It is, I think, true to say that the somewhat anomalous position of British trade unions operating in this country received the attention of the first Government of the Irish Free State after the Treaty of 1921 became effective. Some action was taken then, but it was not followed up. The trade union situation here is, to say the least of it, unusual. It is the result of the fact that the achievement of national independence occurred after the development of modern trade unions in Great Britain, and by modern trade unions, I mean national unions as distinct from purely local organisation. It will, I feel sure, be agreed that if national independence had been accomplished earlier, the British trade unions would not have extended their operations to this country, no more than they extended them to Denmark or Belgium, or other adjacent independent States. The Government has, needless to remark, considered that position from time to time, but it has not felt obliged to take any action in relation to it. It will not, however, create any obstacles—it will, in fact, assist in the removal of obstacles—to the development of a movement to promote the establishment and growth of Irish unions to cater for all sections of Irish workers.
As the question has been raised here, I think I should say that the Government regards the existing disunion within the trade union movement with very grave anxiety. It is obviously desirable from every point of view that it should not continue. It will seriously damage the effectiveness of trade unionism and will delay the advent of the day when the trade union movement can take its rightful place in the national organisation. It renders it more difficult to arrange full and frank discussion with representative trade union organs on legislative and social problems which I have been anxious to promote. It could conceivably give rise to a situation in industry which the Government could not ignore and compel its intervention in some form, however reluctant we might be to contemplate it.
The Government would welcome a development which would lead to a re-establishment of one central organ of Irish trade unionism, an organ with which it could consult, in the confidence that the opinions received would be fully representative, free from political bias and derived solely from consideration of the interests of workers related only to our national circumstances. If that development should result from a voluntary withdrawal of British trade unions from activity within this State, the Government would have no reason to deplore it and every reason to welcome it. Certainly the problems of the future, as they affect organised workers, are sufficiently serious to require that their organisations should be in a position to approach their consideration free from the distraction of an issue with which workers' organisations in other independent States have not to contend. Deputy Dillon referred further to the right to strike. He commented upon the workers' right to organise and ended his observations in that regard by advocating compulsory arbitration. Personally, I have no faith in compulsory arbitration and certainly not in circumstances in which it would be imposed against the opposition of the trade unions. For some reason which has never been clear to me, the trade union movement in this country, taking a lead, I think, from the trade union movement in Great Britain, has been opposed to compulsory arbitration. I express surprise at that opposition, because, as I understand it, compulsory arbitration in industrial disputes is the central plank of the policy of the Labour Party in New Zealand, which is so often held up to us for our guidance.
I had intended to initiate discussions between trade union and employers' organisations during the course of the present year, with a view to exploring the possiblities of agreement on the creation of some more effective machinery than at present exists for negotiation in trade disputes, whether actual or threatened disputes, and covering many kindred matters, including the general application of collective agreements, their juridical enforcement, the future of the Trade Boards Act, and so forth. The discussions in the original form which I contemplated have been impeded by the development in the trade union movement to which I have referred, but, as I informed the Dáil yesterday, I am not without hope that it may be possible to proceed with them in another manner.
Deputy Larkin referred to a demand which has been recently formulated on behalf of sections of workers employed in food distributing occupations for a fortnight's annual holiday with pay. The development of that demand at present is a matter which is giving the Government grave concern, and not merely because it indicates a complete misunderstanding of the problems and difficulties which Irish workers will have to face in the years immediately ahead. I hold the personal view, which I have on occasion expressed to representative trade union leaders, that the improvement of labour conditions which should follow upon improved industrial technique and expanding productive capacity should take the form of longer annual holidays rather than a shorter working week. It is clear, however, that the movement towards improved conditions for workers should follow on and not precede industrial progress, as otherwise it will operate as a check upon progress, and will defeat its own aims.
I have urged that the present is not a suitable time for the enforcement of improved annual holidays by industrial action. Trade and employment are at their lowest ebb; prices are high; and any disorganisation of essential supplies is particularly undesirable. I have had to make it clear to various classes of employers who were affected by such demands that I would not agree to the raising of controlled prices to meet the cost of conceding it.
I realise fully that the conditions in all occupations are not similar, and that a demand for conditions which might be regarded as unreasonable in one occupation would be perfectly understandable and reasonable in another. Nevertheless, I feel that consideration for the interests of citizens generally, and particularly the avoidance of adding to the hardships which war-time conditions have caused, and caused particularly for working-class families, should urge that demands for improved conditions, especially in trades which have not been seriously affected during the emergency in regard to numbers employed, should not be pressed to the point of withdrawal of labour from occupations concerned with the maintenance of essential supplies. In any event, I feel that a rising standard of living, whether realised in longer annual holidays or otherwise, cannot be achieved for the workers, generally, except as a consequence of rising national productivity which, as Deputies are aware, is not yet practicable, and that the effort to achieve a rising standard of living for particular sections can only succeed, in present circumstances, at the expense of worsened conditions for the workers as a whole.
Deputy Keyes referred to the operation of Employment Period Orders, but I think he was under some misapprehension as to the scope of these Orders. Certainly, he made some observations which suggested to me that he was not aware of the classes of workers who are excluded from the operation of these Orders. These Employment Period Orders, which operate to deprive certain classes of workers in rural areas of the right to claim unemployment assistance during the period of maximum activity in agriculture, do not apply to married men, with one or more dependents, resident in the scheduled areas, and our experience has shown in recent years that it is only in these scheduled areas that the available supply of labour is in excess of harvest needs. The Orders do not apply to soldiers discharged from the Defence Forces. They do not apply to persons living in a house owned by an urban authority but outside the area of that urban authority, provided that the occupier of the house previously resided in the urban district. That special provision was made to deal with the class of persons to whom Deputy Seán McCarthy referred: workers normally resident in Cork City who were transferred outside the area during the housing activities of the Cork Corporation. Neither do these Orders apply to persons whose normal employment was in a factory and whose unemployment was due to a scarcity of materials arising out of the emergency.
Deputy Keyes also inquired whether we had carried out any examination as to the effect of the Employment Period Orders on the workers concerned, and particularly in regard to the number of them who, in fact, found employment during the time these Orders were in force. Such an investigation was carried out last year, and 14,602 workers, who were affected by these Orders last year and who applied for unemployment assistance within three weeks of the termination of the operation of the Order, were queried as to their employment experience while the Order was in force. Fifty per cent. of these disallowed workers were relatives of farmers, and it must be assumed that some, if not all, of them had work— although not necessarily work for wages—upon the holdings of the farmers whose relatives they were, and where they resided.
