Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Mar 1944

Vol. 92 No. 15

Conditions of Employment Bill, 1944—Second Stage.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The necessity for this measure arose out of certain legal opinions and legal decisions on certain sections of the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936. That Act, as the House will remember, was designed to prescribe the conditions of employment of persons engaged upon industrial work. The first difficulty which arose was concerned with the definition of "industrial work" as it affected the fishing industry. It was not contemplated that fishing should be covered by the Act, as quite clearly the occupation of fishing, which is largely dependent upon tides and weather, could not be subjected to the same restrictions in respect of working hours, periods of rest and weekly half-holidays as other occupations. However, we have a legal opinion that the expression "the killing of any animal", which is contained in the definition section of the Act, includes the killing of a fish, a fish being an animal, and, consequently, it would appear that unless this amendment is effected the business of fishing would be covered by the definition of industrial work. It is proposed to amend the Act to make it clear that it does not apply to the business of fishing. I should, however, point out that the effect of this amendment will not exclude from the Act persons doing industrial work in connection with the packing of fish or other operations which are not associated with the actual business of catching fish.

The second difficulty arose out of the provisions of Section 43 of the Act, which related to the payment of overtime. That Act prescribed certain maximum hours of work which could be performed in industrial occupations under various conditions. For the ordinary type of industrial work, the maximum working week was fixed at 48 hours; but for continuous process industries, that is to say those industries which must go on continuously day and night, Sunday and Monday, the maximum number of hours that might be worked per week was fixed at 56. There was, however, a certain ambiguity arising out of the provisions of Section 43. Two cases have come to court which were in practically all respects similar, and conflicting decisions were given by the judges who heard the cases. In one case it was held that, even in the case of workers engaged in continuous process industries, hours of work beyond 48 in the week had to be regarded as overtime and remunerated as overtime. In the other case a contrary decision was given. Each case was appealed from the Circuit Court to a High Court judge on circuit and each appeal was rejected. We have, therefore, got to do something about the section of the Act in order to remove the legal doubt as to its meaning which has been created.

We propose to give effect to what was the intention in drafting the original Act, to what the Dáil deemed to be its effect when it passed it, and what has in all cases been acted upon since the enactment of the measure, and that is to provide that, in the case of continuous process industries, the maximum normal working week will be one of 56 hours and that the payment of overtime arises only in respect of hours worked beyond 56 in the week. It is proposed that this provision will be retrospective with the usual safeguard that where proceedings have been commenced prior to the date of the introduction of the amending Bill, then the proceedings may be continued and will be determined as if this amendment had not been effected.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Will the Minister say why he differentiates between that sub-section and the sub-sections of Section 4?

Mr. Lemass

What differentiation does the Deputy see?

Mr. D. Morrissey

Will the Minister read it?

Mr. Lemass

The sub-section relating to continuous process working?

Mr. D. Morrissey

Sub-section (2) of Section 3. It seems to be different from (a) and (b) of Section 4.

Mr. Lemass

There has in fact been no decision, in any case as to the applicability of the Act. It was a legal opinion that was given in an entirely different connection which established the existence of the difficulty of definition and, consequently, there is no need to provide for any safeguard. In the other case, there have been cases heard by the courts and possibly there are some cases pending in the courts which I would not know of. It is necessary in these cases to provide for a safeguard to ensure that where anybody has got a decision, that decision stands, or where anybody has started proceedings, these proceedings may be continued as if the amendment were not made.

Mr. Liam Cosgrave

Could the Minister say if he has had any notification of proceedings in connection with the definition of industrial worker under the Act? There have been certain proceedings where corporation employees were aggrieved under the Act, and unless the Minister gives sanction they could not take proceedings. Probably the Minister is aware of the case. The difficulty was whether under the term "industrial worker" they came under the Act as industrial workers or not. Could the Minister say whether corporation workers are industrial workers within the terms of the Act, and if, under the penal section, they can take proceedings in their own names?

Mr. Lemass

I will not attempt to give a legal definition as to who comes under the Act, but for the purpose of the Act a worker is a person who does industrial work. We could not define industrial work positively. It was defined in the usual manner adopted in such circumstances—by a process of exclusion. Certain work was excluded from the definition and there were a number of examples of the types of work that were contemplated.

Mr. Liam Cosgrave

I should like to draw attention to what happened in this particular case. It was taken before the High Court for a definition, and the High Court declined to pronounce upon it. It was then taken to the Supreme Court, and they stated that it did not come within their jurisdiction: that it was not defined in the Act, and, unless the Minister brought proceedings or amended the Act, they could not adjudicate.

Mr. Lemass

That depends on the type of work. Two men may be employed under the same trade description by the same employer, and might, in fact, be in different categories so far as the Act is concerned. One might be held to be doing industrial work mainly, and the other might not be so held. In each case, the nature of the work performed is the deciding factor.

Mr. D. Morrissey

I can quite understand Section 2 of the Bill. But what I want to get from the Minister is an assurance. Section 3 (2) states—

Sub-section (1) of this section shall be deemed to have come into operation on the date on which the Principal Act came into operation.

I should like to have an assurance from the Minister that that particular sub-section, if passed by the House, will not have the effect of upsetting decisions already given in the courts.

Mr. Lemass

If the Deputy will read Section 4, it states:—

"Where any proceedings were commenced before the 16th day of February, 1944, to recover any moneys alleged to be payable by reason of sub-section (2) of Section 43 of the Principal Act to a worker doing continuous process shift work—

(a) if the proceedings were finally determined before the date of the passing of this Act, Section 3 of this Act shall not operate to invalidate the determination."

Mr. D. Morrissey

I am sorry, I did not see that. We are always talking, when it is too late, as to what the intention of the House was and then we find out our mistakes. If (a) of Section 4 clarifies the position, what is the necessity for sub-section (2) of Section 3?

Mr. Lemass

We want to make the law clear for the future. The effect of Section 4 is that in the case of any person who has got a decision, that decision will not be invalidated by the enactment of this Bill. Similarly, if any person has taken proceedings under Section 43 of the Principal Act, he may continue those proceedings and get a decision as if this Bill had not been passed. We are saying, however, that for the future the law will be held to be, and always to have been, as if this amendment of Section 43 had been effected.

Mr. Liam Cosgrave

"And always to have been"?

Mr. D. Morrissey

I am still not satisfied.

Mr. Liam Cosgrave

That might upset it in any court.

Mr. Lemass

We are making the amendment with retrospective effect.

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

The original Act is one of those on which the Government bases its claim to be a Party for progressive social legislation. We on the Labour Benches never have denied that the original Act has been extremely helpful in certain cases. One would imagine that, after the experience since 1936, these anomalies which have come to light in the original Act and which require to be dealt with, would have been dealt with in a progressive manner and not on the lines of the amending Bill. One would have imagined that the loopholes which have become apparent in this particular form of social legislation would have been covered up, as the Minister says, from the point of view of the intention, at least, of his own Party, if not of the House. That would give the full scope of this particular Act to the various sections of workers. From that point of view, we are somewhat disappointed with the amending Bill, which is so restricted in its definitions and provisions, and in which a number of very important anomalies have been overlooked.

There are some points regarding the industrial field which have been engaging the attention of our particular side of the House, and even the attention of officials of the Department. There is the question of corporation employees and of the continuous dispute in regard to watchmen in industrial undertakings. There are difficulties in regard to the rates of payment for overtime, which are at complete variance with the recognised rates paid by good employers in association with trade unions. All these anomalies could have been dealt with when the Minister was taking advantage of this particular opportunity to clear up weaknesses which he sees in the original Act.

Instead of taking that line and pursuing what he claims to be the progressive line which he initiated in 1934 or 1936, it seems to me that, in regard to this industrial legislation, his Party and himself are taking the very same line as they are taking on many other important questions. They have decided that they have gone far enough along the road and they are trying to retrace their steps, if not in important matters, at least in the most serious factor—this whole approach to these particular social and industrial questions. In Section 2 of the Bill, first of all, instead of an attempt being made to broaden the provisions of the Principal Act, as referred to by the Minister, in regard to the difficulty of defining industrial work, we have an attempt to deal with it by the exclusion of certain types of employment. Instead of restricting those exclusions we are adding to them, by including in them fishing. I do not know why fishing should be excluded. Perhaps very sound arguments for that have been provided by the Minister's industrial experts or official advisers.

If, however, we pursue that line of reasoning, we see other difficulties arising in excluding the question of fishing in relation to one or two other types of work which are still included. If we go down through the Bill, we find a little lower down that the killing of any animal or bird is still to be included as excluded under the original Act. It seems to me, by a different process of reasoning, that the catching, and thereby the killing, of fish and the killing of a bird are much the same thing, if the killing of the bird comes under certain provisions in relation to industrial undertakings.

Mr. Lemass

It is industrial work done in connection with the killing of an animal or bird.

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

That is what I want to know. If you pursue that course, how far would it go? Would it extend to a man with a piece of twine and a worm on the end? Does it extend to steam trawlers, to the packing and icing of fish, or the gutting of fish? Where is it to end? Are we again walking into difficulties of definition, to be cleared up by a further amending Bill? If there were difficulties arising in relation to the definition of the term "fishing", one could understand it; but, as I say, the actual amendment proposed here is not a progressive amendment but a retrogressive one. It is at variance with the tone and purpose of the Principal Act. We feel that the opportunity is being lost to correct definite anomalies which have given rise to difficulties.

I have already mentioned that some anomalies are due to certain types of workers not having been included. These, however, have already been taken to court and difficulties have been experienced in trying to get them rectified in that way. There is the case of night watchmen in industrial undertakings. There should have been no difficulty about that at all, but it was overlooked in the previous Act. We feel that this is an excellent opportunity to give these men the benefit of the Act, and it was quite clearly the intention of the House that it should extend to them in the first case. To argue that a man engaged in industrial undertakings, who is performing the essential job of watching and caring for an undertaking during the night or during the week-end, is not to be included in the provisions of this Bill, seems to be peculiar, when we read down the list of industries and trades which are included and when we know to what extent the Bill can be used to afford benefits to certain classes of workers. These watchmen, above all other classes of workers, require protection in regard to their working hours, as it is a common feature to have watchmen working 80, 90 or 100 hours per week. Surely this broad section of workers should be given the protection that may be given on an opportunity like this?

There is one point that occurs to me regarding Section 3. Why is this matter dealt with, not in a broad, humane spirit, but by crabbing and confining the whole Principal Act? It is quite clear that this has relation to whether a man is doing continuous shift work on a basis of a 56-hour week. It is a good practice to follow the recognised custom that a man working on shift work for a 56-hour week should receive a special rate based on time and a quarter, or time and one-eighth. Again, I feel that the tightening up of the original Act should have been done on another line. Instead of taking the attitude that it is now legal for a man to work 56 hours without committing a breach of the overtime provisions, the peculiar feature of shift work— the additional trouble and upsets caused in the home and to the man himself—should have been provided for in the way that decent employers have provided, by giving an additional rate, in recognition of the arduous nature of that work and of the special conditions under which it is performed. We seem to be going backward rather than forward.

One important feature, to which attention has been drawn in the form of questions, is the outrageous procedure of introducing and giving effect to retrospective legislation. Why must the Government always take the attitude that, no matter what mistake they make, someone else must pay for it? The same type of attitude is found in the labour exchange. When an official mistake is made, and an unfortunate man is overpaid, that man must be penalised and have his benefit reduced. It is something for which he had no responsibility whatever. A genuine and honest statement has been made, but someone far removed has made a mistake. We are completely opposed to that. Again, it is worth while drawing attention to the difference between two of these sections. In Section 2 retrospective effect is given to that section without any qualifying clause. It is to be effective from the date of the original Act. But, in Section 4, you take power to limit the operation of this Bill in relation to sub-section (2) of Section 43 of the Principal Act in so far as cases awaiting determination in the courts, or which have been determined by the courts, are concerned. Will the Minister give us an assurance that, at the moment, there are no cases before the courts, or to go before the courts, arising out of the application of the original section to fishermen? If there is such a case, why should the claimant be deprived of his right to have recourse to the law by this amending Bill, since a man suing in relation to overtime under the other section is protected? Surely, there is a strange contrast there.

This is an attempt to rectify legislation at the expense of those who were intended to benefit by it although the mistake was not made by them but by the draughtsmen or the officials of the Department. If they made a mistake, they should bear responsibility for it and not the men and women who proceeded on the basis of the Act, which was passed with the approval of this House and which had behind it all the force, intellectual and expert, of the Minister's Department. These ordinary men and women are entitled to the benefit of the legislation which has been passed, apart from the question of the equity of legislation of a retrospective character which nullifies the law and cuts away the whole basis of the protection afforded to the citizen by the courts of the land. We propose on Committee Stage to try to induce the Minister to rectify some of the weaknesses and anomalies in this amending Bill.

Mr. Looney

I desire to say a few words on behalf of shift workers engaged in continuous industrial processes. The Minister enhanced his reputation to a considerable extent by the introduction of the Conditions of Employment Act. At the same time, he enhanced the prestige of his Party. But this Bill will re-act very unfavourably on the conditions of those who are doing shift work as a continuous process. We all know that there are only 24 hours in the day. Nevertheless, he is proposing to extend the hours to 56 in any one week without any extra pay for overtime. How the Minister is going to operate a 56-hour week as a continuous process by shift work, I do not know. It would mean the working of two 12-hour shifts, or three shifts of eight hours. That would mean a 56-hour week and would involve Sunday work. Shift workers have been operating on a 5½ or six-day week. The maximum of 48 hours includes meal times. Trade unions have, during the emergency, endeavoured to accommodate themselves to the requirements of industry, and I should not like the Minister to take advantage of that position to deprive, at a later date, workers in industrial processes of conditions to which they are entitled.

The Minister must realise that an undertaking working three shifts has its production trebled. There is only one manager and one board of directors, but the output is increased three fold. I think that it is very unfair to take advantage of industrial workers on this occasion. I strenuously oppose any alteration or extension of the hours in relation to shift working. There is a great shortage at present of tea, sugar, butter and in some families, the members of which are engaged on shift work, there are many different meal times. These people have little fuel and not enough of these commodities to make provision for those who are commencing and knocking off work at different hours. The Minister should take cognisance of that fact. When the Committee Stage is reached, I trust that an amendment dealing with this extension of the hours will be accepted. I think that the hours for shift workers are long enough as they are. It will do a great deal of harm not only to the workers but to the Government if this proposal to extend the hours in regard to shift work is insisted upon.

Mr. Larkin

I am somewhat astonished that the Minister should bring in this amending Bill without due consideration of the importance of its provisions. He should withdraw this Bill and do what should have been done some time ago—that is, call into council those men and women representing the industrial forces and discuss the anomalies and contradictions in the original Bill. We have been long waiting for amendments to that Bill and it was in the spirit of reasonableness and understanding that we wanted those amendments. What do we find now? One or two things which are of no moment are touched upon and fundamental things are forgotten. Take the section relating to fishermen. I do not know whether anybody who had to do with this Bill had any knowledge of fishermen. But surely fishing is an industrial process. Naturally, all the work in connection with fishing which goes on on the quays or in the factories is covered by the Act but surely the men who go out on a trawler are as much entitled to a decent measure of consideration as those who handle the fish when they come to the quay or those who prepare the fish for the market. Why fishermen should be subject to worse conditions than other workers, I do not know. If they were owners of their boats there might be some argument, perhaps, for different treatment, but where they are employees—and 70 per cent. of them are employees— the position is completely different. In some cases, they do get an allowance of a certain kind of fish, oddments and guts and things like that. All these are perquisites of the trade and have been recognised as such for generations. Why should not those men have a reasonable working day, and why should they be excluded from the benefits of the Act?

A question was raised by my friend in connection with continuous processes. We have been the victims of this since 1936 to a greater extent—I mean the Union that I represent—than even the milling or any other industry. I refer to the gas industry. The men in it have been working a 56-hour week since 1936. They get paid overtime. The Minister is aware of why we agreed to the present conditions. There is no reason in the world why those men should have to work a 56-hour week, except this: that it was argued by representatives of the company— some of them now in a very dangerous position—that otherwise there would not be a sufficient number of trained men to carry on the industry. We agreed, pending the training of a larger staff, that our men would work a 56-hour week. In this industry a man's life is at stake when carrying out certain operations, and the safety of the community is not secure if you have not competent men employed in it. Because of that, we agreed to this continuous shift—an unnecessarily long one—until such time as a sufficient staff had been trained. Ten years have passed since then, and nothing has been done to improve the situation.

We are dealing here with a private monopoly which should have been taken over by the public years ago. It has a statutory duty to pay to its shareholders not more than 8 per cent. After doing that the company is obliged to give a portion of the benefits accruing to it to the consumer, but the position is that at all times the company can take 8 per cent. out of earnings. It is a flourishing concern and has practically renovated its whole plant out of profits. Yet during all the various emergencies and crises that have arisen during the last 10 years the company has not had time to train a sufficient number of men who could adapt themselves to the needs of the industry. The men are still working a 56-hour week. Why not give them what the Minister has provided for other classes of workers, a reasonable week's work and time to recuperate from the heavy tasks they have to perform? Anybody who knows anything about the production of gas must be aware that the working of retorts is one of the most laborious and exhausting jobs that a man ever applied himself to.

The Minister is aware that we have an arrangement outside of the Act whereby these men work three shifts of 56 hours. Four shifts of 42 hours would be the right and proper thing to have. These could be provided at a cost of less than a quarter per cent. of the registered profits of the company, and if such a system were introduced you would be establishing decent and human conditions in the industry. Four shifts would mean that 48 men who are now idle in the City of Dublin would be absorbed in the industry. Under the Act the men are entitled to the same measure of wages that was being paid to them previous to the introduction of the 1936 Act. That is met by the men working six shifts and getting paid for seven. At present the men have their domestic budgets built up on a certain income, and depend on that. If you open the market to 48 additional workers coming in you naturally restrict their earnings. But why should we hesitate to do the just thing by those men? For the purposes of the argument, let us suppose that their total earnings prior to 1936 were £4 a week, they are now getting £4 12s. in consequence of working the extra shift. They also get additional holidays because in consequence of working the 56-hour week it is impossible to give them the 24 hours' rest that they are entitled to under the Act. No matter how you divide up the number of hours in the week or hours in the year, you cannot, where you have men on a 56-hour week, give them the 24-hour break that they are entitled to under the law.

It is time that the Minister took cognisance of that fact. The men are being asked to burn material that they should not be required to handle. They are doing so in order to keep this utility service going. The men's clothes have been burned on their backs, and they are enduring conditions that no human being should be expected to suffer. I have seen men working in the stoke-holds of ships, but in all my life I have never seen anything to equal the conditions which those gas workers have had to endure since 1938. They are such as no normal man should be asked to bear. While they are doing that, there is no suggestion of relief for them in this Bill. I want to ask the Minister, why should the Government be paying unemployment money to 48 men in the City of Dublin while we have here a public utility service which has room for them in the morning?

Their employment would help to relieve the present staff whose bodies are being burned. When a blowback comes in a retort, their bodies are scorched in the same way as if a hot iron were run over them. If the people are not getting a good pressure of gas at the present time, that is not due to the men. It is due entirely to the quality of the material that is being used. It is not suited to the job. It is slurry and not coal. At one time if anybody offered it to me as coal I would feel insulted. I suppose that at the present time we can get nothing better.

I think this thing might have been remedied, and I suggest that the Minister even now might take the Bill back and give the matter more consideration. It is well known that this thing has been going on for years and we have put up with this crucifixion, as I might term it, until we can stand it no longer. There must be some protest. I have, as it were, sat on the safety valve of that industry on Sundays and other days when there was a feeling that the industry would close down. The men, however, stood fast and worked like Trojans, many of them because of the appeal on patriotic grounds, and the only return they get is to be ignored in a paltry Bill of this kind.

Let me now turn to the position of watchmen. Why should a watchman be excluded from this measure? Are watchmen not to be regarded as industrial workers? If a man takes up a shovel to stoke a boiler in order to keep it going through the night, I submit that once he puts his hand to the shovel he is an industrial worker. If he does not keep the boiler banked up through the night, it will mean that other men will have to come in earlier in the mornings, perhaps one and a half or two hours before the work normally commences, in order to have the boilers functioning, in order to have everything hunky-dory, as we say, so that everyone may proceed with his normal work. There is hardly a watchman in the city who does not do some form of industrial work. I am aware that some of these men are working 84 hours a week. Is that a desirable thing in the 20th century?

Most of those men are beyond their normal working years, and then they take over the responsibility of a watchman's position. I might instance the case at Inchicore, where a watchman had a gun placed to his stomach and was ordered to hand over money. He refused to be cowed by the gunman. People who do that type of thing should be given sympathetic consideration. These men have very responsible jobs, and they are prepared to risk their lives and limbs in the duties they undertake. What return do they get? There is not a word about a watchman in this amendment Bill.

We have, through the trade union movement, been able to make employers recognise the watchman as a human being. I am aware of cases— and I brought them to the attention of the Department—where watchmen were working 102 hours a week. Even in the Dublin Corporation, where we have, I suppose, the closest approach to model conditions, the watchmen are not getting decent conditions in some instances. We have, I admit, gone a long way above other bodies, but there are cases where the watchmen are not working under proper conditions. Some watchmen start their work at 3 o'clock in the afternoon. They may have to walk from Whitehorse Yard and go as far as St. Anne's, on the north side, a distance of three and three-quarter miles. The average casual watchman has to walk. He may have to go to Drimnagh on the south side or, taking the north side again, to Finglas, in order to carry out his duties. Watchmen have to protect the property of the corporation. They have to work probably until 8 o'clock the next morning, almost 15 hours' work. That work is done for 11/- a night, or 35/- altogether in the one week. The watchman does not get holidays.

The beautiful system that was introduced by this Government, the rotational system, is worthy of some reference. There are men working on that system in Dublin. They are employed for five days a week. Deliberately, by the policy of the Local Government Department, these men are allowed to work only five days a week. Why? So that they will not get the benefits of our legislation. The six-day working week would be much more economic, in my opinion, but they are not allowed to work for more than five days for fear they would get a holiday, as laid down in our legislation. Is that an honest way of doing things?

The same applies to relief work. They will not give a man a week's work because that would give him the right, after two months' work, to get a holiday. These unctuous gentlemen deprive them of that. That is the attitude of the gentlemen who preside over the destinies of this country. They forget that they are making these men dissatisfied, and dissatisfied men will not give an honest day's work. Any man who would do so would be a fool. Do you mean to say that if you put me on rotational work I would be in the mood to do a normal day's work when I would be aware of the deliberately organised policy to deprive me of the benefits that other workers are getting? The average employer gives his workman six days' work, and that workman gets the benefit of our legislation. When you look at the situation squarely, you realise what a stupid, foolish, uneconomic proposition it is to deprive men of the benefits to which they are entitled.

Take the position of dockers in this country. Is it not peculiar that the dockers are deprived of a holiday? There is no one in the Government or in the judiciary who can find a remedy, who can create the position whereby a casual docker will get what he is entitled to, a week's holiday. The dockers work long hours, sometimes they work continuously for 30 hours, but they get no holidays. I should like to draw attention to a case that was brought up in the courts. The Government brought the case to test whether a docker was entitled to a week's holiday. It was a most extraordinary action. The man who was brought up had worked one and half years in the one year—he had worked more than 500 hours' overtime. These men are remarkable in many ways. They work almost to the point of destruction of their physical powers; as long as there is work there they will do it. The man who was brought up on the test case had worked 584 hours' overtime. I would have said to that man: "Look here, you have put in a normal year's work; give another man the half-year, that other man needs the work more than you do and you should take a week's holiday."

We have working-men in the City of Dublin whose income from one firm totalled £581 for the year. That amounts almost to a Minister's salary. Alongside these men are others who cannot get a day's work. These are aspects the Minister has not considered. If he would only turn his mind to the proper regulation of industry and do away with overtime, it would be much more satisfactory. He should do away with the long continuous shifts. They are unnecessary. Do not allow any man working at normal industry to work overtime until every unemployed man is absorbed. Surely that is the proper Christian ideal. Let us recollect that the man in the vineyard who went in at the eleventh hour got as much as the man who went in the first hour. What is the position here to-day? In this era of Christian civilisation one man gets all the work—more than he can do— while another man cannot get an opportunity to earn a loaf of bread— can get nothing, in fact, except by way of home assistance.

The Minister might bring intelligence and co-ordination to the control of industry and in 24 hours we would absorb a percentage of the unemployed. In this case there is a clear objective. Nobody with any intelligence would allow one man to work 500 hours' overtime while other men cannot get a day's work. Divide all the work in the industrial world and one-third of the idle men in the City of Dublin would be working to-morrow. Nobody would be injured. except that some firms would have to pay a little more out of increased profits. It is extraordinary that where overtime is worked there are generally increased profits. It is an absurdity from the economic point of view to have people employed for 60 hours a week when if we had a 48-hour week there would be work for extra men. If the 12 extra hours were taken off those who work overtime it would mean that three men would be working instead of two, and they would be getting decent wages. I do not know why employers persist with such a practice. It took years to get piece-work stopped at Inchicore. The shipyard was reopened in Dublin, thanks to the cooperation of the Minister.

I suggest that if the books are examined it will be found that a number of men are working overtime every week. In one case I stopped a man who had worked 94 hours in a week. When this firm opened there was distinct understanding on that matter with the trade unions. The best arrangement was made in the document that was drafted. Yet in a few months it was abused. The manager who was a party to that has gone to India. Those who are there now deliberately lend themselves to the curse of unnecessary overtime. Everybody knows that there are occasions when overtime is necessary. Work has to be continued for instance if a ship is about to put to sea or has to be put into a dry dock, but that does not mean that out of 400, 100 men should be working a week and a half or sometimes a double week, while there are others idle.

There should be no trouble about bringing in a Bill to make it illegal to exceed a 48 hour working week. This country agreed to that at Geneva. Deputy Dockrell and I agree on a 44 hour week in the building trade, and I hope in the near future that we will agree to a 40 hour week. I can assure Deputy Giles that men who are idle are willing to work but they are not allowed to do so by the mischievous methods of the Department. I invite the Minister to take back this Bill, so that representatives of the workers and the employers might confer to see if they could not come to an understanding on these points. I appreciate what the Minister has done for the workers. There is no doubt that the social reforms he has brought about are a most valuable contribution, not only to the health of the men and women affected, but to the future of the nation. Let me call attention to some abuses that occur. A week ago I found a factory where peerless products are assembled. No inspector had been there. The owner was working in a nice little den. It was a filthy place and the medical officer was called in. Girls employed there were paid 7/6 a week on a casual basis. Starch and custard powder are manufactured from potatoes, but if the supply of potatoes did not arrive work was stopped.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It would be better if the Deputy did not indicate any employers.

Mr. Larkin

I am pointing out that nobody should be asked to work under the conditions that prevailed. Nobody knew about this place until it was discovered by accident. The Department that has the credit of bringing in social legislation for workers should also take discredit, if it was deserved. In this case I notified the Department and as soon as they were cognisant of the position they took steps to correct it. Take the position in the boot and shoe industry. No boy under 18 is allowed to work more than 40 hours a week. By what right was a change made in conditions for these boys? The excuse was that the arrangement was uneconomic. A skilled man in that trade gets a skilled worker's wages, and boys and girls get a certain wage which is augmented yearly. Why should those who are protected by an Act of Parliament be asked to work for 48 hours or longer? The only excuse is that of greed and profit. I do not know why this Bill was drafted. We were told that there had been a test case, and that while the judgment in one court was favourable, in another court it was unfavourable. We know that the lawyers have to live. Seeing that the Minister is interested in imposing conditions not only on industrial workers but on all workers, why should he hesitate about withdrawing this Bill and bringing in one with the necessary amendments? What is going to be done for these people I referred to?

Since 1936 they have never enjoyed a holiday. Why are they excluded? Are they different from other human beings? Why are men engaged for 56 hours on continuous process work ignored? I submit that the Minister ought to take steps to remedy the position of these workers. They are engaged on industries which are important in the country and there is nothing that they would do to stand in the way of the country or the people. We ask the Minister to withdraw this Bill and let us hear no more about it until he is prepared to bring in a Bill with entirely different provisions.

Mr. O'Leary

As a worker with over 23 years' experience in the flour-milling industry and 10 years on shift work, I am greatly surprised at the attempt of the Minister to extend the hours of industrial workers. On several occasions, we have been advocating a 40-hour week for shift workers and a 44-hour week for other workers. I hope that day will come, but if the Minister insists on extending the hours for industrial workers, there is not a place in the country in which industries will not be affected. I would appeal to the Minister as a worker—knowing what it is to be locked up in a mill all night, going in in the morning at 7 o'clock and working until 2.30, working from 2.30 to 10 and from 10 to 7 again on a fine summer's evening. After so many years organisation of trade unions and employers, the Government and the Minister are seeking to change the hours. I think it is a very sad state of affairs. No doubt, if we had shorter hours in modern industries we would be able to create more employment, now so badly needed. Before I close, I would like to refer to a remark made by, I think, Deputy Giles, that the workers would not work in a fit——

Captain Giles

Not all—some.

Mr. O'Leary

The Deputy means that some would not work in a fit? I think the workers of this country have proved beyond doubt that they will work. Thousands of them have gone across the water and have risked their lives in the bombed areas of England and that, in itself, is an answer to anyone who says they would not work in a fit. There may be some people who would not work, but they are very few, provided they get decent pay and conditions.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I would like the Deputy to keep to the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. O'Leary

I think that Irish workers have proved beyond doubt that they will work if they get work. They are going over every day to look for it and, unfortunately, some of them will never return. As an ordinary working-man, and a representative of flour-milling workers at conferences since 1934, I would ask the Minister not to proceed with this amendment of the 1936 Act. He will have the wholehearted support of the House and the country if he introduces the badly-needed shorter hours. All the workers are looking forward to a 40-hour week for shift workers and a 44-hour week for others, and, in all sincerity, I would ask the Minister not to proceed with this proposal for 56 hours. The time has come when the Government must foster employment. If working hours are extended, employment will not be increased, because fewer men will be employed working longer hours. I am sure the Minister was ill-advised by the employers and the people concerned when he introduced this Bill. Everyone admired the Conditions of Employment Act of 1936 as the best Act ever introduced in the country, and to come along now and try to change it is very bad policy on the part of the Minister, and I doubt if the majority of the Government are in favour of it.

Mr. H.M. Dockrell

I am sorry to say that I missed the Minister's statement, and as I glanced at this Bill only very hurriedly, I fear I know very little about the fishermen, but, so far as the industrial side of the Bill is concerned, I read it as doing away with the necessity for asking permission to work overtime up to 56 hours.

Mr. Lemass

That is not correct. Section 3 of the Bill merely removes doubts as to whether workers employed on continuous process shift work are so employed by way of ordinary work or by way of overtime in respect of the hours after 48 hours. Doubts have arisen as a result of conflicting legal decisions and these provisions do not alter the hours of work.

Mr. Larkin

But they permit 56-hour shifts.

Mr. Lemass

The sole purpose of this section is to make it clear that the law is as the Dáil intended it to be when it passed the Principal Act and before these legal decisions were given.

Mr. Looney

Does it mean that workers are entitled to work a 56-hour week?

Mr. Lemass

The original Act permitted it in continuous process industries. These are not very many.

Mr. Looney

But it means that workers will have to work on Sundays?

Mr. Lemass

Some industries must work on Sundays.

Mr. Dockrell

I am wrong then in assuming that it ends the necessity for asking permission to work overtime. That is not so?

Mr. Lemass

That position is not affected at all. That is licensed shift work.

Mr. H.M. Dockrell

The position seems to be even more shadowy than I had read it. Apparently it applies only to one section, the continuous shiftworkers. There is just only one further remark I would like to make to the Minister. I sympathise with a great deal of what Deputy Larkin said, but as I have no knowledge of those particular matters, I will not comment on them. No matter what you do, a certain amount of overtime is necessary. There is what is called co-ordinating overtime and that is best explained by the case of a carpenter on a building who is kept back to put up casings so that the men working the concrete can start in the morning. There are other things like that. There is a shadowy line between co-ordinating overtime and other overtime. It might be that somebody was too lazy to look for another employee and to spread out the work. It is very hard to discriminate, but, certainly, most employers frown on overtime and yet find that a certain amount is necessary. I am afraid you will never be able to abolish it.

Mr. Everett

Like other Deputies, I object to overtime where it can be avoided, but there are certain essential industries in which overtime may be necessary. The real kernel of the Bill is Section 3, and while the Minister says that it is to clear away doubts, I suggest there is another motive. The Minister is well aware that a number of workers engaged in semi-Government employment have found out that they are entitled to overtime for every hour they work after 48 hours.

Mr. Lemass

This section has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Everett

They were engaged on essential work and a court decision has been given that they were entitled to overtime. I suggest that the Minister is taking precautions to ensure that men engaged in the future for 56 hours will not receive payment for any overtime after 56 hours while men engaged in non-essential work, work not essential to life, will be entitled to overtime for every hour above 48 hours. These men, engaged in semi-Government industries, looked for their rights and a judge decided that they were entitled to overtime. This Bill means that a man who works in a beet sugar factory for more than 56 hours would not be entitled to a penny overtime. The Minister realises that there are thousands of pounds involved as a result of the court decision, and that is why he has brought in Section 3. I would appeal to him to leave the matter as it was, and to give men engaged in essential work the same rights as those who are on non-essential work. Why should there be differentiation? Why should a man who works over 56 hours on essential work be denied overtime pay? I would ask the Minister to withdraw it. We are going to oppose it.

Mr. Lemass

I think there has been a great deal of misunderstanding about this Bill and I will do my best to remove it. The Principal Act prescribed the minimum working conditions which were enforceable legally in respect of certain types of employment. The Act of 1936 was concerned only with industrial employment as defined in it. It did not cover employment in agriculture, employment in commerce, employment in transport or certain other types of employment. It did not cover them because, quite clearly, the circumstances of these employments were such that the hours and other conditions prescribed for industrial workers could not be reasonably applied to them. It was intimated that the Government contemplated series of legislative steps to give similar protection to other workers in respect of conditions of employment, and the second step took the form of an Act protecting the working conditions of shop workers. Further legislation was not proceeded with because of the intervention of the emergency. May I say also that we took the easier part of that task first? The other occupations not covered by the existing legislation will be much harder to provide for.

This Act of 1936 dealt with three different kinds of industrial employment: ordinary day work, licensed shift work, and continuous process shift work. For ordinary day work, the Act prescribed a maximum working week of 48 hours, and any time worked in excess had to be paid for at overtime rates. Licensed shift work was the type of work that might be done during a period of unusual activity or other exceptional circumstances in industries which would normally work on the basis of daytime employment and a 48-hour week. So far as workers in these industries were concerned, it still remained the law that work done in excess of 48 hours was regarded as overtime and had to be paid for at overtime rates. In the case of continuous process industries, the Act permitted a 56-hour week.

These industries are defined as those which must be continuous all the time, which cannot be stopped even during the night, or Sunday, or for any other interval. The manufacture of gas is an excellent illustration, and there is also the manufacture of sugar in a beet sugar factory during the campaign period, the manufacture of glass bottles in a bottle factory and other industrial processes of that kind which must go on all the time. They cannot stop without destroying the whole process. For workers employed in these continuous process industries, the Act prescribed that the maximum working week would be 56 hours, and laid down certain conditions which had to be complied with. There had to be so many hours interval between each shift and various breaks in the work for the protection of the workers. However, a worker who was employed in a gas works, whether he got the idea himself, or went into consultation with a lawyer, interpreted Section 43 of the Act as entitling him to overtime in respect of the hours worked by him over 48 and under 56, even though he was employed in a continuous process industry.

Mr. Larkin

They always got it, Sir.

Mr. Lemass

I am talking about overtime prescribed in the Act. Deputy Larkin, junior, stated that workers on shift work got shift rates. There is nothing in this Act or in the amendment to prevent that. Whether the rate was based on a normal working week or based on shift work, time and a quarter had to be paid for overtime—that is the type of overtime defined in the Act. That worker got a decision from a Circuit Court judge in his favour and it was upheld on appeal to a High Court judge on circuit. Another worker in another gas works got the same idea and took a similar action. He lost his case, the judge deciding that he was not entitled to the overtime, and on an appeal to another High Court judge on circuit, the decision of the Circuit Court judge was upheld. You have, therefore, two conflicting decisions, and something must be done about it. You cannot leave the interpretation of the law so vague as it is now. We have got to have some uniformity of interpretation. What we intended in the Principal Act was that the standard working week permitted by law in continuous process industries would be 56 hours.

Deputy Larkin and Deputy O'Leary and Deputy Looney all talked in favour of a shorter working week. Let me be clear that this Act does nothing to prevent it. There were two possible methods of approach by the Government to this question of regulating working conditions. We could have taken power to prescribe conditions and to make regulations relating to employment in any occupation and enforce them ourselves. But, I do not think we would have got agreement about it. I think that members of the Labour Party, and certainly, spokesmen of the trade union movement, would be inclined to resent that type of Government interference with the details of industrial organisation, and so we proceeded along the lines of prescribing certain conditions representing what we conceived to be minimum conditions to be enforced by law, leaving the improvement of the conditions of the workers above the minimum conditions to the ordinary methods of trade union negotiation.

Mr. Looney

Will a 56-hour week apply to licensed shift work?

Mr. Larkin

In some cases.

Mr. Lemass

The licence may prescribe the conditions that will apply. May I say that normally I should be disinclined to give a licence for shift work unless the circumstances were unusual. Of course, there are some trades in which shift work is necessary at certain times of the year. We had to make provision to deal with these circumstances in framing this Act and to set out the minimum conditions which should apply in these types of industry.

Mr. Looney

Could the Minister not segregate them and distinguish between licensed shift work and continuous process work?

Mr. Lemass

I do not think that there is any difficulty in the interpretation of that section. The normal working week is 48 hours except in the case of continuous process industries. The Act does not set out to name them because, of course, it would be open to any person to go to the courts and get a declaration that his particular industry was a continuous process industry and that it was impracticable to work it on any basis except that of a continuous process. Of course, there will be new industries started from time to time in which such conditions will apply, but the standard working week for all other industries is a 48-hour week unless a permit is given in certain circumstances to work longer.

I am quite prepared to agree that at some stage the Legislature ought to reconsider the conditions which it set out as minimum conditions in 1936, but I do not think this is the time to do so. I think the abnormal circumstances existing at the moment would make it difficult to arrive at a proper judgment of what these minimum conditions should be, and we are not proposing to do it in this Bill. In this Bill we are dealing merely with certain minor difficulties of interpretation which have arisen, and which would be the cause of legal difficulty if they are not clarified. We propose to clarify them by this Bill.

Let me be quite clear that we are not proposing to go back one step in this Bill from the position taken up in 1936. We merely set out that the correct interpretation of the 1936 Act is what we thought it was when the Act was passed, and what everybody assumed it to be ever since. There may be, and possibly is, as good a case for the regulation of the conditions of employment of fishermen as there is for the regulation of the conditions of employment of any other type of workman, but nobody, I am quite sure, will contend that the hours and the conditions we prescribe for a worker employed in an ordinary factory can be applied without change to the worker working on a fishing boat. I do not know if I made it clear, though I intended to do so in my original statement, that this Bill, in so far as it excludes fishermen from its operation, does not exclude people engaged in work of a processing nature, such as the cleaning and packing of fish on the quays. We are merely excluding people engaged in industrial work on fishing boats, because normal conditions of employment do not apply to their work. Nobody, I am quite sure, would seriously suggest that they do. I assume it is not necessary to give illustrations, but you cannot just take a ship worker off his boat at the dinner interval to allow him to go for his dinner, nor can you stop a ship in the middle of the high seas when the maximum number of hours have been worked by the sailors. It is because these conditions which we apply to all the industrial workers do not apply to workers in ships——

Mr. Larkin

Surely we could apply these conditions when it is known that four trips across the Channel constitute a week's work. If I am working on a ship going, say, to Brittany, and if I exceed the number of hours laid down as the normal working week, should I not be entitled to be paid overtime?

Mr. Lemass

Nobody is suggesting that the hours of work of sailors could not be regulated by legislation. They could.

Mr. Larkin

And fishermen.

Mr. Lemass

Nobody would suggest that their conditions of employment cannot be regulated by legislation but what I do contend is that the problem of regulating the conditions of employment of fishermen is an entirely different problem from regulating the conditions of employment of ordinary industrial workers. We propose to take them out of this Act so as to ensure that no practical difficulty will arise on that score. It is true that the legal differences which have arisen as to the proper interpretation of the Act are due to the particular words used and the method of drafting which was adopted. Deputy Larkin, Junior, says that it was the mistake of the Government or its draftsmen. I just want to make it clear that so far as the Constitution is concerned, it was a mistake of the Dáil. This Dáil is responsible for putting clearly into legislation what is intended to be there. In so far as this Section 43 is concerned we had two legal interpretations, one different from the other, and as we have that conflict of opinion it is considered advisable to have it removed.

May I say in relation to watchmen, caretakers and people of that kind, that in so far as they may be doing industrial work, they are covered by the Act. If they are not doing industrial work they are not covered. I think the problem that arises in relation to them will have to be faced when legislation concerning them is introduced but, as I have indicated, that is a different problem from the question which arises in connection with ordinary factory workers. One of the conditions prescribed in the Act for ordinary factory workers is that work must not be carried on beyond 8 o'clock. That is usually the time that a watchman commences work. That may be only a minor difference which may be capable of being overcome, but there are other circumstances also which distinguish that type of work from the type of work we had in mind in framing this legislation. The standard rule laid down in the Act is that work must stop at 8 o'clock.

The Act provides exemptions from that and exemptions can be given by permit in certain circumstances. Similarly in the case of dockers, although the point raised concerned the Holidays Act rather than this Act, the facts are the same. If they qualify they are entitled to the benefits of that Act. There is a Parliamentary Question by Deputy Larkin, (Junior), which is down for answer by me tomorrow on that matter. There is an obvious difficulty in applying the Holidays Act to casual dockers but they are not excluded from the Act. If they fulfil certain conditions they are entitled to the benefits of the Act but there are a number of casual workers who cannot comply with these conditions.

Mr. Larkin

The Minister has misconstrued the whole position. The Holidays Act does not apply to a casual docker although he may be working six days a week.

Mr. Lemass

A docker is not excluded from any of the provisions of the Act. The difficulty is that he must perform a certain minimum number of hours' work for the same employer in the year. It is because a large number of dockers cannot comply with that condition, by reason of the nature of their employment, that they cannot get the benefits of the Act.

Mr. Larkin

Casualise the port.

Mr. Lemass

With any practical plan to deal with that problem, I shall have the utmost sympathy but in so far as casual workers are concerned, I must confess that I have not yet got a really practical suggestion as to how that difficulty can be overcome.

Mr. Larkin

A man is supposed to be entitled to holidays if he works 1,800 hours in the year. The man who brought the recent action in the courts proved that he worked 2,800 hours for the same employer and yet he got no holidays. The case was decided against him.

Mr. Lemass

My recollection of the circumstances of that case are not quite the same. I hope I have made clear what this Bill does. It merely removes these anomalies. It does not presuppose any decision to step back from the position adopted in 1936 or any action against the protection by legislation of the conditions of employment of fishermen or to deprive the workers in continuous process industries of any rights that we intended to give them in 1936.

Mr. Larkin

Suppose a man works 56 hours. Is he not entitled to overtime after 48 hours?

Mr. Lemass

Oh, no. It certainly was not intended that he should be and my interpretation of the Act does not show that he is.

Mr. Larkin

He is entitled to one and a quarter wages overtime?

Mr. Lemass

No, not a person employed in a continuous process industry. That is the particular issue that came before the courts. One judge decided that he was; another judge decided that he was not.

Mr. Larkin

If you apply that to us, in one hour you will have the whole City of Dublin gasworks stopped, because there they get double wages after working 48 hours.

Mr. Lemass

There is nothing in this Act to prevent that. Deputies must understand that what this Act does is to prescribe the conditions that employers must conform to. There is nothing in the Act whatever to prevent them giving better conditions, higher pay, shorter hours or any other advantages about which they may have negotiated with the representatives of the workers.

Mr. Larkin

If after 56 hours they are not entitled to overtime, you are protecting the employer.

Mr. Lemass

In connection with continuous process industries, there is no special provision for overtime provided for here in the case of workers who work 56 hours. That is true. That is what we intended in 1936 and that is what the law will be in the future, but the individual employer can, of course, give any concession he likes and there is nothing to prevent it.

Mr. Everett

Would the Minister guarantee that this will not apply to shift-work at all?

Mr. Lemass

The case for making the provision retrospective is that, assuming that one judge's interpretation of the law is held to be correct, there may be a very considerable claim made on behalf of a large number of workers for something they never thought they were entitled to, that their employers never considered they would have to meet, covering a large number of years, the finances of which have closed, the goods produced in which have been sold, and which, if persisted in, would have very serious repercussions upon the industries concerned. We certainly did not think that it would be right that people should, by some misinterpretation of the Act, or some default in the drafting of it, get a claim that was never intended they should get, that they never knew they had, or should now be allowed to substantiate it. We are merely putting this Act in the form in which we intended it should be in 1936.

Mr. Larkin

May I read out the section on page 57?

Mr. Lemass

What is the number of the section?

Mr. Larkin

Section 43, sub-section (3). In this section it is definitely laid down that, after working 48 hours, the overtime rate should be 125 per cent. of his normal wages. Is that not true?

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

Mr. Larkin

That is one and a quarter.

Mr. Lemass

It is not contemplated that that section applied to continuous process industries.

Mr. Larkin

Section 3 of this Bill says: "Sub-section (3) of Section 43 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion before the words ‘the amount of time' of the words ‘(as respects workers doing continuous process shift work) the amount of time in any week for which any employer permits any worker to work after having completed 56 hours of work and (as respects all other workers)'"... The Minister is definitely putting us, who are getting double time for all hours after 48, in the position of getting only time and a quarter. I am quite sure the Minister did not mean that.

Mr. Lemass

Certainly not. It was contemplated that that Section 43 related to the Part of the Bill in which it is, which deals with ordinary factory employment.

Mr. Larkin

And continuous process industries?

Mr. Lemass

No. It is not assumed to relate to continuous process industries. One circuit judge decided that it does not and another circuit judge decided that it does.

Mr. Larkin

You are getting into a deeper hole.

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. Larkin

I am telling the Minister the facts. At the present moment where we are doing a 56-hours' week, after we have done 48 hours, or six shifts, we get double time. Under this Act we can only be paid one and a quarter time.

Mr. Lemass

No. There is nothing in this Act which prevents you from getting any rate of pay that the employer may have agreed to give. What is in this Act is the minimum thing that he must comply with, whether he has any agreement or not.

Mr. Larkin

I call the Minister as witness.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister speaks of the section directed to correct the conflict of legal decisions as being retrospective. Is that without prejudice to the particular case that has been adjudicated?

Mr. Lemass

It is without prejudice to any case that has been decided or any case that may have begun since the Bill was introduced.

Mr. Dillon

All right.

Mr. Looney

In the case of a worker who works six days a week for an eight-hour shift, which brings him to 12 o'clock on Saturday night, if he works on Sunday, he gets double time. Will this Act do away with that?

Mr. Lemass

No, certainly not.

Mr. Larkin

I suggest it does.

Mr. Lemass

May I emphasise, because it is important that it should be understood, particularly by employers who may be inclined to put the wrong interpretation on it, that we are not limiting in any way the agreements that may be made by employers to provide to their workers better conditions of employment than the Act prescribes? We are prescribing the minimum conditions that they must conform to, whether they have agreements to that effect or not.

Mr. Looney

The Minister agrees that the employer must conform to the regulations already in existence in regard to Sunday?

Mr. Lemass

Certainly.

Mr. Dillon

The Bill prescribes the minimum conditions, but not maximum conditions.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 14th March.