Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Jun 1947

Vol. 107 No. 3

Trade Union Bill, 1947—Second and Subsequent Stages.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The Trade Union Act of 1941 made it unlawful for any body of persons, with certain specified exceptions, to carry on negotiations for the fixing of wages or other conditions of employment without a negotiating licence issued under that Act. As a condition for the grant of a negotiating licence, trade unions were required to make and maintain deposits with the High Court, the amount of the deposit depending on the numerical strength of the trade union concerned. A scale of deposits was laid down in the Schedule to the Act and ran from £1,000 up to a maximum of £10,000 for the largest organisations.

In 1941 it was foreseen that, on account of the prevailing abnormal conditions, some of the Irish trade unions would have a temporary difficulty in making the full deposit specified in the Schedule to the Act. It was, therefore, deemed necessary to make provision for a variation of the requirements in such cases. Accordingly, Section 8 of the Act conferred power to grant temporary relief to a trade union registered in this State, where it was established in any particular case that, on account of abnormal conditions referable to the war, undue hardship would ensue if the trade union was compelled to make and to keep with the High Court a full deposit. The relief extended to a maximum of 75 per cent. of the sum mentioned in the Schedule, but the power to grant that relief was exerciseable only while the Emergency Powers Act was in force.

A number of trade unions required relief and applied for it, and reduction Orders were made under the section in a substantial number of cases. These Orders will, however, expire on 2nd September next and the trade unions concerned will then be required by the Act to raise their deposits to the appropriate sum mentioned in the Schedule. Moreover, since the repeal of the Emergency Powers Act, a trade union applying for a negotiating licence would be required to make and maintain the full deposit, whatever its circumstances might be. That position has been under review and has recently been the subject of discussions with representatives of trade union organisations. It has been represented to me that the circumstances which necessitated the relevant provisions of the Act of 1941 have not yet materially changed and that the withdrawal of the Orders in the near future would cause difficulty and, in some cases, might have the effect of disqualifying trade unions from holding the negotiating licences already granted to them. The purpose of this Bill, therefore, is to continue, for a further period of one year after 2nd September next, the existing reduction Orders made under Section 8 of the Act and also to provide power to make new Orders for a limited period.

It is recognised that the present position of trade union legislation is not very satisfactory and I have had discussions with the trade union congresses on the matter of new and comprehensive legislation to protect the status and rights of trade unions and define their obligations to their members. I have expressed the view that, generally speaking, there is no necessary conflict between the principles which the Government would wish to have enshrined in such legislation and those which trade unionists would themselves consider desirable. On that basis, I have, in effect, invited them to frame the heads of new legislative proposals themselves. The matter is being considered by those bodies and later on there will be further consultations and discussions. I hope that as a result there will be a Bill for the consideration of the Dáil before the expiration of the period of 12 months contemplated by this Bill.

This Bill, therefore, is a temporary measure. Circumstances might have made it possible to have had the discussions leading to the framing of new legislation earlier, and the introduction of a Bill in this session. Various causes of delay arose, mainly on my part, and, consequently, the discussions could not be completed. In these circumstances, I agreed to ask the Dáil to pass this Bill. It is a minor Bill, but it does prevent, for the period when discussions are proceeding and while new legislation is being prepared, the possibility of difficulty arising for some trade unions which have benefited by the power to grant a reduction of the deposits required from them when they obtained their negotiating licence. I recommend the Bill to the House.

The Minister says that on 2nd September next he is reducing the deposits. First it was £1,000 to £10,000, according to membership. Now you are reducing that on 2nd September next.

No. The Deputy apparently misunderstands. A number of trade unions which had temporary difficulties during the war were allowed to take out negotiating licences on the payment of a reduced deposit. The actual deposit required was determined by membership, but unions were allowed licences on a deposit of only 25 per cent. of the amount prescribed in the schedule. They are still in that position and are now holding negotiating licences on the strength of the making of reduced deposits. That position would end on 2nd September and on that date they would have to make the full deposits or else surrender the negotiating licences. The purpose of the Bill is to extend the period for another 12 months, it being contemplated that there will be new and comprehensive legislation dealing with trade unions submitted to the Dáil.

What action are you contemplating under this Bill with regard to the conflict between unions? There is at present a conflict, as you are aware, between Irish and British trade unions in this country.

This Bill relates only to Irish unions. It is only Irish unions which can get the benefit of the reduced deposit.

I believe the time has come in this country when Irish workers should be catered for by Irish unions with their headquarters in this city. At the moment there is a conflict between Irish trade unions and unions with headquarters in London.

This Bill has nothing to say to it.

I would like the Minister to think about it, because something should be done about it.

He will have to think about it outside this Bill.

I think the Minister has made a very sensible approach to this problem of continuing what was, for the smaller Irish unions, a very useful provision during the emergency, inasmuch as they had not to make the full deposits required under the notorious 1941 Act. As it was, they were enabled to secure the negotiating licence by the payment of 25 per cent. of the normal deposits. It helped many small craft organisations which suffered through the emergency by reason of emigration on the part of their members and the continuance of that provision will be useful and helpful to those organisations. I am glad that the Minister has not merely continued it, but has taken power to recognise the special position of other unions that may be affected. To that extent, the Bill is not merely continuing a useful provision, but is extending it.

I say this to the Minister in no acrimonious way, that this test of one's title deeds to be a trade union, based on his cheque book or his bank balance, is an odious and reprehensible one. The test of a trade union ought not to be its cheque book. There should be some other method of defining what is or is not a bona fide trade union. This type of test under the 1941 Act is one of the most serious blemishes in an Act that is bristling with blemishes. I do not accuse the present Minister for that odious kind of provision. I think that the people who were charged with preparing that legislation, through their natural sagacity, should have dropped a provision of that kind, knowing the difficulties of the situation.

I hope from the discussions between the Minister and the two Trade Union Congresses, that some type of machinery will be evolved, some tribunal established to which it will be possible to go in order to get a certificate that an organisation is, in fact, a trade union, when it has the well-known attributes and possesses the characteristics of a trade union, and that that will be its title deed to function as a union rather than have the test imposed by the 1941 Act and continued, though in a less aggravated form, by the present Bill.

I think there is everything to be said for the registration of trade unions, as identifiable trade union structures, but I think the test should be that the union conforms to certain well-established and clearly-defined practices rather than that the mere deposit of a cheque should be its title deeds to function as a trade union. I know the Minister in this matter has a very difficult job to bring up to date our trade union legislation and to fashion it in accordance with modern needs and requirements. It is not an easy job. I am glad to hear him say that he hopes that at the expiry of this Bill, the Dáil will be presented with legislation bringing the position up to date. In his efforts in that connection, the Minister will have the goodwill of all who want to see the trade union movement fulfil a useful and responsible position in the public and economic life of this country. It is by no means an easy task to fashion the necessary legislation, nor is it easy to induce people to abandon old practices which grew up in a set of circumstances not now wholly present with us. As I say, the Minister will have our good wishes if he approaches that in the realistic way in which he approached the Industrial Relations Act which gave us, notwithstanding some imperfections, a very useful piece of legislation and which, in a very difficult time, contributed in a substantial way to the avoidance of a good deal of industrial strife.

I am not as prominently identified with the work of trade unions at the moment as Deputy Norton or Deputy O'Leary but nevertheless, I can claim to have a long association with the trade union movement. When the original Bill was being put through the House, not by the present Minister, but I think, by the Minister for Local Government, I warned him that he was adopting a very dangerous attitude in regard to some trade unions comprised of common-sense men, who understood the difficulties of the country and who could be trusted to make their presence felt if any disputes arose. I pointed out that it would be impossible for many unions of that type, which existed in the early days, to pay the necessary deposits. In fact, £1,000 was mentioned at that time and I anticipated that there would be trouble in regard to this question of making a deposit. I think it was wise, as time went on, and as experience was gained, to make a little concession to these unions who, because of their financial position, could not comply with the requirements of the provisions of the original Act in regard to the deposit. I am glad that those arrangements were made, and now that the emergency powers are being dispensed with—of course, those concessions were granted under emergency powers—the object of this Bill is to prolong for another year the concessions that had been made to those trade unions.

In the period that must necessarily elapse, the Minister hopes that some agreement will be come to in regard to the shape of the Bill which he hopes ultimately to introduce. I join with Deputy Norton in expressing the hope that, with goodwill and co-operation with the working classes, an arrangement will be come to which will spare this country many of the undesirable developments that have occurred in the last few years in the labour world. I, for one, do not want to see disunity amongst the labour classes. I should like to see all unions working for the interests of the country which we all desire to serve. I join with Deputy Norton in hoping that the unions, the working classes and all concerned, will see to it that whatever legislation is introduced will bring about a proper spirit of goodwill and co-operation that will react, not only to the interests of the unions themselves, but to the interests of the people in general.

I should like to say, in connection with the point made by Deputy Norton, that while I think it desirable that there should be some method of testing the bona fides of a body claiming recognition as a trade union, and some discouragement of the formation of splinter unions or the unnecessary duplication of unions, I would not regard it as essential that the test should take the form of capacity to make a financial deposit, if a more satisfactory test could be devised.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take the remaining stages now.
Bill passed through Committee without amendment, received for final consideration, and passed.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.28 p.m. until Friday, 27th June, at 10.30 a.m.
Top
Share