Committee on Finance. - Insurance (Intermittent Unemployment) Bill, 1939—Committee.
Sections 1 and 2 put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
(a) all work in the construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, painting, decoration or demolition of buildings;
(d) all work in the manufacture, alteration, fitting or repair of articles of wood, worked stone, marble, slate, plaster, cement (including concrete blocks) or of cement-like material, for use in the construction, reconstruction, alteration, fitting, repair, decoration or maintenance of buildings and of a type commonly made in builders' workshops or yards, but excluding—
(i) the manufacture, alteration or repair of any article or monument designed as a memorial to living or dead persons,
(ii) the quarrying and cutting of slate at a quarry,
(iii) the quarrying in rough blocks of marble or stone,
(iv) the manufacture of articles of movable furniture,
(v) the manufacture of articles requiring treatment in an oven or kiln in the process of manufacture,
(vi) the manufacture of sewer pipes, drain pipes, bricks, floor tiles, roof tiles,
(vii) the manufacture of articles composed wholly or mainly of a combination of cement and asbestos.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In paragraph (a), page 5, line 13, after the word "buildings" to add the words "on their sites."
The amendment is introduced with the idea of clearing up the point as to how far the ramifications of this Bill are to extend. The Minister has stated that this is an agreed measure, and I think that is substantially true, between certain trades and between certain employers, but some of the ramifications that appear to be possible under this Bill were certainly never contemplated by the people who agreed to the measure. I accordingly move this amendment with the idea of clearing up the point that the work in the construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, painting, decoration or demolition of buildings shall apply to the site.
I cannot agree to accept this amendment, which, if adopted, would make a radical change in the scope of the Bill, as it would at one stroke remove from the scope of the measure all workers other than those employed on building sites. This Bill, as the Deputy is aware, was based upon statistics which were collected for the purpose of fixing the actuarial basis of the scheme. In those statistics were included particulars of the total number of workers employed by each builder, together with particulars of the time lost each week by any of those workers owing to inclement weather. The total number of workers set out in the statistical return included manual workers employed in builders' workshops and yards. Obviously, if this amendment were to be adopted, there would have to be a withdrawal of the Bill and a complete revision of the whole scheme, including the rates of contribution and the rates of benefit. I was rather surprised to see this amendment, because on the Second Reading debate Deputy Cosgrave expressed the view that the rates of contribution were inadequate, or would prove to be inadequate, to maintain the rates of benefit contemplated. I did not agree with that view, but clearly an amendment which would exclude any large number of workers from the scope of the Bill would destroy the financial foundation of the scheme at the very outset.
Any definition of building work which excludes work done by builders in their workshops and yards must be regarded as totally inadequate. In the definition of "building" contained in the National Insurance Act, 1911, the manufacture of any fittings of a kind commonly made in builders' workshops and yards is expressly included. The Deputy has referred to the fact that this is, in a sense, an agreed measure, and included in the number of bodies which agreed that such a Bill should be introduced were the representatives of the workers concerned. It may be that some of those workers will not be as liable as others to lose employment through inclement weather, but nevertheless they have agreed through their representatives to make the contributions. The bodies included in the discussions which led to the Bill contained amongst them those who are representative of the type of workers who are employed in builders' workshops and yards, particularly the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers, the Irish National Union of Woodworkers and the Irish Woodcutting Machinists, as well as the appropriate employers' organisations.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The following amendments appeared on the Order Paper:—
2. In paragraph (d), page 5, line 44, before sub-paragraph (i) to insert a new sub-paragraph as follows:—
"(i) the manufacture of such articles in a factory."—(Deputy Dockrell).
3. In paragraph (d), page 5, line 55, to add a new sub-paragraph as follows:—
"(viii) all work in the manufacture, alteration, fitting or repair of articles of wood, worked stone, marble, slate, plaster, cement (including concrete blocks) or of cement-like material, for use in the construction, reconstruction, alteration, fitting, repair, decoration or maintenance of buildings and of a type commonly made in a factory but not excluding such work if carried out in a builder's workshop or yard."—(Deputy Dockrell).
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 in the name of the Deputy seem to be identical in meaning. The Deputy should take a decision on one of them.
They are practically the same. They have the same effect.
Do you suggest that they should be debated together?
Yes; with a decision on No. 2.
Speaking on No. 2, the Minister's remarks on No. 1 seem to make my case, because I propose to exclude the manufacture of such articles in a factory. The Minister has stated that the statistics for this Bill were founded on particulars which were furnished by certain builders. Well, I think I might say that those builders would be representative of people who work on sites; I think there is no doubt about that, but the Minister is now proposing to bring in articles which are manufactured in a factory. Included in the statistics there is no builder that I know of who owns a factory. The Minister spoke about the acquiescence to this Bill of the wood-cutting machinists. I think undoubtedly they were included in the negotiations and possibly they gave their acceptance to this measure, but is the Minister aware that, under this, in the case of butter boxes which are being sawn in a country mill the person doing that work would be liable for this contribution? Why should our butter cost us more in order that the workers in the building trade——
That is all wrong. There is nothing in that point. The person manufacturing butter boxes is not included.
The sub-section refers to "all work in the manufacture, alteration, fitting or repair of articles of wood...".
"Of a type commonly made in builders' workshops or yards".
Yes, certainly. Well, now, sawing deals into planks and boards is commonly carried on in a builder's workshop—or does the Minister deny that?
I deny that butter boxes are commonly manufactured in a builder's workshop.
I do not dispute the Minister's statement, but a board of identical thickness is manufactured in a builder's workshop—let us say a 9 by 3¼ plank that would be useful for butter boxes has been sawn in a builder's workshop or yard—and where are you going to draw the line? This is what I have suggested to the Minister, that he is throwing a stone into a pool and I am inviting him to tell us where the ripples are going to end. They do not seem to end at the bank; they seem to crawl up the bank and go abroad in the country.
The Minister talks about the manufacture of wood. A person who is drawing the wood to the machine is presumably engaged in the manufacture of wood. Is a person who brings that wood from the pile engaged in a similar manner and is the person who brings the wood from the quay also so engaged? I invite the Minister to tell us where he is going to draw the line. That is my difficulty. I suggest that no factory was contained in the statistics upon which this Bill was compiled and that the Minister is merely inviting a whole lot of people to contribute to something from which they will get no benefit and under which they never thought they would be included.
I admitted in the discussion on the Second Reading that one of the difficulties arising in connection with this Bill is that of definition. It is not possible to get a watertight definition of the persons who are included in the building trade and there will be a number of border-line cases. To deal with them we have set out elaborate machinery in Section 10. It is proposed under that section to determine certain questions that may arise. They will be determined by the Minister or by the High Court. It is almost inevitable that in the first few years there will be a number of queries addressed to the Minister as to whether persons of one type or another are or are not included in the scheme. These questions can be settled as they arise and, while we should endeavour to make the definitions as complete as possible, we cannot hope to make them 100 per cent. perfect. I propose to insert certain amendments which will deal with persons who are or who may be employed for a short period during the week in occupations in which they will be insurable and on other classes of work during the remainder of the week.
My objection to Deputy Dockrell's amendment is somewhat similar to that which I advanced to his first amendment but there is a further objection to the amendment he now proposes. If the amendment were adopted it would have the effect of encouraging builders to have their work done in factories rather than doing it themselves, and it should not be the purpose of the Bill to interfere with existing practices in the building trade or in trades ancillary to the building trade. It may be that persons employed at joinery work are not liable to loss of employment through inclement weather, but such persons can move from job to job. It may be that in their present jobs the risk does not arise, but in their next jobs with other employers that risk may arise, and unless they have contributions to their credit they will not be entitled to get benefits out of the fund.
To the extent that there may be a few individuals who may never experience the risk against which this Bill purports to insure them, I can only say that the representatives of those persons have agreed that they must stand-in in the matter of contributions to the pool. It is only fair that works which are ancillary to building and the prosperity of which depends on the building trade should join in a scheme designed for the welfare of workers of the same trades as those employed in the ancillary works.
I think the Minister is very wise in introducing the amendment that he has suggested—that, where a person is employed only for a short time, he does not come under the scope of this Bill. I think that is very wise, because, if he had not that, you could not get certain specialised employees in on a building site with a dog whip. The Minister says that he has taken power under Section 10 to settle anything in dispute. That is, no doubt, true, but I cannot see why certain wide general principles ought not to be laid down in Section 3. I cited the case of the butter boxes and the Minister answers me by saying that, when they go before the tribunal under Section 10, they will be able to get out.
Not at all. There is no likelihood of butter box manufacturers being included in the Bill. That principle is laid down in Section 3.
They are engaged in the manufacture of articles of wood.
It is set out in the section that "employment in the building trade" means employment on work of a kind commonly undertaken or carried out by builders or building contractors and then we go on to particularise that type of work and we deal with articles of manufactured wood of a type commonly made in builders' workshops or yards. The Deputy's attempt to bring in butter boxes is rather far-fetched.
Sawing is common in a builder's yard.
That is not the manufacture of butter boxes.
It is the manufacture of pieces of timber probably of identical size with butter boxes. There are plenty of other instances. Is a sawmill included in this?
That will depend entirely upon the circumstances.
If it is engaged in the building trade?
I had hoped that the Minister would give us some light on that matter. A case was made about the people who suffered from unemployment due to wet time, and that means frost and some other things as well. Everybody sympathises with them, and I think it was unanimous that there ought to be something done, but again the Minister has gone absolutely outside the scope of that.
With regard to the Minister's remark about sawmills, I thought sawmills would have been entirely out of this Bill. Is not this a measure actually to deal with the inclemency of the weather so far as it affects workers?
Workers in the building trade or ancillary trades.
Well, take a sawmill which does certain work on materials which builders will use. Workers in a sawmill are in an enclosed space and are not exposed to inclement weather.
They may leave that particular employer and go to work for another where they would be doing work in the building trade.
I am talking of sawmills as such.
I recognise the fact that there may be workers employed upon the production of builders' joinery work in factories, who will not be liable to this risk at all so long as they are employed in that factory by that employer, but those same workers who do the same work for another employer may be so liable, and unless they have the contributions to their credit arising out of their previous employment they will not be able to get the benefits.
Take the case of an employee in a sawmill which does no work for builders at all: say that 100 per cent. of the output of a particular sawmill is not for builders at all.
Then it would not be affected.
Very well, but there might be a change over. Let us take some of these butter-box places. For one reason or another, they may turn over to do certain types of work that will be used for builders. These men are employed all the time by the one factory, and the object of the employer is to keep these trained workers in his factory until they can go back to their regular work, but in the meantime they turn over temporarily to work for the building trade. Do these employees, simply because the type of work they turn out may be used for building purposes, become contributors to the scheme?
Yes. I think you must have all peoples who are engaged on the same work subject to the same terms. I explained that we do not want to divert business from builders' yards, and factories that are normally engaged in the production of builders' work, to other places, because they might do the work a shade cheaper there by reason of the absence of this contribution. We do not want to interfere with the normal practice of the trade, and therefore we say that persons who are employed in that work, even though only temporarily, will be liable to contribution.
Then that would only apply to those employees engaged on so-called builders' work?
Yes, and then only over a full week.
People engaged on the making of butter boxes would not be affected?
I want to return to the question of the sawmill, because it furnishes a very apt illustration. The Minister takes me up and more or less says that it is absurd to talk about butter boxes. Now, there is no such thing as a butter tree out of which you make butter boxes or anything like that. A tree is a tree, and when it is sawn it is suitable for conversion into certain sizes, and those sizes may be used for a whole host of things. That is the crux of the whole matter. The Minister talks about a tradesman leaving one employer, where he has not been subject to inclement weather, and going to another where he is. My contention is that all of these trades tend to be in compartments. Take carpenters who are engaged in a joinery factory. I should like to assure the Minister that if you sent one of these men out to a site he would not have the tools for the work. He has got to have a separate set of tools, and all sorts of differences such as that arise. I suggest that the Minister has founded the whole scope of this Bill on statistics furnished by genuine building contractors who are subject to the incidence of intermittent employment, and that he proceeds to throw the doors wide open to a whole lot of people whom it was never contemplated would be included.
I do not know whether the Deputy remembers it, but he himself was a member of the body that met before this Bill was introduced and which had discussions on it, and presumably he kept in mind the possibility of these complications arising. Apart from that, however, I cannot see the possibility of such a misunderstanding as the Deputy contemplates. We refer here to articles of wood for use in the construction, reconstruction, alteration, and so on, of buildings, and of a type commonly made in builders' workshops or yards. There is not the slightest possibility under that definition of a person manufacturing butter boxes, or boards for butter boxes, being drawn into the Bill any more than there is the possibility of people engaged in a match factory being drawn in.
Are the people engaged in a box factory subject to this?
Amendment No. 2, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
With regard to amendments Nos. 4 and 5, amendment No. 5 is covered by the first item in amendment No. 4. They should be debated together and decided on amendment No. 4.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In paragraph (d), page 5, line 55, to add new sub-paragraphs as follows:—
(viii) all electrical work carried out by electrical contractors,
(ix) all terrazzo work and tiling carried out by terrazzo workers and tilers,
(x) all heating and plumbing work carried out by heating and plumbing engineers,
(xi) all stone and marble work carried out by monumental sculptors,
(xii) all structural steelwork carried out by structural engineers,
(xiii) all flat roofing and asphalt work carried out by roofing contractors,
(xiv) all brass-finishing carried out by brass-finishers.
Of course, these are only giving certain specific trades. Take the first item, electrical work. The people who would be subject to the incidence of intermittent stoppage, due to wet time, in the electrical trade would be the people on mains and overhead wires, who are employed by the Electricity Supply Board. Now, they are excluded from the provisions of this Bill, and then you come along to the house wires who never get a drop of rain on them. With great respect to the Minister, I do not know whether they actually sat in the room he was talking about and were parties to this. However, I do not wish to make any point about that, but I say that they are not subject to it at all. Then, take terrazzo workers, they always have to have a roof over their heads, since they are the last to work. Plumbers would be rather a border-line case. You might get a man running a lead piping on a site. Another border-line case would be stone and marble work carried out by monumental sculptors. Then there is structural steel work carried out by structural engineers, and also flat roofing and asphalt work carried out by roofing contractors, and we finish up with brass finishers. As far as I know, there is no brass finisher ever employed by a builder. I shall leave Deputy Keyes to apply his eloquence to his amendment.
My amendment reads as follows:—
At the end of Section 3, page 5, to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) Nothing in this section shall apply to work done by an electrician for an electrical contractor.
I am not going the whole distance with Deputy Dockrell, but so far as his amendment deals with the electrical side of the matter I think there is a good case for exclusion. The Minister has said that the measure is an agreed measure, but I suggest that, so far as the electricians are concerned, neither the masters nor the men have been consulted in connection with it at all. The agreement, such as it is, was mainly arrived at by the unions affected in the metropolis, and the electricians, according to my instructions, were not consulted, good, bad or indifferent, either on the men's side or the employers' side. It was not considered necessary, since they do not belong to the building trades group. They have belonged to the engineering group for many years, and hence their association with the building trades would be of a remote character.
My amendment is so couched that it deals only with men working for electrical contractors, and not for builders. They had separate agreements, distinct from other unions, with the electrical employers, and were mainly covered by the Electrical Trades Union of Ireland and the Engineering Trades Union of Ireland. They have a distinct entity as compared with the others, and their ramifications are of a different character from those obtaining in connection with ordinary building work. They mainly work on the inside, and, at such times as they are called upon to work outside and may be liable to inclement weather, they have alternative work provided for them, and are not to be laid off. The casual electrician laid off a job gets payment for four hours, whereas in the ordinary building operations he only gets payment for one hour.
This agreement which they have will be violated if they are included in this Bill. I suggest that there is no case for their inclusion. They will not benefit by it. While I agree with the Minister that the exclusion of border-line cases might prejudice the stability of the Bill, I do not think that any case can be made for bringing in people gratuitously under the Bill for the purpose of getting their money. In this case they have not been parties to this and they do not want to come under the Bill. They do not want to be associated with the building trades group; they want to be left where they are. They consider that the agreement which they have is more beneficial to them than anything which would be conferred on them by this Bill. The acceptance of the amendment in my name would not prevent the Minister, under the powers vested in him by Section 15, including them later if he found it necessary. I suggest that he has taken powers in Section 15 under which he could bring in at a later stage those who will be working for building contractors. I am asking for the exclusion of those working for electrical contractors whose work is mainly indoor. I do not think they can be properly associated with the Bill.
One of the main features of Deputy Dockrell's amendment and of Deputy Keyes' amendment which I must take objection to is the proposal to make a distinction between builders and those who do on subcontract certain parts of the work for the completion of a building. I do not think we should have that distinction. I do not think we should make it attractive for people to sub-let their contracts to other people who, because of some amendment of this kind, keep outside the scope of the Bill. Therefore, even if we are to concede that there is something to be said for the argument in favour of the exclusion of electricians, we must, I think, maintain this position: that electricians are in or out as a whole and not according to whether they are employed by a builder or an electrical contractor.
I ought to draw attention now to the amendment I propose to Section 18. The effect of that amendment will be to exclude from the obligation of contributions electricians employed by electrical contractors on building work in the great majority of cases. Where the amount of work done is small in relation to the full week's work of the person concerned, then he will be regarded as excluded. I am aware that it can be argued that electricians are not liable to this risk except in very exceptional circumstances. In exceptional circumstances they can be liable to this risk. But it is very hard to prepare a Bill of this nature on the basis that we will have only the bad risks and leave the good risks. Either we have to regard the building trade as a unit and recognise that the prosperity of that trade, the absence of strikes in that trade, and continuity of employment are as much an interest for the electrician and the plumber and the terrazzo worker as for the bricklayer or the slater, or else we are going to abandon altogether this effort to provide against evils that have been associated with the trade. I think it is true to say that the various disputes which have arisen in the past, the discontents which have been aroused by the curtailment or loss of employment due to bad weather, have seriously affected many classes of workers who were not themselves involved in those disputes, including electricians and plumbers.
I might remind the House that this Bill had its origin in the very long building strike of 1937. One of the matters in dispute on that occasion was this loss of wages through inclement weather. The claim was made on behalf of the representatives of the workers, all of whom acted as a unit although they were divisible into various classes according to their trades, that some payment should be made to them if they were out of employment through bad weather, and the employers could not, or would not, agree to that demand put in on behalf of the building trades group. As part of the settlement of the strike there was an understanding that an insurance scheme to protect these workers in the building trade who were liable to loss of employment through bad weather would be introduced, and a committee representing both sides came together and prepared a scheme which is embodied in the Bill. It is not, therefore, altogether fair at this stage to pick out this class of workers there and another class of workers somewhere else just because their risk is less than the risk of others, just because they are not as liable to loss of wages through bad weather as others are. I think we have to consider the building trade as a whole. We have to decide that what tends to peace in the industry, to continuity of employment, to the absence of disputes and strikes, is as much the interest of one class as of another, of the electrician as of the bricklayer. On that ground I am disposed to resist the amendment. I know that the building trades group of the Trades Union Council are very strongly opposed to the amendment and, I think, have expressed that opposition to the Irish Trades Union Congress.
It may be arguable that in the case of electricians they should be regarded as separate from other trades. I think that the number of electricians likely to be regarded as building trade workers under the Bill, that is, normally and ordinarily engaged in building work to the extent that would make them liable to a contribution, is not likely to be very serious, and that it can be argued that in their case it is unfair to ask them to make contributions and that the employers should make similar contributions. But I would not agree with Deputy Dockrell as to the other classes of workers. They are all specifically in the category of persons whose livelihoods depend upon the peace and contented conditions that exist in the building trade. If building work stops through a dispute, they stop. On that account they can be fairly asked to make this contribution towards absence of discontent or absence of stoppages in the building trade. The main purpose of Deputy Dockrell's amendment, as I read it, is to exclude these workers only when employed by a sub-contractor. I would not agree to that at all. I think that where builders are liable to pay contributions, and the persons employed by builders are liable to pay contributions, others doing that class of work also should be liable, namely, sub-contractors and persons employed by sub-contractors.
The Minister pointed out that the Dublin Trade Union Council were not in favour of this amendment. I am aware of that. Does it not strike the Minister that it is peculiar that he did not think of consulting the electricians when the matter was being propounded, or that the exemption of the electricians was not considered when the matter was discussed with the people who were parties to the agreement? If the electricians were to be parties to the agreement, why were they not consulted as well as the other people? The Minister says that there will be a comparatively small number affected, but if that is so, it is scarcely worth while bringing them in. My amendment will allow electricians working on buildings for building contractors to come under the Bill, whilst leaving out those working in shops for electrical contractors who have better agreements than this Bill offers. I would not favour any general exemption of electricians at the expense of reducing the finances of this scheme through making it uneconomic for the general building operatives, but I believe they are practically excluded from participation in the benefits and are being brought in only for the purpose of putting something into the pool from which they can never benefit. That, in itself, would not be quite so bad, but their position will be definitely worsened by the violation of agreements which they have already made with the employers, if they are brought into this scheme, in so far as they formerly got four hours' notice and will get only one hour's notice if brought into this scheme. That is the agreement they have made with the electrical employers, so that not alone is the scheme not going to be beneficial to them, but it will be detrimental. If there is such a small group of them likely to be affected as the Minister suggests—and I agree with him—I suggest that the Minister ought to consider the exclusion of electricians belonging as they do to the engineering group. They have no association or contact with this measure inasmuch as they do not belong to the building group at all.
To deal with Deputy Keyes' point as to the failure to consult electricians before the Bill was circulated, the only thing I can say is that I met two representative groups of persons, one of which was the workers' group which claimed to be representative of all the workers concerned in the building trade. That group did not include members of all the different unions engaged in the building trade. It was a group chosen out of all the unions.
They did consult all the trades in the building group, though.
I accepted their representative capacity. There may have been a group like the terrazzo workers in respect of which there might have been difficulty in getting consent, but they came and said: "On behalf of the workers, we are appointed," and similarly with the employers. That rule to which the Deputy refers is one which I think is worth referring to. It is true that the electricians appear to have a rule in their agreement by which their employment cannot be terminated, except on four hours' notice. I am informed by the Secretary of the Building Trades Group that every class of worker has a somewhat similar rule in his agreement, but in no case is it interpreted to have the meaning which the electricians are now attempting to give to it. I think the electricians are straining the meaning of the rule in suggesting that the work cannot be suspended for inclement weather. A precisely similar rule appears in the agreements of other classes of workers who are employed out of doors in the building trade.
The four hours' notice rule?
So I am informed by the Secretary of the Building Trades Group of the Dublin Trades Council.
I never heard of it, and I should like to know where the Minister got it.
The period may be different in different cases, but the rule is intended to deal not with the case of a stoppage of work by reason of inclement weather, but with notice of termination of employment, which is an altogether different matter. Certainly, it appeared obvious, from the wording of the rule in the case of electricians, that what was intended by those who drafted it was that four hours' notice should be given of the termination of employment, and not of intention to stop work temporarily, because of frost, snow or rain, and it is, I think, a straining of the rule to give it the meaning which the electricians are now attempting to give it in order to get exclusion from the Bill.
That, however, is not the main point. The main point is: to the extent that electricians employed in building work are concerned with this Bill at all, they are, I think, as much a part of the building industry as any other class of workers in the industry, and we have to deal with the industry as a whole, requiring from everybody in the industry the proposed contribution so that this fund will be built up. We know that those who work entirely on the outside, such as bricklayers, tilers, and slaters, are much more likely to have frequent claims on the fund than those workers in other categories whose work is mainly indoor, but nevertheless we propose, in the interests of peace in the industry and of the relationship between employers and employees, that this charge should be imposed on all, so that this fund can be built up. It is almost impossible to make a case for exclusion of the electricians who are employed by builders, or on building work, which could not be made equally strongly for terrazzo workers, and plumbers, in some cases. If a house is to be heated and lighted by gas, the plumber does the job. The plumber pays the contribution and the employer of the plumber pays it.
What about the upholsterer and the carpet-layer? Will you take them in?
That is a matter of furnishing which is a different thing. One effect of the exclusion of electricians would be to put a tax on the work done by certain people who are, in a sense, in competition with electricians, such as plumbers, and to make it more attractive to people to use electricity for heating instead of gas. If you are going to exclude electricians, will you exclude the plumber who puts in the gas-pipes, who installs a gas cooker instead of an electric cooker? If you have one in, you must have the other.
May I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the electrical contractors are already making a substantial contribution by reason of the fact that they employ their men whether the weather is inclement or not? Therefore, I do not think it can be said that to exempt them would be unfair. At present, they are making a contribution in respect of their men which is similar to the contribution which they would be expected to make under this Bill, and, therefore, if you include them, you compel them to pay a dual contribution. In addition, if they are included, the agreements between the contractors and their men which at present provide for continuous employment, irrespective of the weather, would probably be terminated, and that would not make for peace and harmony in that branch of the building trade.
The Minister does not seem to be sticking very consistently to one line of argument. He says, for instance, that they are all in the building industry, but he did not answer my point as to why, if that were so, the Electricity Supply Board, which runs the mains on to the site and whose employees would be the most exposed of all people in the electrical trade, should be excluded. I think that if the Minister looks up the statistics on the basis of which this Bill was framed, he will find that there are no electrical people in the returns. The Minister also said that I was seeking to have the work confined to cases in which it was carried out by sub-contractors. I should like to suggest to him that, in practically 90 per cent. of cases, these works are carried out by sub-contractors. In the case of a builder, the electricians in his employment—I shall not say that he has no such person in his employment—are very few and far between. There are some who probably have plumbers, but there again we come back to a big number of people who are asked to shoulder a burden in order that there may be peace in the building trade. I suggest that the incidence of wet-time ought to be borne by the trades subject to it.
The electricians have not represented to me that the four hours' notice was applicable to wet-time. The only representation was that they had four hours in respect of the dismissal of casual electricians and that does not apply in the building trade. They get only one hour's notice in the building trade.
That is for the termination of employment and not in respect of a temporary stoppage of work because of bad weather.
No, only in respect of dispensing with casual electricians. They must get four hours' notice, while the building worker gets only one, and they represent that if they are brought in, that rule will be violated.
No. The rule the electricians have—the national agreement between the Electrical Contractors, the Electricity Supply Board and the workers' union—deals with circumstances in which the work ceases and a man is paid off from his employment. Before he can be paid off, he must get four hours' notice of his employer's intention to pay him off. The temporary suspension of work, because of inclement weather, is an entirely different matter.
In the other trades they have similar rules, that before a worker can be paid off and his employment terminated certain notice must be given. In principle, it is a similar rule to that which the electricians have. Even though the period of time may be different, the principle is the same. The electricians' rule relates to the termination of employment, and not to the suspension of work because of inclement weather. An attempt is being made on behalf of the electricians to argue that they are not liable to loss of employment because of inclement weather. It appears to me that the rule does not apply in these circumstances at all, but only in the circumstances in which a job is ended. That, of course, only disposes of arguments advanced in favour of the exclusion of electricians. It is necessary to give arguments in support of their inclusion. The main argument is that when we set out to legislate on a scheme for building trade workers, involving contributions from them, we have to take contributions from everybody whose livelihood depends on the building trade, even though we know that some of them will have a less risk of loss of employment through inclement weather than others. We are not relating contributions to the degree of risk but are fixing a flat rate to build up a fund out of which benefits related to the risk will be paid, that is to say, in accordance with the actual period of time lost through inclement weather. It can happen, however, that one worker in a particularly bad season of the year will get far more out of the fund than he pays in, while another worker in a different occupation, or in another period of the year, will pay far more in than he will get out. That is an inevitable feature of a scheme of this kind. So far as electricians employed by a contractor are concerned, it appears to be considered that they will have to pay these contributions all the time. That is not so. They will only be paying contributions when they are actually employed on building work, and then only when that building work constitutes the greater part of their week's work. A very large number of these electrical contractors' employees will never pay any contribution because they will never actually qualify for the payment of contributions.
It seems to me that if we were to give way on the question of electricians we would have to reconsider again the question of plumbers and other classes of workers whose risk of loss of employment through inclement weather is just as slight as that of the electricians. Once you were to start in on that process, it would mean a break away from the wide confines of the building trade, and the general scheme of the Bill would be entirely undermined.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."
On the section, I want to get back again to the saw-mill employee. Even if he fell under the Bill by the application of any other section, would not the Minister normally have to exempt him under this?
Not necessarily under this.
The section provides that where the Minister is satisfied that the employment of such class of persons is permanent in character no deductions are made on account of time lost owing to inclement weather from their wages.
That employee would not, normally, be a permanent employee in the sense contemplated here. This is the corresponding section to that which entitles us to exclude from unemployment insurance certain railway and tramway workers who are deemed not to be liable to loss of employment. This deals with the case of employees who are not liable to a risk of loss of wages through inclement weather or the risk of loss of employment in the sense that they are in permanent employment. If a certificate be given that they are in permanent employment, then they may be taken out of the Bill. Any question arising as to whether a particular class of work done in a saw-mill was done for the building trade or not would be determined by a decision under Section 10 rather than by a certificate under Section 5.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 6, 7, 8 and 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That Section 10 stand part of the Bill."
Does this section mean that the right of appeal is being given?
Yes. It is almost inevitable that for a year or two a number of questions will be addressed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce under this section. He can either determine them himself or, in accordance with the section, refer them for determination to the High Court. I should say, however, that at the end of a year or two—I am thinking now of a normal period—we will have on record a series of decisions which will make the position of the building trade fairly clear.
On the decision of the courts everything will be open?
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That Section 15 stand part of the Bill."
This is the section under which the saw-mill employee may be brought in.
More than he may be brought in. As I mentioned before, we might, at some stage, decide to extend this system of insuring against loss of employment through bad weather to other trades than the building trade, such as the constructional trade and the engineering trade.
That would mean an extension completely outside the scope of Section 3?
Completely outside the building trade altogether. I do not suppose that, for example, we could insure turf workers against loss of employment because of bad weather, but if that were to be done I think it could be done under this section.
One of the problems in connection with this measure is the distinction between building and constructional engineering, the trade which is most closely allied with building. Here we are dealing only with building, but at some stage we may consider the extension of the principles underlying this Bill to constructional engineering or, possibly, to other occupations where the incidence of loss of employment through bad weather is very high
Personally, I have no hope that you would ever get as far afield as that.
But the section would permit it?
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 16 and 17 put and agreed to.
SECTION 18.
(1) Every insured person of the classes set out in the first column of the Second Schedule to this Act and every employer of any such insured person shall be liable to pay contributions (in this Act referred to as weekly contributions) weekly at the respective rates set out in the second and third columns of that Schedule or, if other rates are under this Act substituted for such first-mentioned rates, the rates for the time being so substituted.
(4) Persons who are employed in any calendar week under the same employer partly in insurable employment and partly in some other employment shall be treated for the purpose of this Part of this Act as if they were wholly employed in insurable employment during that calendar week.
The following amendment was on the Order Paper:—
In sub-section (1), page 9, line 49, to delete all words after the word "Schedule". —(Deputy Mulcahy.)
This amendment by Deputy Mulcahy is really consequential on a proposal of his to delete Section 46, and I presume that the discussion should take place on Section 46.
It deals with the rates of contribution set out in the measure, and if there is to be any change in the rates it should be through a new piece of legislation. That used to be the custom under the Unemployment Insurance Act. I understand Deputy Mulcahy's point to be that if a change is going to be made it would not be a Bill hard to draft, and, under ordinary Parliamentary procedure, Deputies could discuss not only the change in the rates but the reasons which, to the Minister, seem to make it necessary. I do suggest that the House should get a chance of discussing those changes instead of having them made by regulations which, of course, lie there and are law unless they are nullified.
Of course the Unemployment Insurance Bill was of much wider application than this. In this particular case we prepared the legislation in consultation with the people directly concerned—the employers and workers in the building trade. In preparing the legislation we did recognise that we were working on the basis of very limited experience, at any rate of a very limited statistical record of experience. In the case of the Unemployment Insurance Act, national figures relating to the incidence of unemployment were available in Great Britain—where the Act was first passed and made applicable to this country—over a number of years, and it was possible to make a rough-and-ready calculation as to what the outgoings would be, and what income would be required to enable those outgoings to be met. In fact, even those calculations had to be varied from time to time. In this House, measures have been introduced to raise or reduce the contributions paid under the Unemployment Insurance Act according as the fund became in debt or showed a substantial surplus.
We only started in 1939 to collect the statistics upon which this Bill is based, and it is really only in respect of the years 1940 and 1941 that any reliable figures are available. As for earlier years, we were able to get the records of a few large employers, and certain local authorities and other authorities which employed numbers of workers, but in the case of 1940 and 1941 we got the actual record of the experience of the trade. All I can say is that the record did not lead us to any definite calculation, because in one year the fund would have shown a surplus and in the other year would have shown a deficiency, so it is quite clear that the available information is not sufficiently complete to enable any firm conclusion to be arrived at as to whether the contributions proposed now will in fact enable the rates of benefit contemplated to be paid. It was on that account that the parties who were associated with the preparation of this Bill agreed that we should have this power, in order to ensure that the fund would remain solvent until we got experience extending over a number of years which would enable us to take the risk of letting the fund run into debt in a bad year, knowing that we would make it up in a good year, or adopting the attitude of reducing the contributions or increasing the benefits when the fund showed a surplus, knowing that that surplus was likely to continue, and that the experience of future years would be no worse than the experience of past years.
I think that, in the circumstances of this particular Bill, while there is something in Deputy McGilligan's point, it is better to have this procedure, because we can consult with the parties directly concerned without any considerable formality. They will have as much interest in maintaining the solvency of the fund as we will have; in fact greater interest, because it will be their fund. Every penny that goes into the fund will be available for the payment of benefits to the workers and for the avoidance of disputes in the trade, and clearly it will be in their interest to ensure either that the fund is not allowed to run unduly into debt, or, on the other hand, if the fund does not run into debt but begins to show a surplus, that the contributions should be reduced or the rates of benefit increased.
The remarks that have been made are almost an echo of the remarks that were made in the British House of Commons at the time when the Unemployment Insurance Bill was first introduced. It was there laid down that the rates were purely speculative, and were pitched rather high because it was considered better to start high and hold out the hope of a reduction, rather than choose a lower figure, with the danger of an increase. That measure was introduced certainly in the same cloud of insufficient facts as that in which this Bill has been presented here. I think the point was actually argued at the time as to whether there should be an easier way of changing the contributions than by bringing a new measure before the House. Certainly it was somewhere stated—I think it must have been in the Parliamentary Debates—that it was unlikely that any less period of full experience. That applies here too. I do not suppose there would be any change inside 12 months.
I take it the Deputy is moving the amendment.
Yes. There would be no need to have any change made inside a year. It would require at least a year's experience to see how the matter was working out, and consequently there is no special rush——
The Deputy understands that this section is similar to that which is in the Unemployment Insurance Act?
I know now. But the original contributions were fixed in the Act, and could only be changed by a piece of legislation—they could not be changed by order. Certainly when the Unemployment Insurance Act was first introduced it was introduced by people who said: "We do not know exactly what the contributions ought to be", but a certain figure was fixed and there was held out the promise of reduction. I say that in this case also there is not going to be frequent change necessitated, and surely—considering the speed with which measures can go through the House, and the ease with which the measure could be drafted, as it means only a change in the terms of the Schedule—it is only proper to give the House an opportunity of saying: "Here is a case where the contributions are not sufficient. We do not want to lower the benefits paid; therefore, we will have to increase the contributions."
Under the Unemployment Insurance Act there was a State contribution. There is no State contribution here. I am using that as an argument in this way, that under the unemployment insurance code there would be less chance of any haphazard movement in connection with the contribution because the State contribution would go up according to the increase in the contribution demanded from employer and employee. There is no such contribution demanded of the State here, and consequently there is more reason for asking the State to be vigilant in the matter of changing the contributions. This is called an insurance scheme, and I suppose like most insurance schemes it is built somewhat upon good lives in the business as well as to make allowance for the bad lives. Any contribution which brings in money surplus to requirements is of course imposing a hardship upon those who are good lives and are not likely to need the insurance or to get the benefit, so that there is a need to relax the contribution in favour of the individual. There is no great hardship done to the Minister and there is no great difficulty in his way. It is not going to be a thing that will arise frequently, and I do not think the Minister should have this stereotyped in the Act.
Alternatively, I suggest that he should put some upward limit. The only point here is that the equality must be kept, but outside that the 8d. might be raised to 1/- or it might be doubled. It might be found that the benefits to be paid are more onerous than what is expected and, therefore, the amount will have to be raised. The Minister should guarantee that, by regulation, he would not raise the 8d. beyond some limit which he fixes here. It would be a rather serious matter to have control of this given to the Minister—control by regulation. We all know that regulations are more or less outside Parliamentary control.
I am prepared to say that there will be no drastic change in the rate of contribution, except in very abnormal circumstances, such as might arise if there were a complete collapse in the value of currency, or some change of that kind. In the normal course, if a variation has to be made, it will be made in the rate of benefit and not the rate of contribution. The Deputy will realise that there will be numbers of stamps printed and made available throughout the country in various centres and all the arrangements will have been made for the carrying on of this scheme by the affixing of these stamps to the cards of the employees, and if a change has to be made fairly quickly because of the unsatisfactory condition of the fund the change will have to be in the rate of benefit and not in the rate of contribution.
Under the Unemployment Insurance Act the power to vary the rates of contribution or the rates of benefit is given to the Minister. He must do it under certain circumstances, if he gets a direction from the Minister for Finance, so that in the long run power is given to the Minister for Finance. The only similar case where a change requires legislative sanction is in the case of unemployment assistance, where the money that goes in benefit comes from the Exchequer; some comes from local authorities and some from the Unemployment Insurance Fund, but where there is no contribution from the recipients. In the case of unemployment assistance there is Ministerial power given to reduce the rates of benefit. The benefits cannot be increased without the sanction of the Dáil.
In all matters of administration I am naturally anxious to keep the scheme here in the closest possible accord with the scheme of administration under the Unemployment Insurance Act. I think we should not depart unduly from the established practice, and in Section 46 we are following that established practice. I am prepared to give an assurance that there will be no such substantial increase in the rates of contribution such as Deputy McGilligan has referred to without notification to the House or except in very exceptional circumstances. If a change in the finances of the Bill has to be made with any expedition, it will have to be a change in the rate of benefit, not in the rate of contribution. It will be appreciated that any change, whether upward or downward, in the rate of benefit or in the rate of contribution, can be annulled in the Dáil by resolution.
Whatever is done will, I hope, be done after consultation, so that it may be an agreed measure. At least we are entitled to have discussions when you come to make an alteration.
I quite agree—so much so that I would not accept an amendment of the Bill to-day without consultation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 7:—
To delete sub-section (4), page 10, and substitute the following sub-section:—
(4) Where a person is employed in any calendar week under the same employer partly in insurable employment and partly in non-insurable employment, then—
(a) a weekly contribution shall be payable in respect of that person for that calendar week if he is mainly employed by the said employer in insurable employment;
(b) notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of this section, no weekly contribution shall be payable in respect of that person for that calendar week if he is mainly employed by the said employer in non-insurable employment.
In this sub-section the expression "non-insurable employment" means employment which is not insurable employment.
This amendment is designed to ensure that, in the case of persons who are employed occasionally in building work, they will not be liable to pay a contribution. If, in any week, the amount of insurable work which a man does is less than the amount of non-insurable work, he pays no contribution. It is only where the bulk of the week's work is done in an insurable occupation that the contribution will have to be made. That will meet a number of the problems in connection with electricians and some other classes of work.
A phrase used in connection with this amendment is one that could be given a narrower interpretation than the phrase actually in the amendment. The amendment says: "if he is mainly employed." The Minister indicates that the division will be more or less on the grounds of counting the hours. "Counting the hours" is not here and I can see various interpretations of that phrase: "mainly employed." I wonder would the Minister consider defining this matter of "mainly employed" by a tot as to the hours or some test which could be easily applied?
I will look into that point. Probably there are recorded decisions under analogous Acts where that term has, in fact, meant a count of the hours.
I gathered from the Minister's remarks that what he meant was a mere computation of hours. It would be a good thing to have a clean test that nobody can dispute.
A man who would be engaged for one day on a building job would not be liable.
A man might do three days' work out of five and I could see quite a disinclination to say that he was mainly employed on insurable work. The Minister might consider something in connection with the enumeration of hours.
There is a good deal of misgiving as to the intention here and as to what will be the interpretation of the benefits. A man who is knocked out of employment on Monday because of inclement weather might be similarly held up on Tuesday.
This amendment relates only to the payment of the contribution.
I am sorry. I thought you were dealing with amendment No. 8.
Amendment No. 7 agreed to.
Section 18, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 19.
Question proposed: "That Section 19 stand part of the Bill."
What is the necessity for Section 19?
It may not be necessary, but I think it is desirable to have it there. The section prohibits an employer from recovering the employer's portion of the weekly contribution by deduction from the wages of an insured person.
I think that in the building trade the workers will be able to protect themselves against the possibility of that abuse, but I think it is desirable that it should be legally an offence to do it.
The Minister means that an unscrupulous employer might say: "I shall deduct your contribution and mine."
Section 19 agreed to.
SECTION 20.
Question proposed: "That Section 20 stand part of the Bill."
There is a small point in connection with this section to which I want to draw attention. Apparently, the employer can only recover by means of deduction during the current week. As far as I understand it, the employer will send forward a claim for wages paid to the employee, and possibly that might be over a period of three weeks. Of course, that would be very exceptional, but there might then be a period of a week that would elapse, and he would be then told that his claim was disallowed. I suggest to the Minister that in that case he ought to be allowed to deduct from the employee, during the week and the week following, the amount of money which he had overpaid to his employee. Under this, he is tied to the actual week in which he has paid.
In fact, this section relates to the contribution only, and not to the recovery of any sums paid to the employee by way of benefit.
It says here: "Recovery by the employer of insured person's contribution."
Contribution, yes. This section deals with the purchase of the stamp by the employer, just as in the case of the unemployment insurance stamps, where the employer purchases the stamp and puts it on the worker's card, and then deducts from the worker's wages his share of the cost of the stamp. Evidently, the Deputy is thinking of the case of an employer paying benefit illegally or wrongfully to a worker, or under circumstances in which he thought he was entitled to do so, and then finding that his claim to recover that benefit was disallowed.
The Deputy is dealing with circumstances in which he might be allowed to recover payments made to an employee. That does not arise in this section, but in framing this Bill the principle, generally, was to ensure that there will be little risk of an employer wilfully knocking off his men, at a time, say, when supplies were not arriving promptly or for some other reason, and claiming that he had to suspend work on the ground of inclement weather, thus getting benefit for his employees. That risk will be reduced because, clearly, what we set out to secure is that every employer who does that, who knocks off his men and suspends work on the ground of inclement weather, will take the risk that the appropriate officer under the Bill will decide that he was not entitled to suspend work, in which case he will lose his claim. That loss will be a deterrent to employers and prevent them from abusing the Act. Otherwise, there might be considerable abuse, in certain circumstances, in the form of payment of benefits alleged to be insurance against wet time, under circumstances in which a suspension of work was not necessary at all but just happened to be convenient for an employer. However, it does not arise under this section; it arises under Section 36.
This section means that the deductions must be made weekly?
Yes, and I think that is a fair enough safeguard from the point of view of the employee. At least, I would not like to contemplate the possibility of the employer paying wages for a long number of weeks without making deductions, and then suddenly taking them all together. I think this should be no hardship to the employer, and it is a safeguard to the employee.
What is the effect of sub-section (4)? It speaks of an insured person who is not paid wages or other money payments.
It might be the employer's son, or somebody employed in an institution who was employed in work but was not paid wages.
Then the employer has to pay both?
Section 20 agreed to.
SECTION 21.
Question proposed: "That Section 21 stand part of the Bill."
I think that some clarification is necessary here. The section says: "Where an insured person is employed by more than one person in any calendar week, the first person employing him in that week shall be deemed to be the employer of such insured person." Take the case of an unemployed building operative—and this is fairly common now—who is sent by the labour exchange to work on a municipal relief scheme for a couple of days and then is working somewhere else on building work. Would the local authority be responsible for the same amount in that case?
I do not think so, but I see the Deputy's point and I shall look into it. It is the first person employing him for building work who will be liable.
But I shall look into the matter.
I think it would be well to do so, because complications might arise there.
It is the first person employing him who is liable to pay the contribution.
Sections 21 to 27, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 28.
(2) Where the duration of a period of intermittent unemployment occurring during working hours on any day is a fraction of an hour only or is one or more hours and a fraction of an hour, supplementary benefit shall not be payable in respect of such fraction of an hour.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In sub-section (2), page 13, to add at the end of the sub-section the following words "and, for the purposes of this sub-section, where two or more periods of intermittent unemployment occur during working hours on any day such periods shall be deemed to be one continuous period".
The purpose of sub-section (2) is that if on any day a worker is intermittently employed for a fraction of an hour only, or one or more hours plus a fraction of an hour, supplementary benefit will not be payable in respect of the fractions. The amendment makes it clear that where more than one spell of intermittent employment occurs, the aggregate amount of time lost must be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining whether the person is intermittently employed for one hour or a fraction of an hour.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 28, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
In connection with the section, as amended, I should like to get an explanation with regard to the continuity of these payments to a man. I read it that a man is entitled to be paid in respect of each day that he loses employment.
Each hour. The payment is on an hourly basis.
But it says here: "On any day or the first day." Some people have been reading that to mean that they are going to be excluded from continuity of payment after the first day.
No. It says: "On any day other than a Sunday or a public holiday" he would be entitled to payment. He is excluded on the first day of his employment with that employer.
Take the case of a man who is employed by a builder for a month and on the Monday of one week is knocked off because of frost. When he turns up on Tuesday the frost has not abated. Is he not entitled to be paid for Tuesday?
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment No. 9 not moved.
Sections 29 and 30 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 31 stand part of the Bill."
I do not know if the Minister is serious about this section. It may be all right to ask a small contractor who is on a site to report that a stoppage has occurred. Surely the Minister is going to give time, where a works foreman is in charge, to communicate with his head office? I take it that he does not contemplate that a staff of clerks should be maintained on a job, and that they should be ready to send in a report where there is a stoppage of employment?
I do not see where the difficulty arises. Unless the work is stopped the obligation to send a report will not arise. If work is stopped I do not think any difficulty is imposed on an employer's representative in asking him to notify that work is stopped owing to inclement weather. We do not ask him to notify the intention to consider a stoppage in respect of severe weather, as he could telephone to the head office which can decide if work will stop. When work is stopped they can report.
I suppose there will be cases where there might be a misunderstanding. The Minister must realise that work on the site of a job is different from dealing with the head office, because the same facilities are not available. I suppose it would be for the works foreman to advise.
In country districts I suppose the Minister will accept the Civic Guards.
Notification must be sent to such persons as are prescribed.
The Gárda barracks is the only place in country districts.
It will have to be somebody in the immediate vicinity, otherwise the purpose of report would be negatived.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 32.
I move amendment No. 10:—
Before Section 32 to insert a new section as follows:—
Notwithstanding any previous agreements between employer and worker, an employer of an insurable employee shall have the right to stop work with consequent deduction in wages in the case of inclement weather.
I want to put it beyond any doubt that a stoppage is to supersede any trade agreement. The Minister stated that a stoppage could not be argued as termination of employment. I invite him to make that absolutely certain by showing that there cannot be any claim under any other heading by an employee if the job is stopped because of inclement weather.
A diligent search by officers of my Department failed to reveal any case of an agreement between employer and workers in the building trade which prevented an employer stopping work in inclement weather.
Did not the Minister hear what Deputy Keyes said about the electricians?
I think the electricians' union was attempting to put on that section an interpretation which it would not bear. So far as I am concerned the agreement relates clearly to a different set of circumstances, and not to a temporary stoppage due to inclement weather. I do not think we should put in an amendment of this kind.
The electricians stated that they got four hours' notice. They indicated that the employers' federation now contemplated varying the existing agreement to give four hours' notice.
I am sure the electricians will be able to defend themselves. It is quite clear that this relates to the termination of employment, and not to inclement weather. There is no other case where existing agreements did not recognise the right of the employer to stop the job.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 32 to 35, inclusive, agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 36 stand part of the Bill."
Regarding the recovery of amounts improperly paid, my reading of this section is that if an employer bona fide pays a worker benefit, which is subsequently disallowed, he can only wait until he gets some supplementary benefit to deduct the amount or sue in the courts. He ought to be able to deduct it from wages because he paid under a misapprehension. There is not very much chance here of any collusion between employers and workers, and, even if there was, the Minister might say that he would allow it to be deducted from wages and declare “a plague on both your houses.”
The section deals with the recovery of overcharges where the employer pays benefit without authority to a worker, or where the fund pays benefit without authority to an employer, or in any other circumstances.
In the particular case in which the Deputy is interested, we propose that where an employer has paid benefit which he should not have paid to a worker, he can recover as he can recover any other debt or can deduct it from the next payment of supplementary benefit. I think that is the more satisfactory arrangement.
Why can he not be allowed to deduct it from the wages? Is that not the simplest way? The Minister knows perfectly well that it is absurd to ask an employer to wait for a considerable, or even a small, spell of time until another bonus in respect of intermittent employment arises. Probably if a worker made the case that he had received very little wages for some weeks, the employer could vary it, but an employer might find that a worker was unsatisfactory and he has simply to lose the amount which he has paid him.
The Deputy will agree that it is desirable that there should be no encouragement to employers to pay out this benefit on any pretext, and, in certain circumstances, on small jobs, these pretexts might easily arise. A worker might be a first cousin of the employer. The job may have to stop because a car-load of cement has not come from the station, and the employer might say to the worker: "I will not see you stuck. I will write in and say it was spilling rain and we had to stop work." We want the employer to risk losing the money. We do not say he must lose it, but he must take the risk of losing it, if he pays it without proper grounds. On that account, I do not want to make it too easy for him to recover the amount, if he has, in fact, paid without authority. In the majority of cases, no doubt, payment in the circumstances contemplated would be made in error, the employer bona fide believing that the circumstances were such as to justify his paying, but there may be other cases, and it is to deal with these other cases that it is necessary to provide that the employer will have to go through the normal procedure, so far as recovery of the money is concerned, with the exception of this special circumstance of a further payment of supplementary benefit arising, in which case we allow him to recover from that.
I think that is a bit of a joke, but if the Minister will not agree, there is no use in my pressing it.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 37 to 56 inclusive, Schedules and Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 14th April.
