Amendments Nos. 1 to 15, inclusive, are out of order as they are outside the scope of the Bill.
Committee on Finance. - Agricultural Workers (Holidays) (Amendment) Bill, 1961 — Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
I do not wish to cut in on any point dealing with the amendments that have been ruled out of order but the weakness which I still see in Section 2 is the general set-up which in my opinion will not give the results we would hope for because of the dictatorial powers available to one person. We can see that weakness running through it which will not prevent a continuation in future of the system whereby one person, the chairman, can decide an issue. Unless this can be amended in some form or another, the position will be that though you have certain members on the Board, the powers of the chairman being such, we will not receive the benefits for which we would hope from this Bill which is limited in its scope.
I do not understand the Deputy's point. He is complaining about something that is not covered at all by the amending Bill.
It is actually in relation to Section 13 of the 1936 Act in regard to the question of making an order. We all know, as well as the Minister, that the chairman on his own can make that order in defiance of members who may be present at a meeting, or if he should desire, he can make it without any member being present. Surely, it must be tied with Section 13 of the original Act.
The chairman's power in the 1936 Act to make orders in certain circumstances is really a different question from what we are dealing with here.
Time will prove that the operation of this section will still be detrimental to the workers.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 could perhaps be discussed together.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 16:
Before section 4 to insert the following new section:—
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, each of the following days shall, in respect of agricultural workers, be for the purposes of this Act, a public holiday;
(a) Christmas Day when it falls on a weekday or, when it falls on a Sunday, the 27th day of December,
(b) St. Stephen's Day when it falls on a weekday or, when it falls on a Sunday, the next following Monday,
(c) St. Patrick's Day when it falls on a weekday or, when it falls on a Sunday, the next following Monday,
(d) Easter Monday, Whit Monday, and the first Monday in August,
(2) Whenever in any year a day is appointed under the Public Holidays Act, 1924, to be a bank holiday instead of a day mentioned in subsection (1) of this section, the day so appointed shall in that year be deemed to be substituted throughout that subsection for the day so mentioned.
(3) The employer of any agricultural worker may substitute for any public holiday (other than Christmas Day or St. Patrick's Day) falling in a calendar year either —
(a) the Church holiday falling in the calendar year immediately before the public holiday by giving to the worker not less than fourteen days before the Church holiday notice of his intention to effect the substitution, or
(b) The Church holiday falling in that calendar year immediately after the public holiday or, if the public holiday is a day which is a public holiday by virtue of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section, the 1st day of January next following by giving to the worker not less than fourteen days before the public holiday notice of his intention to effect the substitution,
and whenever such notice is given, the substituted Church holiday shall in respect of the worker be a public holiday for the purposes of this Act instead of the day for which it is so substituted.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) of this section each of the following days shall be a Church holiday:
(i) the 1st day of January, except when it falls on a Sunday,
(ii) Ascension Thursday,
(iii) the Feast of Corpus Christi,
(iv) the 15th day of August, except when it falls on a Sunday,
(v) the 1st day of November, except when it falls on a Sunday,
(vi) the 8th day of December, except when it falls on a Sunday.
(5) The Minister may by order declare any of the days mentioned in subsection (1) of this section not to be a public holiday for the purposes of this Act and may appoint any other day instead of the day so mentioned to be a public holiday for the purposes of this Act and on such order being made, the day so appointed shall be deemed to be substituted for the day so mentioned and the said subsection (1) shall be construed and have effect accordingly.
(6) The Minister may by order appoint a day to be a Church holiday for the purposes of this Act instead of a day mentioned in subsection (4) of this section and, on such order being made, the day so appointed shall be deemed to be substituted for the day so mentioned.
(7) The notice mentioned in subsection (3) of this section shall be in writing and may be given to any person by handing a copy thereof to him personally or by posting a copy thereof in a conspicuous position in the place where he is employed.
(8) In this Act "public holiday", when used in relation to any worker, shall be construed in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section.
It is a strange thing that in 1961 we are still in the position that we were in in 1946 of having to discuss the right of agricultural workers to advantages which have been given to industrial workers. In the 1946 Bill the efforts of the Labour Party were unsuccessful. Many years have elapsed. Earlier this afternoon satisfaction was expressed because certain advantages were given to industrial workers. We consider that agricultural workers are entitled to the same concessions as have been given to their comrades in the industrial sphere.
Industrial workers enjoy three weeks' holidays, that is, two weeks' annual leave plus certain Church and State holidays. That amount of leave has not been granted to agricultural workers and the purpose of the amendment is to make provision to give agricultural workers the public holidays which are given in the case of industrial workers.
The Minister, through this Bill, is informing the public that twelve days' holidays will be given to agricultural workers. We know that employers, particularly those who employ three, four or five men, can deduct the number of public holidays allowed to workers during the year from the twelve days' annual leave, thereby bringing these workers back to the stage of getting, in fact, only one week's annual leave.
I do not see any reason why a proposition should be carried in this House to give industrial workers the right to the public holidays set out in the amendment plus twelve days' annual leave, to which we all know they are entitled, while at the same time that right is denied to agricultural workers who should be classified as being of equal importance to the national economy. I would ask the Minister to have regard to the importance of giving agricultural workers the holidays to which they are as entitled as their industrial comrades are.
This simple Bill aims at increasing the agricultural worker's right to holidays from the period of one week provided in the 1950 and 1952 Acts, to two weeks. It does not provide that an employer can deduct, in respect of the second week that is being given under the amending Bill, Church holidays but it does provide that where agricultural employers were in the habit of giving, in addition to the holidays provided in the 1950 and 1952 Acts, four, five, six or more days for the purpose, as I said on Second Reading, of attending race meetings or any other activity, and paying the full wage, if the employer so desires, he can deduct a number of days up to a maximum of six. We are not suggesting that he should do so.
We do not believe that in most cases employers will do so but it is felt that in the case of that type of employer, when we are making it legally obligatory to give twelve days instead of six, it would be unfair to impose upon him the legal obligation of giving 12 days in addition to those the worker might expect from him in the way of concessions that have been extended prior to the passage of this Bill. The Bill does not give the employer the right to deduct as part of the six days in question any Church holiday that may arise in the period of the individual's employment.
The Minister must know that there is no obligation on the employer in this case to give holidays other than those provided by law. Wishful thinking in this Chamber is useless. I have known of large employers in agriculture, men who, perhaps, did not derive their main income from agriculture, who were large industrialists, who did not give Church holidays. The men had to work on Church holidays. Can we compel them now to give Church holidays? Is there any provision in this Bill whereby agricultural workers are to get Church holidays? I agree with the Minister to a certain extent. There are certain agricultural employers on what might be termed medium-sized farms who have always considered it fair and proper to give their employees a holiday on a Church holiday. That does not cover all sections of the agricultural community. I fail to see why it should be taken for granted that those who have been giving certain concessions to their workers in the past will continue to do so and why no provision is made whereby those who have refused to give such concessions will have to do so. We are making no such provision.
We are, yes.
None whatsoever. Is there any compulsion on employers to give the holidays provided in the amendment? The Minister will admit that if the amendment had not been in order it would not be under discussion now. The fact is that, in law, agricultural workers will not necessarily qualify for the benefits we are seeking in the amendment. If the House so decides, the workers can enjoy those benefits. There is only one way by which we can guarantee that workers will enjoy their rights in this respect and that is to provide it by law. It is all very fine to suggest that the less compulsion there is, the better. In many Government activities matters are considered to be of such importance that compulsion is necessary and Bills are enacted to guarantee benefits which we would wish people to have.
In this amendment we are asking that agricultural workers should enjoy the same benefits in future as their counterparts in industry enjoy. I do not see any reason now, any more than there was in 1946, why the Government should oppose the amendment, which is based on an amendment that was before the House in 1946. There is no use in the Minister saying that these workers are enjoying certain benefits. If they were enjoying these benefits, there would be no need for us at this stage to try, by amendment, to improve the Bill.
The clear point that emerges is that whether they are good or bad employers, from the point of view of consideration for their workers, they will be obliged as a result of this Bill to give 12 days' holidays as against the six the law now provides. There is no gainsaying that advantage. What will happen in relation to the matters that may arise as between worker and employer, in respect to Church holydays or any other concessions the workers may have enjoyed at the hands of their employers, will remain a matter as between worker and employer. The concession here is that there is a legal obligation to give an employee 12 days' holidays as against six.
What provision is there to ensure that a farm worker will enjoy a day off if a Christmas Day falls on a Sunday? What provision is there to give the worker the benefit of a day off if St. Stephen's Day or St. Patrick's Day falls on a Sunday? What provision is there for giving workers a substitute day off for Easter Monday, which the Irish people have cause to remember? Is there anything in the Bill to protect the workers and give them those benefits?
The Deputy is as well aware as I am that to attempt to treat this matter of holidays for agricultural workers as if they were industrial workers is not a sensible approach. Do we all not know that in the main, in addition to the 12 days that will be provided for them legally as holidays for a year's employment, there are about nine other days when a worker may have to make only an appearance at a farmer's place, when he will not be asked to give a full day's work? You cannot treat that relationship as if you were dealing with industrial workers. It would not make sense to do so. What we should not lose sight of is that here we are providing for 12 days' holidays in the year.
I do not want to carry on this matter but it is strange to find the Minister making comparisons between workers in agriculture and in industrial spheres. In this House month after month we hear of the changing pattern in agriculture. We hear Ministers drawing attention to the general move towards larger farms. We hear them say that, if we are prepared to survive, the whole pattern of small farming must disappear and we see people coming in here, buying a number of holdings and amalgamating them.
The Minister, therefore, must understand that new people engaging in agriculture in this country are beginning to treat it as an industry and that they will give to their workers only the concessions that the law makes it obligatory to provide — no more and no less. I said, as a preface to my remarks earlier, that difficulties as far as workers are concerned always arise on the smaller holdings. It is, therefore, of no use for the Minister to say that on all farms, where there are nine or ten men engaged, all they have to do is make an appearance on a Sunday morning or on a Christmas Day. There may be flexibility and co-operation as between the employer and the worker in certain cases but the only concrete way of getting true co-operation is to give legal rights to the workers — to give them a substitute for holidays on which they work.
Question put: "That the new section be inserted."
The Committee divided: Tá, 10; Níl, 44.
Tá
- Belton, Jack.
- Byrne, Tom.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Everett, James.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, Denis.
- Lindsay, Patrick.
- Norton, William.
Níl
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brady, Seán.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Cotter, Edward.
- Cummins, Patrick J.
- Davern, Mick.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Donegan, Batt.
- Dooley, Patrick.
- Egan, Kieran P.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Fanning, John.
- Faulkner, Padraig.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Johnston, Henry M.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Loughman, Frank.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Medlar, Martin.
- Moher, John W.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Toole, James.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Teehan, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kyne and Larkin; Níl, Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman.
Question declared lost.
That decision governs amendment No. 17.
Amendment No. 17 not moved.
Section 4 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.