Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 7 Jul 1955

Vol. 152 No. 3

Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill, 1954—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Norton)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The purpose of this Bill is clearly indicated in the long title, from which Deputies will see that it is merely to extend to persons employed by local authorities Part VI of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946.

The Industrial Relations Act 1946, which set up the Labour Court, has been in operation for nearly nine years and I think it cannot be disputed that the Bill has achieved a substantial measure of success. The Labour Court with its associated facilities for conciliation has undoubtedly avoided the eruption of industrial disputes which could only have resulted in economic distress both for the people immediately concerned and for the community generally. It is against this background of achievement that the present Bill has been conceived.

It is the declared policy of the Government to provide for employees of local authorities a scheme of conciliation and arbitration. Deputies will recall that schemes of conciliation and arbitration are already in existence for civil servants and primary and secondary school teachers, and the Minister for Education recently announced an extension of this latter scheme to embrace vocational teachers.

The House will recall the very long discussion which arose during the enactment of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946. It was generally accepted at the time that the measure was in the nature of an experiment. Various categories of workers were specifically excluded by the provisions of the 1946 Act from access to the Labour Court or to its conciliation machinery. I have always felt very strongly, and I have said so in this House when we were discussing the Act of 1946, that the employees who were generally classed as servants of various local bodies should not be denied access to the Labour Court. Indeed, I had hoped originally that in widening the scope of the Industrial Relations Act, it would not have been necessary to make any distinction between officers and servants of local authorities. After full consultation with my colleagues in the Government whose Departments are concerned in the conditions of employment of local authority officers, I have come to the conclusion that there are too many practical difficulties in the way of including in the Bill the classes generally described as officers.

In this connection, I should perhaps also mention that an association which claims to represent 80 per cent. of the officers employed by local authorities coming under the jurisdiction of the Department of Local Government, represented to the Minister for Local Government and to me that they wished to have excluded from this amending Bill the officers represented by the association. In so far as officers in general are concerned, there is a regular hierarchy of authorities who in one degree or another have a say, but not an exclusive say, in the conditions of employment of the officers. Because of this we get far away from the simple direct relationship of employer and employee and it does seem that some type of machinery other than that envisaged in the 1946 Act would be better suited and more appropriate for investigating the claims of officers as a class in regard to their conditions of employment. It is recognised, of course, that there may be exceptions to that general rule and the Bill makes provisions accordingly.

It will be seen from Section 2 of the Bill that Part VI of the 1946 Act, which deals with the investigation of trade disputes by the Labour Court itself, or through its conciliation conferences, is being extended to include the servants of local authorities, vocational education committees and committees of agriculture. The term "local authority" includes corporations and county councils, port sanitary authorities and the various committees, joint committees or boards which have been established by any of the county councils or corporations. The biggest single class to benefit by this extension will be some 30,000 county council road workers. Other types of workers who would be embraced by the term "servant" would be water-keepers, scavengers, messengers, porters, caretakers, cleaners, and forestry workers where these are employed by the county committees of agriculture.

Before considering the last three categories of workers mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Bill, perhaps I should invite attention to sub-section (2) of Section 2, which provides that the Government may, by Order, extend the meaning of "worker" in Part VI of the 1946 Act to include any specified class of officer of a local authority. Many classes of workers are designated officers although it would appear that their duties are not substantially different from those of other employees classed as servants. We have provided in this sub-section the necessary machinery to enable us to deal with any anomalies arising out of this situation.

It was anticipated that, as soon as the Bill was enacted, a case would be made to include within it health inspectors, nurses employed by a mental hospital authority and certain officers of public assistance authorities. As an alternative and to avoid the necessity for the making of a separate Government Order in respect of these classes the Government gave authority to include them immediately in the Bill, even though these three groups of employees are classed as officers and not as servants.

This Bill sets out to provide for certain classes of workers the right of access to the Labour Court for the settlement of disputes arising out of their employment. Whether or not they avail of that right is a matter entirely for themselves; they cannot be compelled to do so. I feel confident that Deputies will have no hesitation in welcoming and supporting this measure.

Mr. Lemass

I understood the Minister to say it was the policy of the Government to provide a scheme of conciliation and arbitration for the employees of local authorities. Is this Bill regarded as fulfilling that policy in respect of the servants of local authorities who will come within its scope?

Mr. Norton

Frankly, it is difficult to answer that question. It is the nearest thing that can be got to it, having regard to the peculiar character of employment in local authorities and to the fact that the immediate employer is the county council but that a lot of other people come in at various levels above that. This is an effort to provide conciliation and the type of arbitration which the Labour Court gives, although the award is not legally binding but probably morally coercive.

Mr. Lemass

I wanted to know whether the Government regard this as a temporary measure to be followed by more permanent legislation in relation to these officers, or whether they regard it as the best method——

Mr. Norton

If it works, it may well do better than a formal type of conciliation and arbitration.

Mr. Lemass

That question really lies at the root of the attitude of this Party to the Bill. The Minister will remember that when the Industrial Relations Act was before the Dáil as a Bill an amendment was moved, which was debated over a long period, to bring within the scope of the Industrial Relations Act both civil servants and the officers and employees of local authorities. At that time I, as the Minister responsible for getting the Bill through the Dáil, resisted that amendment, on the ground that the type of court which it was contemplated should be set up under the Industrial Relations Act would not be suitable for dealing with the rather specialised type of problem that arises in connection either with Civil Service or local government employment. So far as civil servants were concerned, the fact that the then Minister for Finance had announced the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to provide for conciliation and arbitration machinery rather ended the argument, but the position at that time was that the desirability of extending that machinery to local government officers and servants, and the practicability of so extending it, were being considered and I am interested to hear the Minister confirm now the view I expressed then, that the association representing local government officers do not favour their inclusion within this Bill or having their problems dealt with by the Labour Court.

The Labour Court was set up to deal mainly with the trade disputes that arise in ordinary private employment. The court consists of nominees of the Employers' Federation, on the one hand, and of the trade union congresses on the other. These men were not chosen because of any knowledge of local government matters. In fact, I think it is extremely unlikely that they would have any knowledge of local government matters, that any of them was ever a member of a local authority or has the slightest knowledge of the matters affecting the staffs of local authorities which arise to be considered by local councils and managers.

I argued against the bringing of these officers within the scope of the Industrial Relations Act, mainly on the ground of the unsuitability of the machinery of the Labour Court for dealing with their problems. May I say that the general view of this Party is that there is a need for the creation of some official means by which uniformity can be introduced into the remuneration of the local authority officials? One might feel that there is a certain absence of consistency revealed by the fact that only in the present year we have passed legislation, the purpose of which was to give the elected representatives on local authorities the power to determine the remuneration of their servants and are now considering a Bill which will very effectively take that power away from them, because it is certain that, in all cases where a dispute arises about the rates of wages of local authority staffs, the matter will go to the Labour Court and the local authority will act on the recommendation of that court, just as other public authorities like C.I.E. and harbour boards have always done.

The view I would argue strongly is that the machinery of the Labour Court is unsuitable for that purpose and it would be far better for the Government to consider permanent conciliation and arbitration machinery specifically designed for the task of dealing with local authority problems. This Bill can pass as an interim measure, if there is a desire to get some action in this direction quickly, but it should not under any circumstances be regarded as a permanent device.

One strong argument in favour of having special machinery for local authority staffs is this, that the Labour Court was given very limited terms of reference. As I repeatedly emphasised when I was arguing in favour of the enactment of that Bill in 1946, the main function of the court is to make a recommendation in a trade dispute that will settle the particular dispute. It was not asked primarily to consider what was the fairest rate of wages for the employees concerned, or what was the rate which would have the least effect on prices or upon the public interest generally. Their primary task, when making a recommendation, is to consider the prospect of that recommendation bringing the dispute to an end, and I submit that, in relation to local authority wage problems, different considerations operate.

We all know that the case for giving road workers and similar staffs of local authorities a right of appeal to some independent body in matters relating to their wages and conditions of employment is based upon the proven ineffectiveness of the strike weapon in their hands as a means of rectifying their position. If road workers go on strike, it is no skin off anybody's hide how long they remain on strike, and over 20 years as Minister for Industry and Commerce, I had many examples of road workers going out on strike because of their objection to the conditions of their employment or the wages paid to them and going back with these conditions unchanged, because for that type of employment the strike weapon is almost completely ineffective. I know myself that trade union leaders have long ago recognised that and that on many occasions these strikes have taken place against the advice of the leaders of the unions concerned who realised how futile they were likely to be.

Because the workers in this type of employment have, in fact, no effective instrument of self-defence, as workers in private employment have, there is a case, and a strong case, for giving them a tribunal, an arbitration tribunal or court, to which they can appeal, and there is from the point of view of effective public administration a good case for that also, if it is likely to eliminate the variations and anomalies that exist at present between the wages of these workers in one county as against another, under one authority as against another. I think also that there is a case to be made for some machinery for these workers based upon the desirability of eliminating competitive political bargaining for their votes which we all know goes on from time to time.

If the principle is accepted that there is a need for some such body in relation to local authority staffs, we have to consider what is the right type of body and I would argue strongly that the Labour Court is not a suitable body for that purpose. It is not designed for the purpose and its personnel was not chosen with the idea that they would have any functions in that regard, and I think it would be far better to set up a separate machine altogether, a machine which could be modelled upon that which was established to deal with the problems of civil servants and teachers.

There is, however, one clause in the relevant part of the Industrial Relations Act which could be brought into play by administrative action, if both parties were agreeable. The Industrial Relations Act of 1946 does provide for arbitration, in the full sense of that term, by the Labour Court, or by arbitrators appointed by the Labour Court, and it might be possible for the Government, through the Department of Local Government and otherwise, to ensure, apart altogether from devising and enacting appropriate legislation, the bringing into operation of a system of arbitration which would be less rigid, but perhaps equally effective. What I have in mind is that they would arrange with the Labour Court and with the local authorities that the relevant section of the Industrial Relations Act which provides for arbitration would normally be used where the parties could be induced to use it, because under the terms of the Act both parties must be agreeable.

There is a problem in this regard, however, which is of a wider kind. I do not know by whom the local authorities are going to be represented before the Labour Court. Presumably they will be represented by their officials, and many of us would not feel very happy in the prospect of the rate of wages of servants of local authorities and of some of their officers, being fixed on a recommendation from the Labour Court based entirely upon considerations put before the court by the representatives of the workers on the one hand and the officials of the authority on the other. I think that if we were considering de novo a suitable scheme of arbitration and conciliation for local authority officers, we would devise some method by which the elected representatives of the ratepayers would be given an opportunity of putting the ratepayers' point of view before the court. I think the terms of the Industrial Relations Act would, in fact, require the Labour Court to take into account, in framing any recommendation, the effect of its award upon the ratepayers, but it is by no means clear that what that effect will be will be brought to its attention by evidence submitted to it at a hearing.

It will, of course, be understood that the Labour Court has no powers, except in very exceptional circumstances. Where both parties agree to arbitration, it can give an award which is binding upon the parties and in relation to certain cases where specific agreements have been entered into and these agreements registered with the court they can enforce it, but, in the ordinary case, the court merely makes a recommendation indicating the conditions on which it thinks the trade dispute it is investigating can be reasonably settled, having regard to the prospect of that recommendation being accepted. Neither party to the dispute is bound to accept that recommendation. There have been many instances where a recommendation of the court was not accepted by the workers' representatives and a few where it was not accepted by the employers' representatives, but we know that in the case of local authorities the likelihood is that the Labour Court recommendation will be accepted, or at least that there will be a very strong force of public opinion operating to secure its acceptance.

If we are framing terms of reference for that court in relation to local authority disputes, I think we would all agree that overriding the present obligation to devise a recommendation which is likely to be accepted, we would put an obligation to relate the remuneration, the wages or salaries of public authority officials, in one county with those in another. Most of us will agree to any machinery which is likely to operate in favour of the introduction of uniformity, of reasonable uniformity, in that regard. A case may be made, and probably will be made, for different rates, say, in the vicinity of Dublin from those in certain other parts of the country, but any special factors of that kind which might affect a recommendation could be given full weight to by the court, as it has normally done, when making recommendations relating to national agreements affecting ordinary private businesses.

So far as the Bill is concerned, this Party will support the Bill, but we would strongly urge that the case for the introduction of a system of conciliation and arbitration for local authority servants is not fully met by this Bill. My view is still the same as it was in 1946, that, if their case is to be dealt with as a separate measure, the Labour Court is not suitable for dealing with it. I think that still is the case and indeed, by a rather extraordinary coincidence, it is precisely the same individuals who now constitute the Labour Court as constituted it when it was first set up in 1946. Having had some voice in their selection, I can say that the prospect of their having to arbitrate on or make recommendations regarding the operations of public authorities never entered my head.

I do not think the Minister made quite clear what is the intention of the Government regarding these officers of local authorities who do not want to be brought under the Labour Court and for whom the association to which he referred can speak. Is it proposed for them to have legislation which will provide machinery of conciliation and arbitration which will apply only to them? If legislation is in contemplation in any event, then I think the Government would be well advised, when framing it, to consider extending it to all the officers and servants of local authorities and to repeal this measure at that time.

Mr. Desmond

I wish to congratulate the Minister on introducing the Bill. While I can understand the difficulties mentioned by Deputy Lemass, I must say that I cannot share his views with regard to the problems as he sees them. Perhaps that is because our approaches may be different, I being a member of one of these local authorities. It is not and will not be a case simply of road workers—termed "servants of the council"—going before the Labour Court in connection with wages. They have very often a very good reason to go, if they have the right, as is being provided for them now, with regard to conditions.

Deputy Lemass spoke of the necessity for representation for the ratepayers, but he must know that the one man who is going to be represented through his legal adviser before any such tribunal or Labour Court is the county manager and nobody can say that the county manager will not be acting on behalf of the ratepayers. That stands out very clearly and may I inform the Deputy that, from my experience of county managers in various parts of the country, they are far more considerate of the ratepayers as a whole than Deputy Lemass may imagine? Furthermore, it is about time these workers— termed, as I say, under Section 3 of the old Act, "servants of the council"—had an opportunity of going to an independent body and did not have to depend on the whims and fancies of members of local authorities in deciding whether they will give them an increase in wages or a half-day, through the co-operation of the county manager. If industrial workers have such rights, why should the workers employed by county councils not have the same right?

Deputy Lemass mentioned the standing, as it were, of the members of the Labour Court. Surely we can realise that this problem is not going to be so complicated that it could not be approached from the angle of using the offices of the conciliation officers of the Labour Court. We do not visualise applications from every part of the country very frequently by the workers concerned to the Labour Court.

Mr. Lemass

You are foolish if you do not. They will always appeal to the Labour Court. Why would they not? They would be foolish not to.

Mr. Desmond

I know, but we come from rural Ireland and we have an understanding of the men concerned. It is only when they have a just grievance, as they had in the past, that they will ask to have their case put forward. When the case of these workers was ever put forward at a local authority meeting we had no alternative other than to fight it on a political issue. You always had it made a political issue, some taking sides with the workers and others against. Each Party looked at the picture from the various angles as it confronted them, but nevertheless we could not get away from the fact that is was treated as a political issue. Why require the road workers to have their case dragged up in the council chamber and argued on a political basis while industrial workers were able to go to the Labour Court and have their case put forward fairly and squarely and have it discussed from all possible angles? Certainly, any industrialist will be in a better position to put forward his case than will the county manager because, even though the county manager will have the assistance of his accountant and his law adviser, his position will at the same time be different from that of the industrialist. He will be there, putting the case of his clients, and the county manager's clients in this case will be the ratepayers.

It seemed to me that some of the remarks made by Deputy Lemass were clearly related to something that I do not like, and that is the opposition or the attitude there is in the Department of Local Government to the workers. I refer to what is known as the all-over flat-rate. That cannot continue to be and it never should have been the case. Deputy Lemass did mention that it was quite likely that the position in County Dublin should be different from that in some other counties, but I want to ask why should the road workers in a prosperous county like Cork be told that they were going to have the system of arbitration as visualised by Deputy Lemass? In the County Cork a rate of 1d. in the £ brings in, roughly, £4,600. Therefore, why should the road workers in that county be tied down to the same rate as that paid to road workers in the Counties of Leitrim or Sligo, where a rate of 1d. in the £ may bring in very little?

Our approach to this Bill is that it establishes a relationship with the measure that was introduced and passed quite recently in the House, namely, the County Management Act. It will give the local authority some say in this matter, and will not leave all control either in the Central Government or in the Department. That is something that we want to get away from. It is because we know the mentality of the workers concerned that we support this measure. We know what their approach to the Labour Court will be if they feel convinced that they are not getting fair play from the members of the council or the county manager. If they are satisfied that they are not getting satisfaction through the engineering staff and the supervisors or from the council then they will have to move in to the Labour Court.

The tragedy very often is that the engineers are half inclined to give a fair break to the road workers. The various Parties on the local authority then find themselves in a cleft stick because they have to take sides for or against the road workers so that what happens is that the road workers are caught between the two stools. We do not want a situation like that to continue. I am proud to say that in my own area that does not happen. We want what I am urging to apply in every part of the country. Deputy Lemass, of course, is entitled to express the views that he did on the Bill, but it is because we believe in what I have said that we are supporting the Bill. We believe the Bill is long overdue. This is a right that the road workers are entitled to.

As regards the staffs, Deputy Lemass mentioned the possibility of further legislation. I believe that it would be better for the clerical side of the county council staffs if they had less nonsense about arbitration and were prepared to say as workers that the Labour Court should be availed of by them. This might be a better measure than anything else for them. But that of course is their own business. They have their own organisation. If, however, their present approach does not provide for them the same beneficial results, well then, of course, they will have to accept the responsibility for that and cannot blame us.

Mr. MacCarthy

I cannot agree with the view of my colleague Deputy Desmond that it is to be taken for granted that the county manager will ipso facto be the representative of a council on one side in pleading for or against the workers in this matter. While I agree, generally, with the setting up of a board, I cannot take it that the county manager, who is also the chief executive officer of the council, would be the proper person to plead the case in that way, because under the existing law decisions of the council are just recommendations to the manager. Under this arbitration there would be nothing to prevent any individual or any Party in the council moving for or against the acceptance of a recommendation or an amendment of it.

In view of that I think that the manager would be put in a peculiar position. Take it that he has been pleading a case, and that in doing so he had put up facts and figures, and that subsequently what he had been pleading for comes up for decision, one way or the other, before the council. In a situation like that he will have to make a decision on matters which he himself had put before the board. I agree with Deputy Lemass completely on how the council is to be represented. That is a matter which should get very serious consideration from the Minister by reason of the functions which are at present being exercised by the county manager under the existing law. We all welcome a scheme of arbitration. The conciliation officer of the Labour Court, or the Minister himself, may be able to devise a proper system for the presentation of cases. The leaders of the trade unions will be able to do that for the road workers. We welcome the legislation generally, but I would ask the Minister to consider the aspect of the matter which I have put before him.

Mr. O'Leary

I want to say, as a member of a local authority, that this Bill is long overdue. I could never understand why county council workers are not classed as industrial workers. They are paying on two cards: unemployment and national health. The agricultural worker pays on one card. I think that, in view of the fact that county council workers are paying on the unemployment card, they should be classed as industrial workers.

We have had a difficulty about this for a long number of years at the meetings of the Wexford County Council. When some member puts down a motion for an increase of wages we are told that it is a matter for the county manager and we are overruled. In some cases, the county manager may give an increase of 2/6 a week, and then to counter that we are told that we have no authority to give it. I think we had, in view of the fact that we provide the money for increases in the annual estimate.

I cannot see what objection Deputy Lemass can have to these men going before the Labour Court. What is wrong about it? Are not county council workers the same as any other section of workmen? They are working for a local authority, and to my mind they are the worst paid men in the State under the local authorities. We are always asking where the money will come from but at the same time appointments can be made through the county manager in regard to engineers, architects and all the rest. I regret to say that in the County Wexford the rate of wages is very low and that in a county which is a model county. I have been fighting all the time to try and get the rate of wages brought up to at least £5 per week. Whoever is responsible, I think it is a shame to have workmen earning only £4 11s. 6d. per week.

We have the different Parties in the council crying out about the cost of living and all the rest of it but if the matter is put to a vote there is no difference. I see them voting solid against the representatives of the workers in the council. It is only right that this Bill should be put into force immediately so that the workers can be given the right to go to the Labour Court and not leave them at the whim of any county manager. I hope that the powers which will be given back to us in the council will be wider and that we will have a little more say than we had in the past. We were always put off by being told that such and such was a managerial function. The different political Parties represented on the council could not see eye to eye with the Labour Party members to give an increase of wages. I think the Minister should make the wages of all uniform and not have workers in one county with 10/- less than workers in another county. All the workers are paid by the local ratepayers but there is an awful difference in the rate of wages in the different counties. I think some formula should be hammered out in regard to the wages of county council employees. Such a formula is necessary.

As one who has been fighting on the Wexford County Council for many years to try and better the conditions of the road men and give them security, happiness and a decent living in their own country I welcome this Bill. These workers have to pay very high rents for the new cottages. They have to meet other expenses as well. They have to live the same as the town worker who gets £6 per week. Wexford County Council employees receive £4 11s. 6d. per week. I say that is a starvation wage. That situation would want to be remedied very soon because if the County Wexford cannot do as well as Wicklow or any other county then there is something wrong there and some inquiry is needed.

There are more engineers in the Wexford County Council than there are in any other. I got the figures a week ago from the Custom House. I find there are 12 permanent and three temporary engineers. Just before the local elections, 20 men were left off in the New Ross area and ten in Enniscorthy. Whether that was due to politics or not I do not know.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot discuss administration on this Bill.

Mr. O'Leary

That shows the treatment these workers have been subjected to down through the years. I hope this measure will meet with every success and that it will be passed quickly in the interests of the people we represent on the county council.

Mr. A. Barry

My intervention will be very brief. I find myself in agreement with the point made by Deputy Lemass that the Labour Court, by reason of its personnel, may not be the most suitable body to preside over these disputes. I think the Minister should examine that matter further.

Mr. Norton

I do not object to the approach of Deputy Lemass to this problem because it is a rather difficult and complicated one and possibly this is not the ideal solution of the problem. The fact, however, is that in the local government service you have road workers and certain other groups of workers who say they want access to the Labour Court. On the other hand, you have officers represented by another organisation who say they do not want the Labour Court machinery but some other type of conciliation and arbitration machinery but that other type of machinery is not at hand at the moment and it may take some time before some suitable scheme can be worked out.

In that connection, the Minister for Local Government recently received a deputation from the Local Government Officers' Union who sought the establishment of arbitration machinery. The Minister indicated to the organisation on that occasion that he would give earnest consideration to the union's proposals in consultation with the other Ministers involved but so far the union's proposals have not been received. You can see, with the matter at that stage at this date, that it might well be some time before a scheme of conciliation and arbitration, even for the officers, can be worked out and put into operation.

In the meantime, there is a problem to be dealt with so far as the ordinary employees of the local authorities, road workers and a variety of other classes, are concerned. This Bill is an effort to let them have access to the court if they so desire. They are not compelled to go to the Labour Court and the organisations which represent them are not compelled to go to the Labour Court, but if a dispute arises the Labour Court is open to them in future instead of being closed as it normally was up to this.

Standing back and looking at the whole problem, I can say that we may well have to revise our views on this matter and our approach to the problem. It may be that letting certain classes of officers into the Labour Court may in a particular set of circumstances put such a heavy pressure on the Labour Court that the Labour Court will not be able to deal with these claims and the variety of industrial claims that will come before it. That may necessitate a review of the whole position as to whether you should establish conciliation and arbitration machinery for those who do want to come in and those who do not.

Mr. Lemass

The Government, I understand, has in mind the establishment of an agricultural labour court. Perhaps that might be extended to rural workers generally.

Mr. Norton

I was going to mention that. The establishment of a kind of agricultural labour court is a matter which is under consideration by the Minister for Agriculture but I cannot say what stage has been reached by him in his consideration of the matter. If we contemplate the establishment of an agricultural labour court, we might then have to look at the whole problem again to see what is the most rational way of working out some type of conciliation and arbitration or quasi-arbitration machinery to deal with the problems of the road worker and the agricultural worker while at the same time maintaining the efficiency of the Labour Court as it at present exists. All these are difficulties and I know of them and because I know of them I do not quarrel with the point of view expressed by Deputy Lemass.

This is an effort to let into the Labour Court, if they wish to go, approximately 30,000 road workers as well as certain officers who really want to go. We can get experience of how the machine works while at the same time the Minister for Local Government will work out a scheme of conciliation and arbitration for the classes of officers in the local government service who do not at present desire that they should have an opportunity of going to the Labour Court.

I do not accept the view that the Labour Court is not qualified to express a view on the claims that go to it. Their wide experience over a period of nearly nine years has made them the best qualified people in Ireland to express an opinion on the merits of claims for improved wages.

Mr. Lemass

Might I ask the Minister a question? A lot will turn on the answer to it. Does the Minister agree with the view expressed by Deputy O'Leary, which I also expressed, that there is a case to be made in favour of uniformity of wage rates or with the view expressed by Deputy Desmond that wages should relate to what the ratepayers can pay? If the aim is uniformity, I agree that a lot of the arguments against the Labour Court would disappear.

Mr. Norton

That must be left to the organisation which represents the road workers. Is it going to run its case for a national wage?——

Mr. Lemass

But what is the Labour Court to do? Is it to decide on what is a fair wage to the worker or the wage which local ratepayers can afford to pay?

Mr. Norton

I think if Deputy Lemass was here and I asked him that question he would be the first person to say: "Surely this is a matter on which you do not expect or desire me to express an opinion which might influence the court in any way or tend to prejudge the issue?"

Mr. Lemass

No, I think I would answer it that a fair wage for the worker should be the deciding factor.

Mr. Norton

I hope the court will never recommend a wage not fair to the worker. It is quite possible that the union will run a case for a national wage but, frankly, I do not think that is likely. It is more likely to try to run a case for zoned wages. I can understand Deputy Desmond's views as to why should a person working 12 miles from the City of Dublin be compared to a similar worker in County Kerry. On parts of the Naas Road, County Kildare and County Dublin road-workers work along with one another except on pay day. It cannot be said that the County Kildare worker cannot make good roads, and in fact he may work on the same roads as the Dublin workers for a week or a month, but when he goes to tumble out his pay packet he finds he has got much less than the Dublin workers.

Mr. Lemass

I do not think that the much-abused Kerry County Council pays the lowest rates.

Mr. Norton

Well, take any county council. Take Deputy O'Leary's county council for example. I imagine Deputy Desmond desires to get for the road workers in his area some of the benefits of the standard of living that radiates from the progressive City of Cork in the same way as road workers in County Kildare want to get the benefit of standards of living which radiate from the standard of living in Dublin. It may be, therefore, that the Labour Court might establish a pattern of wages for road workers somewhat similar to what the Agricultural Wages Board has established for agricultural workers. Whether the unions concerned will run the case that way to the Labour Court I cannot say, but anything that will tend to produce something better than the patchwork quilt we have to-day would have my approval.

In my constituency where the county manager administers two counties, road workers are paid different rates of wages in each county even though the workers meet on the roads as they do in Kildare and Dublin and the work is the same in both counties and both are under the one county manager. It is not necessary to use the old saying: "You have not got to be sheep to be a judge of mutton." The Labour Court has dealt with a whole variety of people. It has dealt with the case of the cleaners and loaders in Aer Lingus and also with the salaries of airline pilots which amount, I think, to close on £2,000 a year. If it caters for airline pilots and is able to deal with their case, and if the Labour Court can deal with that variety of people I do not see——

Mr. Lemass

The fact is that there is no limit to what the taxpayer can pay. A limit can be set down for what any private company can pay but the taxpayer will pay whatever you make him pay.

Mr. Norton

Do not put me off my line of argument. The fact is that the Labour Court has dealt with a wide variety of cases of different classes, conditions and complexities and whatever may be alleged against the Labour Court, want of knowledge and ability to decide this case is not one of its defects.

On the question of the county managers, I think there is a good deal to be said on behalf of Deputy Desmond's point of view. The county managers have not distinguished themselves by their generosity in increasing wages. To confirm this, all you have to do is to put down a parliamentary question and find out the rates of wages for council workers which are being paid to-day. If one does that and takes into account the fact that the £1 is worth only 8/9 in terms of 1939 purchasing power you will see that the county managers might be reasonably described as the watchdogs, judged by the standards of wages.

Mr. Lemass

Judged by the cost of administration you get a very different picture.

Mr. Norton

That is not the county council worker's fault.

Mr. Lemass

No, but the county manager as watchdog of costs is not very effective either.

Mr. Norton

If the rates are moving up it is not because of the road workers. They are not in charge of administration. Somebody else must bear the responsibility for that. In any case, if any difficulty did arise in such a way that the Labour Court did not understand the ins and outs of county council employment—I do not think for a moment that that would be the case—there is a provision in the 1946 Act in Section 14 by which they may appoint technical assessors to assist in any matter relating to the proceedings before the court.

Mr. Lemass

They can appoint arbitrators if the award is not accepted.

Mr. Norton

Yes, but you might get a case where a manager would say: "No, that is my last word. Either you take it or you leave it," and would not agree to arbitration. Relying on the arbitration section of the 1946 Act would not get over a situation of that kind.

Deputy MacCarthy was worried about the position if the county manager went in and argued against the claim before the Labour Court and then found afterwards he had to recommend its acceptance. I do not think there is any device by which you can get over that. Every day the Minister for Finance goes to arbitration; he puts up a strong case and gives instructions to fight against a particular claim. The case is heard and if there is merit in the claim and the court makes an award and the award is against the Minister for Finance he comes in here and says: "Well, I lost the case and I am bringing the scheme recommended before the House to approve of it." In the same way a person might go to court and lose a case, and if he is a director of a company he has to recommend his fellow-directors to pay up. There is no other way out of that difficulty.

I agree with Deputy Desmond that in the past we have had far too much politics on the matter of the regulation of wages in local authorities, road workers' wages. A good deal of that was brought about by the fact that there was no machinery of that kind available to——

Mr. Lemass

This may not eliminate it. The recommendation must come back and be voted on by the council.

Mr. Norton

Yes, but I would hope that the council would not be any less reasonable in their approach to this matter than the Labour Court. One extraordinary thing about the Labour Court is that its recommendations with no legal sanction whatever behind them have been so widely accepted. On occasion there has been an upsurge of indignation but it has only been in a microscopic number of cases compared with the vast sea of cases in which everybody has accepted recommendations which are only morally binding— to put it that way.

If we could get local authorities to behave as good-class private employers in regard to the Labour Court recommendations, then I think we might ride through these difficulties without any serious scarring. I think, in any case, the establishment of the Labour Court will, or should, tend to take county council wages and wages of road workers out of the cockpit of local authority politics. Because of the absence of machinery in the past, it was necessary for the road workers or the local branch of their trade unions to go and lobby a particular Party or couple of Parties or members of different Parties to try to get a wage increase through. I do not think that is a becoming attitude for a trade union to have to adopt. I think if there is merit in a claim it should be put in and considered, and if there is not agreement as to what portion of it should be accepted or rejected there should be some machinery whereby the difficulties can be adjusted. This will provide for road workers, county council workers and associate workers the same type of machinery as their industrial colleagues get. They have not had it in the past; they have it now if they wish to avail of it.

I think all sides of the House will agree that while we are entering, to some extent, into uncharted seas we ought to give this a trial. If at the end of 12 months or two years it does not work, or if at the end of 12 months or two years we find this work is too great an addition to the present work of the Labour Court, we will have to devise some kind of machinery to take this type of work we are now giving to the Labour Court and to arrange matters in such a way that the road worker, that is, the rural worker in the main, and his colleagues associated with him in local government service will have on their side of the field something akin to the Labour Court facilities which are provided for industrial workers.

If it is desired to go further than the Labour Court and establish conciliation and compulsorily accepted arbitration, I think Deputy Lemass will agree that that will require a great deal of consideration. Immediately you get conciliation and arbitration of the Civil Service type, then it is compulsory arbitration and the trade unions concerned may very well prefer to have a Labour Court type of machinery with a recommendation which carries nothing but its own intrinsic merit without the authority for enforcing it, rather than be compelled to go before an arbitration board, the award of which will be binding on them. Many trade unions might reject that because of the fact that they are opposed to compulsory arbitration. The Labour Court recommendation, which might get exactly the same result but does not compel acceptance, might secure adherence by the trade unions, but the clear-cut compulsory arbitration might be objected to by them.

However, I am glad this Bill is being considered in such a conciliatory spirit. As I said, we can give this a trial and if experience shows alterations or improvements are called for I think we will be sufficiently flexible in mind to meet that situation when it arises.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining stages to-day.

Bill passed through Committee, reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.