Private Members' Business. - Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill, 1958—Second Stage. – Dáil Éireann (16th Dáil) – Wednesday, 4 Nov 1959

Private Members' Business. - Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill, 1958—Second Stage.

Mr. Corish

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The purpose of this Bill is to enable agreements concerning wages and conditions of employment of agricultural workers to be registered under Part III of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946. For nearly 12 years a substantial number of agricultural employers and agricultural workers have been regulating wages and conditions of employment in agriculture by collective agreements. Many other agricultural employers and the Minister for Agriculture, though not parties to these collective agreements, have not hesitated to recognise and implement the terms of these agreements. The passage of this Bill will enable agricultural employers and workers to have their agreements registered at the Labour Court.

Agricultural workers are not second-class citizens and there is no good reason why the beneficial provisions of Part III of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 should not be extended to them. It will be understood that this Bill cannot impose industrial conditions on agriculture. Its passage would merely enable agreements between agricultural workers and agricultural employers to be registered at the Labour Court. The effect of registration is to make an "agreed wage" a statutory wage applicable to the parties to the agreement.

The House will recall that when the Industrial Relations Bill, 1946 was introduced, agricultural workers were entirely excluded from its scope. However, following representations made by the Labour Party in this House, Part VI of the Bill—the trade dispute part—was extended to agricultural workers, when the Bill was passed by Dáil Éireann on the 25th July, 1946. Section 66 was inserted in the Final Stages in the Dáil.

Three important facilities were extended to agricultural workers under Part VI of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946, namely:—(1) Investigation of trade disputes by the Labour Court; (2) mediation in trade disputes by conciliation officers; (3) reference of trade disputes to arbitration.

This Bill is no more than a logical development of the conciliation provisions of Section 69 (Part VI) of the Industrial Relations Act. In fact, it seems most illogical that agreements reached at conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Court cannot be registered at the court where agricultural workers are concerned. The Bill will remedy this defect in the legislation.

The Bill will facilitate and encourage agricultural workers and agricultural employers to settle their differences concerning wages and conditions of employment by agreement, to the general advantage of those concerned. Special circumstances such as obtain in agriculture can best be catered for by agreement between the parties concerned rather than by statutory order or regulation.

As to the lay out of the Bill, it was considered desirable to follow the pattern of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 1955, rather than proposing amendments to the definition section of the Principal Act, the Industrial Relations Act, 1946. As it is intended that as many agricultural workers as possible should be brought within the scope of the Bill, the familiar definitions relating to "agriculture", "agricultural workers" and "agricultural employers" in the Agricultural Wages Act, 1936 have been abandoned in favour of the more descriptive definitions in Section 2 of the Bill. Many employees engaged at agricultural work do not come within the scope of the Agricultural Wages Act, 1936 because their employers are not "Agricultural Employers" for the purpose of that Act. The fact that employees may be engaged at ploughing, sowing, reaping or mowing does not entitle agricultural workers to the benefits of the Agricultural Wages Act because their employers must also carry on the "trade or business of agriculture" (Section 2 of the Act of 1936.)

It is scarcely possible to define in the abstract the terms "trade" and "business". It is clear that they are not synonymous, but that the latter has a wider meaning than the former. A farmer, for instance, does not carry on a trade though in the majority of cases he carries on a business. A person who occupied a residence, where he carried on farming and market gardening for pleasure, and made a profit out of selling the surplus produce, after supplying his household wants, was held not to be carrying on a "trade or business" within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Act of 1883. It is not without significance that the Minister for Agriculture dropped his powers to define "trade or business" (Section 2, (2) of the 1936 Act) when the Amending Bill of 1945 came before Dáil Éireann.

In this Bill the terms "trade" or "business" do not appear. "Agriculture" is more broadly defined than in the Agricultural Wages Act of 1936, which is now obsolete, and the general intention is that a person employed in "agriculture" under a contract of service should be brought within the scope of the Bill irrespective of whether his employer carries on agriculture or horticulture for "business" or for any other purpose.

Deputies will be interested to learn that the definition "agriculture" in the Agricultural Wages Act of 1936, Section 2, was copied from the corresponding definition in Section 17 of the Corn Production Act, 1917 and Section 16 of the British Agricultural Wages Act of 1924. This definition was amended and extended in Great Britain in 1947, 1948 and 1949. The definitions "agriculture" and "consumable produce" in this Bill, Section 2, correspond to the revised definitions in the modern British Agricultural Wages Act of 1948 and the Scottish Act of 1949—Section 17 in each case—with the words "trade or business" deleted.

When drafting this Bill we gave some consideration to the desirability of extending Part VI of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946, to agricultural workers employed on the State farms and, if the Government are agreeable, suitable amendments could be introduced on the Committee Stage. There is now no reason why agricultural workers employed by or under the State should be deprived of the "trade disputes" facilities of the 1946 Act which were extended to agricultural workers employed by local authorities by the Amending Act of 1955. Recently the workmen at Grange Farm, County Meath, formerly a State farm, came under the scope of the Labour Court, following the transfer of that farm to the Institute of Agriculture, which is a public authority. Another State farm at Johnstown Castle Estate, County Wexford, will be transferred to the Agricultural Institute when the Johnstown Castle Agricultural College (Amendment) Bill, 1959, has been passed by the Seanad. When the Bill is passed the agricultural workers on the State farm at Johnstown Castle may have their grievances investigated by the Labour Court.

During the past year or so, the Minister for Lands has announced that a tribunal is to be established to investigate forestry workers' grievances and it would now appear that the only agricultural workers who will be excluded from the scope of existing or proposed conciliation machinery are, the agricultural workers employed on the State farms. I wish to avail of this opportunity to suggest to the Minister that when the law in relation to the investigation of trade disputes was being consolidated in 1946, Section 10 of the Industrial Courts Act of 1919 was omitted. This section reads:—

"This Act shall not apply to persons in the Naval, Military or Air Services of the Crown but otherwise shall apply to workmen employed by or under the Crown in the same manner as if they were employed by or under a private person."

I would strongly urge the Minister to avail of the opportunity presented by this Bill to re-enact Section 10 of the Industrial Courts Act of 1919 with suitable modifications. The Act of 1919 was repealed in 1946 and I feel sure that it was not the intention of the Government to deprive agricultural workers employed by the State of any rights they enjoyed before the Industrial Relations Act, 1946, came into operation.

In presenting this Bill to the House I wish to assure the House and the Government that, if the principle of the Bill is accepted, the Labour Party will consider amendments from all sides of the House so that matters of detail may be settled in a manner acceptable to all concerned.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. J. Lynch)

The fact that I, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, am here to speak on the Second Reading of this Bill indicates how unsuitable is the vehicle which the mover of the Second Reading seeks to establish for regulating agricultural workers' wages. Briefly, the proposal is to bring agricultural workers within the sphere of the Labour Court, providing for registration by the Court of employment agreements between workers and employers' organisations. The Bill, as it stands, or even as it is proposed to amend it, has many serious objections. The purpose of the Bill is to apply Part III of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946, to agricultural employment. At this stage it might be as well to give a brief outline of what Part III of the 1946 Act provides. It provides for the registration by the Labour Court of employment agreements made between workers' and employers' trade unions or between workers' and employers' representatives at a meeting of a registered joint industrial council. Incidentally, a joint industrial council is set up pursuant to the provisions of Part V of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946, and, before it can be set up, it must be established that it is substantially representative of workers and their employers. The requirements there envisage, I think, an organisation of employers into unions so that the Labour Court can be satisfied that the employers concerned are substantially representative of employers in an area.

The registered agreements have a statutory effect and they apply to all individuals of the class, type, or group indicated in the agreement, including workers and employers who are not a party to the agreement. If an employer pays lower wages than those provided in the agreement, the worker has ordinary civil rights to establish his claim to the higher wages to which he is entitled under such an agreement. He may also complain to the Labour Court and, if the Labour Court, having investigated the complaint, establishes that the employer is in fact paying lower wages than those provided in the agreement, the Court may require the employer to pay the agreement wages and, in default on the part of the employer, the Minister for Industry and Commerce has power to prosecute. That again indicates how inappropriate the Industrial Relations Act is in this particular instance when we remember that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is responsible for instituting proceedings.

In order to satisfy the Court that an agreement has been come to between a section of employers and a section of workers, the Court has to be satisfied—I quote substantially from Section 27 of the 1946 Act— that (a) there is substantial agreement between the parties representing the interest of the workers and the employers that it should be registered; (b) the agreement is expressed to apply to all workers of a particular class and their employers where the Court is satisfied that it is a normal and desirable practice or that it is expedient to have a separate agreement for that class; (c) the parties to the agreement are substantially representative of such workers and employers; (d) the agreement is not unduly restrictive in character; (e) the agreement provides that no strike or lock-out will take place until the dispute has been submitted for settlement in the manner specified in the agreement.

The purpose of Part III of the Act of 1946 was to enable the trade unions to force a small minority of employers to conform with the terms of an agreement freely negotiated between the majority of employers in an industry and the majority of workers in that industry in a particular district. The system of registered agreements in the 1946 Act has not, in fact, been very widely availed of by trade unions. I think there have been only 26 such cases, even though that Act was specifically designed for industrial workers.

The application of such a system of registered agreements is suitable to industry for two reasons. In the first place, the workers and the employers in industry are, in general, very fully organised. Secondly, there is a fairly high degree of uniformity in industry in regard to materials, methods of work and standards. Furthermore, industry is to a great extent independent of the vagaries and hazards of weather, of livestock and crop diseases and such things.

None of these conditions applies to agriculture. So far as the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Labour Court are concerned, there is, in fact, only one known organisation representing farm workers. I am not sure of the exact title but I think it is the Federated Union of Agricultural Workers. Even that union is not, and cannot be held to be, widely representative of farm workers. In fact, at a stage quite recently, the paid-up members numbered something like 500, but that number, I understand, changes from time to time and may increase to as much as 2,500. Apparently, on some occasions when farm workers become disemployed, they discontinue their membership and on reemployment renew it. Whatever about an organisation which may be held to be representative of farm workers, there cannot be said to be any corresponding organisation that can be held to be widely representative of farmers.

Therefore, it seems clear that Part III of the 1946 Act cannot usefully be applied to agricultural employment. For that reason, there is very little prospect that the Labour Court could register an agreement relating to agricultural employment because it would be practically impossible for the employers and the workers to establish, to the satisfaction of the Court, that they were specifically representative of all employers and all workers in any particular area.

It is difficult to see why, if there was a desire to amend the statutory provisions governing wages in agriculture, the Industrial Relations Act should have been sought as the means of doing it. It would seem to be more properly done by an amendment, if it could be effected, of the Agricultural Wages Act. In any event, whatever case could be made for making such registered agreements legally enforceable on all employers and workers in agriculture, it would seem that the Labour Court is not the suitable body to be charged with that function.

The Court is constituted, and has always been constituted, to deal with industrial disputes. The Chairman is chosen, and the workers' and employers' representatives are chosen, for their knowledge of conditions in industrial employment. None of these people knows anything about conditions in agricultural employment and to alter the character of the Board to suit that purpose would require, not only a change in the personnel of the Labour Court itself, but an amendment of the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act under which it operates.

So far as the Act which regulates wages in agricultural employment is concerned, it provides for the setting up of a board representative of workers and employers, not necessarily of workers' unions or employers' unions. So far as I know, the employers are selected, so far as possible, regionally and from a class of farmers who normally employ agricultural workers. Similarly with the agricultural workers' representatives themselves. They provide only for the fixing of minimum wages and as well as that, the Agricultural Wages Board can apply money values to certain perquisites for calculation for the purpose of construing wages. In many cases, as every Deputy is aware, many farmers pay more than the actual minimum wages.

There is, as Deputy Corish said, in moving the Second Reading, only one such agreement in existence which was arrived at between the Agricultural Association of Ireland and the workers in particular areas in and around County Dublin. The Agricultural Association of Ireland, itself, is not an organisation which can be held to be widely representative of farmers and their interests. In any case, agreements of that kind are desirable as long as they are entered into freely and as long as the Government, or any Government agency, are not responsible for the enforcement of the provisions of such agreements between the employers and workers who are the parties to them, and certainly it would be most undesirable if the Government or any Government agency had to apply the enforcement of such agreement amongst farmers and workers who themselves were not parties to such agreement.

The Bill, as it stands, does not seek in any way to amend the Agricultural Wages Act. Therefore, if passed in its present form or in an amended form, we would have in existence the Agricultural Wages Board enforcing minimum rates and the Labour Court, because of the registered agreement, enforcing different rates, and there could be nothing but confusion following on such a situation. As well as that, there would be two separate Ministers responsible for enforcing the minimum wage, on the one hand, and the agreed wage on the other hand, and that could not but lead to further confusion and perhaps even to chaos.

Apart altogether from the objection to giving to the Labour Court these new functions, one might ask if it is in the real interests of farm workers to provide that agreements made between them and groups of farmers and trade unions should be legally enforceable on all workers and all farmers in certain areas, even though many of them may not be parties to it. I think it is generally true that most farmers employ as many workers as they can afford. If a farmer is forced to pay higher wages than those which he agrees to with his workers, the effect might be that he would disemploy certain of his workers or, having disemployed them, might reemploy them only on a casual basis. In the long run, such a situation might not be in the best interests of the workers, particularly farm workers, where, in many cases, no alternative means of employment is available to them in their area.

As I have said already, even in industry, where Part III of the Industrial Relations Act is in operation, very meagre use indeed has been made of the provisions of Part III providing for the making and registration of wages agreements. There are probably many reasons for that. As such meagre use was made of the Industrial Relations Act, which was specially designed to serve industrial employment, is it not more than likely that more meagre use still would be made of a provision extending Part III of the Act to agricultural employees?

There are other provisions in the Bill which seek to extend the definition of "agriculture" and "agricultural worker". It is difficult to understand either from the Bill itself or from the explanatory memorandum circulated with it, or even from Deputy Corish's speech, what the purpose is. The Agricultural Wages Act in its definition of "agricultural worker" specifically excludes employment on a farm which is, in the main, domestic. The only conclusion one can draw from the attempt to widen that definition is that it would bring in domestic service, as such, in farmhouses. The definition as it stands has stood the test of time. To widen it in the manner proposed would possibly lead to confusion and to misunderstanding.

There are other features in the Bill. For example, the application of Part III of the Industrial Relations Act to agricultural workers would leave the application of another part of the Act which might be held to apply, namely, Part V, without any reference to agricultural workers. I admit that such a defect could be cured on Committee. In general, having regard to the relations between farmer and worker and having regard to the type of work undertaken by farm labourers in different parts of the country, having regard to the lack of uniformity in that type of work, the extension of Part III of the Industrial Relations Act to cover work and workers on the farm would be a very wrong principle to follow. As far as I know, there has been no great demand for it. If the attitude of the Labour Party itself in failing to move for a Second Reading of this Bill over a long period, in failing to avail of several opportunities when they could have moved it, can be construed at all it can be construed as meaning that they have no real enthusiasm for it.

For the reasons I have indicated, and other reasons too obvious to people who understand life on the farm in this country, who understand the peculiar relationship between the farmer and his worker, the extension of the Industrial Relations Act, primarily conceived, devised and enacted to suit industrial employment, would be absolutely unsuited to the purpose proposed. For these reasons, I oppose the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Kyne

I should like to support Deputy Corish in moving this Bill on the ground that it is only right and proper that the agricultural worker should secure as much protection as any other type of industrial worker in this country. I feel it is but a natural follow-up of the rights given to him under previous amendments of this very same Act, which confer on agricultural workers the right to take a dispute before the Labour Court; which confer on them the right to seek the services of an officer of the Minister's Department at conciliation and to seek the right to decide by arbitration on questions of wage dispute.

The Minister may be quite right that it might be more advisable to seek this protection and this advancement under a different Bill. It is strange to relate that even Governments, with the advice of their draftsmen, have on previous occasions— through this very same measure— given what limited protection they desired to give to agricultural workers through an amendment of the very same Act. Is it not somewhat strange that we should be taken to task for making an error when we had precedent for following State leadership?

It is quite true, as Deputy Corish indicated, that the Labour Party sought rather to establish a principle and were prepared to meet all reasonable objections and, in Committee, to confer with Parties representing farming community thought in this House and with the Minister and various other people on any and every side of the House. Rather what we sought to establish was an agreed measure between all people interested in agriculture, whether as workers in agriculture or as employers of such workers. We believe it is in the interests of workers and in the interests of employers engaged in agriculture that the state of affairs which at present exists—which looks upon employment in agriculture as something lower than industrial employment—should not continue. Surely it cannot be said that only the half-wit, the semi-disabled or the moron is fit to engage in agricultural work? Denial to agricultural employees of the rights, protection and privileges given to industrial workers implies that they are either a second-class people or people who, because of either physical or mental disability, are unworthy to get the privileges given in relation to industry.

The Labour Party has sought continuously and with a certain amount of success, with the help of all Parties in this House, to change that position. A Bill promoted by the Labour Party secured for agricultural workers, by agreement with their employers, a weekly half-holiday. That was an advance. Through the Labour Party proposals, agricultural workers have a right now to conciliation and arbitration. What do we seek now? We seek a voluntary agreement to be entered into by employers representing the farming community and trade unions representing the agricultural worker, that is, a wage voluntarily entered into between these two bodies which could be registered so that it would become an established rate.

The Minister confused the issue— I do not say he desired to confuse it— by referring to the Agricultural Wages Board which is there to establish minimum rates, to fall below which is punishable by law. That is a national rate. The J.I.C., with the help and sanction of the Labour Court, established a minimum rate for creamery workers. Surely it is not to be said that that should be the maximum rate. The rate set by the J.I.C. for creameries is the lowest rate the smallest creamery can pay without being prosecuted. Any trade union could take employees in that category covered by the J.I.C. before the Labour Court and under a different Minister and under different control secure increased rates.

The Minister stressed all the points whereby the Labour Court could refuse to register an agreement. He read them out, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. But in making those points he shattered his own arguments. If all these safeguards are there to say that the Labour Court can lawfully and rightfully refuse to register an agreement, surely the Minister need not worry about any danger of an agreement being registered and about its causing confusion because it was registered by a few people on one side and a few people on the other side?

It is quite true that the Federation of Rural Workers, may not have as large a membership as some of the big industrial trade unions. That does not necessarily mean that if this right is established for agricultural workers it will not encourage other trade unions to develop their membership. The Minister would agree with me it is desirable that agricultural workers should be organised. It is desirable that the farmers should be organised —and I am glad they are—and that between the trade union representing the workers and the farmers' union, a system such as we have in the industrial trade union life of the country should be established whereby we would have harmony and our problems settled by agreement or through the Labour Court or at arbitration or conciliation. That is desirable and every step in that direction should be encouraged by the Minister. We believe it is but a step on the road to bringing the agricultural worker up to the standard of his fellow worker on the industrial trade union side.

Although primarily concerned with the problems of industrial workers, I nevertheless live in a rural community and every day of my life I meet agricultural workers and hear their grievances. It is a very small step to the agricultural worker from the county council worker. It is a very small step from the county council worker to the town worker. I am not so sure that the differences the Minister saw between these types of workers are as wide as he believes. I do not believe for a moment that this right to register agreement will of itself do a great deal to uplift the agricultural worker but it will be an indication that this House has become alive to the fact that agriculture is our main industry and that the people engaged in it either as employers or employees are worthy citizens of this country. Because of that belief the Labour Party is supporting this Bill.

Mr. Larkin

I am somewhat surprised at the approach of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to this matter. Surely in 1959 we are competent to agree that an agricultural worker is a skilled worker? If we listened from time to time to the calls to the agricultural community, both to employers and workers, to make a contribution to national progress, we shall have noticed that it has been the practice of the Minister's predecessor in office to dilate on the benefits of increased mechanisation, the benefits of better organisation and of improved methods of sorting, packing, grading etc. Yet, at this date, the Minister's objection to this Bill appears to be that he considers that there is some basic difference between the skilled agricultural worker and the unskilled industrial worker.

Mr. J. Lynch

That is a wrong slant on what I said. I was talking about the means of fixing wages.

Mr. Larkin

It may be a wrong slant but I am afraid it is the slant I must take from the Minister's contribution.

Mr. J. Lynch

I suggest it is an absolute misrepresentation.

Mr. Larkin

The Minister referred to the difference in the types of worker. We in the Labour Party do not recognise there is any difference between the types of worker in agriculture or industry. Their function there is to earn their living and in the case of the agricultural worker I think it is proper, for one who has some connection with industrial workers, to say that there is no such thing as an unskilled agricultural worker. It is true to say that the skill, knowledge and experience required from them is increasing every day.

The Minister is on weak ground when he suggests that there is something unsuitable about this measure. All the Bill asks is that provision be made so that organisations substantially representative of employers in an area and substantially representative of workers in the same area, having reached agreement, can have that agreement registered. The main effect of that provision would be to extend protection to the same type of persons as it has been found necessary in certain industrial units in urban areas to protect against exploitation, namely, young boys and girls. That is found necessary in certain areas where unscrupulous employers are prepared to exploit boys and girls. While the farming community are making possibly the biggest contribution to the progress of the country there are still unscrupulous employers in that community. Those of us here who are directly connected with the farming community could if they so desired recite from these and other benches a litany of the abuses, ill-treatment and injustices perpetrated on agricultural workers in many parts of the country. Not too long ago there was the case of a lad of 19 years of age who received one shilling for his week's work. That was common knowledge.

However, I support the Bill and I just make those two points. One is that in this day and age, the agricultural worker is making a very substantial contribution to the community, is by no means an unskilled worker and surely is entitled to be treated on a proper basis. Secondly, the Bill says that only where agreements exist the Labour Court may register the agreement. The Labour Court itself is quite competent to deal with this because their immediate concern would be to investigate and satisfy themselves that, in a particular area where it was proposed to register an agreement, the parties were substantially representative of the two main sections concerned, the employers and the workers. Surely the Labour Court would be competent to decide that issue.

Mr. Corish

There is no point in prolonging this matter further because obviously the Minister and the Government have made up their minds that they will not accept the measure nor are they prepared even to consider the question. The Minister jibes at the lack of enthusiasm and the delay by the Labour Party in introducing such a measure.

Mr. J. Lynch

Not in introducing it —in pursuing it.

Mr. Corish

Will the Minister look at the Order Paper and say why, in 1932, the Fianna Fáil Government did not introduce some of the measures they now see fit to introduce in 1959? In any case, any time the Labour Party ask for an improvement in the conditions of workers, whether agricultural labourers or rural workers, we are told we should not disturb the relationship between farmers and farm workers. That is always the excuse; it was the excuse when the Labour Party looked for a half-holiday for workers. We were told from various sides of the House: "Do not upset the grand relationship between employer and employee." What is the general relationship? The picture is not as rosy as the Minister paints it. It is true that there are quite a number of good farmers who treat their workers properly but there are quite a number who do not. The Minister let the cat out of the bag when he said something to the effect that if the good relationship were disturbed some workers might have no job. That is the basis on which many farmers work. That is the fear which is instilled into the workers. If they do happen to look for their rights from farmers they are sacked and there is nothing for them to do but to emigrate.

Why are the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Minister not competent to deal with a matter of this sort? Why did the Taoiseach when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce not include agricultural workers in the Act of 1946? Is there any reason why it cannot be done now? The Minister also said that this Bill would impose unfair conditions on employers in certain areas. It would do nothing of the sort. All this Bill seeks to achieve is that, where there is an agreement between farmers and farm workers, on wages and conditions of employment, such an agreement shall be registered with the Labour Court. It further imposes a legal obligation on those participating in the agreement to live up to their obligations. The Minister sees difficulties in that. He said it could not be put into effect and that it might be unfair to other farmers in the area.

Section 27 of the 1946 Act says that the Labour Court must be satisfied about various matters. Section 27 is airtight as far as the farmers and the workers are concerned. The court must be absolutely satisfied, in Section 27 of the 1946 Act, that such agreement is fair and just and can be applied. Why then has the Minister any fears about it? He says that the Federation of Rural Workers are not widely represented. The Federation is endeavouring to do a job of work that no other section of the community is prepared to do, particularly the Agricultural Wages Board.

The Minister seems to think the Agricultural Wages Board are competent to deal with the type of problem we speak of here, the kind of problems that beset agricultural workers. I do not think the Agricultural Wages Board is an institution of which we can be proud, as far as their treatment of the workers is concerned. Having regard to the minimum wages fixed I do not think anybody could say that the Agricultural Wages Board have much "meas" from the agricultural workers.

The Minister also said that Part III of the Act had not been availed of to any great extent by the trade unions. Thank goodness, the trade unions are powerful enough not to need to have recourse to Part III of the Industrial Relations Act 1946. The reason we want it is because the individual is not powerful enough. Industrial workers may be represented numerically to the extent of 200 or 500 or even 5,000, but in most cases an agricultural worker is the only employee of the farmer. We believe that if the interests of the worker are to be protected, when an agreement is made and approved by the Labour Court there is a penalty involved for farmers who do not live up to the agreement made in respect of wages and conditions.

The Minister said that the personnel of the Labour Court would have to be changed. That is a simple statement, telling the Dáil that the Labour Court, as at present constituted, would not be able to deal with agricultural workers. Today they have to talk about painters; tomorrow they will be dealing with electricians. They have to investigate the affairs of mental hospitals attendants; they have to talk about turf, road work, building and Guinness's workers. Surely it would not be beyond their powers to investigate the conditions of agricultural workers and discuss their wages? I do not think it a fair argument, or one that can stand examination, that the personnel would have to be changed if Part III applied to agricultural workers.

The Minister also said that he did not quite understand the definition of "agriculture" and "agricultural workers" in the Bill. I think it is fairly simple. He said that, under the definition in the Bill, domestic servants might also be included. May I read out what is in the Bill? Section 2 says:—

"the expression agricultural worker' means a person employed in agriculture under a contract of service or apprenticeship;

"the word ‘agriculture' includes dairy farming, the production of any consumable produce which is grown for sale or for consumption or other use, and the use of land as grazing, meadow or pasture land or orchard ..."

and so on.

I do not think there can be any doubt in anybody's mind as to what "agriculture" and "agricultural worker" mean. However, over the years, we in the Labour Party have asked for certain conditions of employment for agricultural workers; we succeeded in having those things done by this House and we take credit for it. The Government, through the Minister, may not be in a mood to accept this Bill now but we hope that on another occasion, when we bring forward this measure again, the Minister and the Government will have second thoughts and realise, that if we are to continue to regard the agricultural worker as he has been regarded, there is not much hope for agriculture and the recovery of the country.

Agricultural workers will have to be given a status and a standard of living and will have to be regarded as other workers in the country are regarded. The only way we can secure that is by applying to them conditions of employment and wages that will allow them to enjoy a decent standard of living. I think it is bad for the Government to turn down this simple proposition, a simple proposition which to my mind should be acceptable to the Government and to the Minister. I think the Minister has made a very poor case indeed.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 5th November, 1959.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Nov 1959