I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The Agricultural Wages Act, 1936, provided for the fixing of minimum rates of wages for agricultural workers, made it an offence for an agricultural employer to pay an agricultural worker less than the minimum rate, and gave the agricultural worker (or an officer of the Agricultural Wages Board acting on his behalf) power to recover by civil proceedings any sums due to him on account of payment of wages at less than the appropriate minimum rate. The Act did not, however, fix any limit to the period in respect of which such arrears of wages could be recovered, and workers may, therefore, at present bring proceedings dating back to the year in which the Act came into operation. In time it would be possible to bring claims extending over 20 years at which point the statute of limitations would apply. The experience of my Department and of the Agricultural Wages Board has shown that the absence of such a limit is giving rise to serious abuses. The principal aim of the Bill is to remove these abuses in the interests both of employers and workers alike.
I may now refer to the sections. Section I deals with contracts of employment. The Agricultural Wages (Minimum Rates) Orders made by the Agricultural Wages Board fixing minimum rates of wages for agricultural workers distinguish between two kinds of contracts of employment: (1) contracts of employment for a period of less than five months, and (2) contracts of employment for a period of five months duration and upwards. In the case of the first, the minimum rates of wages are fixed on the basis of a week of 54 hours, and, in the case of the second, on a monthly basis. The definition of "a wages period" in Section 1 of the Bill is intended to conform with this practice of the board in fixing minimum rates, and also to facilitate the calculation of the two-year limitation periods for recovery of wages which is provided for in Sections 3 and 4 of the Bill.
Section 2 deals with the question of determining whether a worker is an agricultural worker or an employer an agricultural employer. Under the 1936 Act, these are matters for decision by the Minister. In that connection difficult legal points have often arisen in practice. For a long time I have thought these were not proper questions for the Minister to decide. As a matter of fact, I having decided whether a person was an agricultural worker or not, the court must often also decide whether the work arose out of a contract or not. It is very involved at the moment and I think it would be very much more appropriate if it were left to the court to decide whether a person was or was not an agricultural employer or an agricultural worker. That is provided by Section 2.
Section 3 deals with summary proceedings. Where there are summary proceedings, as distinct from civil proceedings, for an offence under the Act, the court may award the wages due as well as dealing with the offence. That is sometimes done and this section was put in to limit the period in that case to two years.
Section 4 may be regarded as the main section of this Bill. It limits to two years the arrears of wages that can be recovered in civil proceedings and it also limits the time within which application may be made to the court to two years from the end of the period of employment.
These provisions are being introduced at the instance of the Agricultural Wages Board. Some considerable time ago, the Agricultural Wages Board passed a resolution asking me to have the Act amended accordingly. They had had the question discussed at the five area committees. These committees, as Deputies are aware, are composed of an equal number of employers and employees and all the committees and the Board recommended unanimously that this amendment should be made. It is not contended that an employer should get away with doing what would be regarded as illegal under the Act, but he can be dealt with summarily for the offence and, even after this Bill is passed, he will, presumably, be compelled to pay whatever wages were due for a period of two years. The amendment is proposed because there has been a certain amount of dissatisfaction amongst employees as well as employers. I think every Deputy will realise that if a man is prepared to hire with a farmer at less than the minimum wage, that has a very depressing effect on wages in general in the area and it holds out the temptation to employers in that area to try to get men at less than the minimum wage. The employee who is willing to do this has in mind, when his employment ceases, to go to court and get the arrears. It would be much better if that were discouraged and that, as far as possible, we should see to it that employees insist on getting the proper wage and that employers are compelled to pay the proper wage.
In the case of any person who has a genuine grievance, let us say, an employee who has made a mistake about the wages he should be paid or who, by reason of a temporary depression in a given area, accepts work at lower than the minimum wage, and who becomes dissatisfied or who changes his mind and regrets having done so, it is considered that two years is quite sufficient to give him to make up his mind to go to court and get what is due to him. There seems to me to be no good reason for allowing him to continue longer than two years taking less than the proper wage and then having the right to go to court to get the arrears.
The provisions of Section 3 and Section 4 are not in any way retrospective and do not apply to any case that is being brought before the court or that may be brought before the court before the passing of this Bill.
Section 5 deals with another matter. It was provided in the Act that application could be made to the Board for sanction for less than the minimum wage if the employee was believed to be unsound either mentally or physically. There was a certain number of applications of this kind. The great majority of them were granted by the Board. Some were refused.
The number of cases was comparatively very small and a number of employers who were afterwards brought before the court claimed that the employee was not capable of doing a hard day's work and when it was pointed out to them that they could have applied to the Agricultural Wages Board to pay less than the minimum wage they claimed that they did not know of the provision. It is possible that some employers did not know and possibly some employees did not know. This is to give the court the right, after full investigation, to decide that an employee was not physically or mentally fit and where that is pleaded, if the plea is a just plea, they may, in fact, apply Section 18 of the Principal Act retrospectively, that is to say, they may find that the person was unsound either mentally or physically.
Deputies may not be aware of some of the cases that were brought under this Act, and I think if they were, they would agree that something should be done. Cases were brought before me to decide whether the work was agricultural or not. I may mention one or two of these cases. One was a case brought about two years ago of an employee who had been working with an employer for something like six years. The inspector who investigated the case reported that the worker was aged 70 years, rather broken down in physique and seemed deformed; was obviously unable to do really heavy work. It appears he was taken in by the employer, being a friend of the family, on his discharge from hospital, in 1937. He was kept and fed and so on, and in return for that he did a certain amount of work around the place, including some agricultural work. He got a certain amount of pocket money as well as being kept. The employer and he had a falling-out and he went to court and claimed the full arrears of wages.
Another case was that of a deaf mute who was working with an employer for some years at less than the minimum wage. He left that employer and went to work with another. The second employer was more conversant with the law and told him that he would take him on if he would agree to an application being made to the Wages Board for exemption. The employee agreed and the board gave the exemption because they considered he was not physically fit for hard work. The employee then understood that the previous employer, not having asked for exemption, was liable for the full wages and he applied for the amount—over £200—which was due to him in respect of the time he was working for the previous employer.
I do not wish to weary the House by giving a lot of cases. I am giving a couple of instances which show that great injustice can be done as the Act stands. I think there is certainly a case for the amendment I am proposing. The principal amendment there is that the employee can claim only two years' arrears of wages and must put in his claim within two years from the time he leaves the employment.
The other amendments are more or less incidental. They concern the transfer of the function of determining whether work is agricultural or not from the Minister to the court, which I believe to be desirable, and the point about bringing the period of employment into line with the present practice, and they are of no great importance.