, if these levies are made, the small unions will be swept away and will be driven into two great unions which will enter into rivalry analogous to that at present obtaining in the United States of America and which has created immense industrial problems far greater, far graver and far more dangerous to the State than any internecine quarrellings that have impeded the peaceful progress of industrial enterprise. I have heard people question some of the criticism that has been levelled against this Bill from these benches, and, when their attention has been directed to this aspect of the situation to which I am now referring, their mouths have fallen open and their eyes have been opened, too. It just had not occurred to them.

I wonder, when the Minister embarked on this Bill, if that aspect of the situation occurred to him either. I think it is a very real danger, and remember that many of the old craft unions will hang on as long as they can, but if you suddenly carry conviction home to them that continued survival is impossible, and that the sooner they scramble into a powerful combination the better off they will be, you will very rapidly get a situation in which instead of a whole lot of unions canvassing members, you will have two groups canvassing unions, as happened in the United States of America. The position in the United States of America has been reduced to one in which the balance of power now rests with the Garment Workers' Union of the City of New York, and when Green can get them to come over to his side, he is on top, and when Lewis can bring them over to the C.I.O., he is in the ascendant, with the result that in America now the struggle is not for individual members, but for unions. That kind of situation may well arise in this country under pressure of this.

The old craft unions, persuaded that they can survive, are going on the auction block to see which group will bid best for their incorporation, and give the best terms to them, and it will end up with two rival groups of unions in large federations which may not only constitute a menace to peaceful industrial development in this country, but might ultimately become a threat to the State itself. I think the Minister would do very well between now and the time the Bill comes before the Seanad to consider whether he ought not to mend his hand very materially on this Schedule, and instead of making it a stiff qualifying premium change to a nominal sum, sufficient only to guarantee thebona fides of a promoter of a union, and thus avoid the multiplicity of unions which has so far embarrassed the trade union movement in this country.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 55; Níl, 21.

  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Dockrell, Henry M.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Fuller, Stephen.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hogan, Daniel.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Kelly, James P.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • Loughman, Francis.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • McCann, John.
  • McDevitt, Henry A.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Meaney, Cornelius.
  • Morrissey, Michael.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Mullen, Thomas.
  • O Brian, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Conn.

Níl

  • Bennett, George C.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Hughes, James.
  • Keating, John.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Murphy, Timothy J.
  • Davin, William.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Everett, James.
  • Hannigan, Joseph.
  • Hickey, James.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Sullivan, John M.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Reidy, James.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies Hickey and Murphy.
Amendment declared carried.
Amendments reported.
Question put: "That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 55; Níl, 23.

  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Dockrell, Henry M.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Fuller, Stephen.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hogan, Daniel.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Kelly, James P.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • Loughman, Francis.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • McCann, John.
  • McDevitt, Henry A.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Meaney, Cornelius.
  • Morrissey, Michael.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Mullen, Thomas.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Conn.

Níl

  • Bennett, George C.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Davin, William.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Everett, James.
  • Hannigan, Joseph.
  • Hickey, James.
  • Hughes, James.
  • Keating, John.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, Timothy J.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Sullivan, John M.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Reidy, James.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies Hickey and Murphy.
Question declared carried.
Fifth Stage ordered for Tuesday, 22nd July.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.25 p.m. to Wednesday, 16th July, at 3 p.m.