asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he is satisfied that the employers' representatives appointed by him to the Labour Court are fully representative of the interests of agricultural employers, who are the largest body of employers in the State.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Personnel of Labour Court.
It was never intended that the members of the Labour Court should be representative of any particular section of employers or employees and no provision is made in the Industrial Relations Act for such representation. In accordance with Section 10, sub-section (4) of this Act, I designated the Federated Union of Employers to nominate each employer's member of the Labour Court because I considered this trade union of employers to be most representative of the interests of employers generally for the purposes of the Act. I would remind the Deputy that the functions of the Labour Court in relation to agricultural workers are restricted to those mentioned in Part VI of the Act.
Is the Minister aware that the Labour Court as at present constituted consists of two representatives of labour, two representatives of city business men and one labour chairman; and does he think that it is a court to which farmers can be properly summoned or a court which would be competent to deal with questions relating to farm workers' wages?
The court is constituted in accordance with the terms of the Act.
Is the Minister aware that it never was intended that agricultural labour disputes would be brought before this court, which was intended only for the purpose of conciliation?
It is being operated to summon agricultural employers before it and, as I read the Act, I can see nothing to prevent the court from making awards in connection with agricultural wages.
The Deputy is no doubt aware that, when I introduced the Industrial Relations Bill, it did not provide for the inclusion of agricultural workers within its scope. It was the Dáil—and I understood that all sections of the Dáil were agreed on it— which included agriculture in the scope of the Bill.
The Dáil agreed to the extension to agricultural workers, for the purpose of utilising the machinery of conciliation which the court provided. The Dáil did not intend that farmers should be summoned before this court or that it should have power to make awards against agricultural employers. That was never intended.
What the Dáil intended is clearly expressed in the terms of the Act as passed by the Dáil.
Would the Minister be prepared to consider the desirability of amending the Act, in view of the extensive powers which this court is taking and which were not intended at the time the Bill was passed?
Would the Deputy say how conciliation can be effected if the parties are not summoned?
Surely the Minister will realise——
This is becoming a debate. If the Deputy has a supplementary question he may put it.
Does the Minister not realise that this court could serve a useful purpose if both parties to an agricultural dispute appealed to it to use its offices for conciliation purposes? I think that was all the Dáil intended the court should do, but apparently its powers are being extended further than was intended. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I will raise this matter on the adjournment.