asked the Minister for Labour if he is aware that in the employment of Hospitals Trust Limited, which is established under permit from the State, the principle of free association as defined by the International Labour Organisation is denied in so far as the trade union of which certain employees are members is refused recognition and the right to represent and negotiate on their behalf; and that on two occasions the Labour Court recommended that the management should negotiate with the trade union but that the management refused; and whether he is prepared to advise Hospitals Trust Limited that in so far as this State has ratified Convention No. 87 (Freedom of Association and the Right to Organise) the Government require them to observe such Convention, that otherwise the Government must reconsider the conditions governing the permit under which Hospitals Trust is enabled to conduct public sweepstakes.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Hospitals Trust Limited.
The assertion in the first part of the Question has not been proved.
I am aware of the two Labour Court Recommendations mentioned. My attitude to these is the same as it is to all Labour Court Recommendations and it is that I strongly favour their acceptance.
Having regard to the Minister's responsibility for good industrial relations, does he think it conducive to good industrial relations that 250 workers who are members of a reputable trade union are not recognised by this institution which operates under Government permit?
The Labour Court have made recommendations and these should be accepted, as I think that in every case Labour Court recommendations should be accepted.
Would the Minister be good enough to convey that opinion to the Directors of the Irish Hospitals Trust?
I am sure they will hear about it once I have said it here.
Is it not a fact that the bulk of the staff are satisfied with the standards laid down? There is nothing anti-trade union in this. It is an Irish industry established by Irishmen and should not be sabotaged.
If the Leader of Fine Gael has nothing better to say about workers who are looking for decent conditions, he should keep his mouth shut.
The bulk of the workers are satisfied.
They are not. They are denied their right to free association in a trade union. They are members of what is termed a house association, but that is not a trade union.
Order. The Minister.
In answer to Deputy Cosgrave, the right of free association exists in so far as these people in this company are organised in a house association and those who want to be organised in a trade union are so organised.
In reply to Deputy S. Dunne's assertion that Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil are joined together in this, I would like to read now a reply given by Deputy Corish, on behalf of Deputy Everett, who was Minister for Justice at the time, to the very same question:
I have no function with regard to the implementation of the provisions of either the convention or recommendation referred to. The powers of the Minister for Justice to make modifications in a scheme for a sweepstake submitted to him under Section 6 of the Public Hospitals Act, 1933, relate only to such matters as are dealt with in the section. The question of staff control or representation is not one of these matters.
Give us the date of that.
26th July, 1956.
Would the Minister say when the Labour Court recommendations were made and will he further say whether or not this house association is registered as a friendly society with the Department of Industry and Commerce or as a trade union with his own Department?
Would the Minister say if the question to which he referred was a "planted" question?
The reason I read out that answer was that Deputy Corish asked that I should bring pressure to bear on the Hospitals Trust to enforce this recommendation.
I said the Minister should consider the terms of the permit.
And I did not answer that because the matter is proper to the Minister for Justice; but Deputy Corish knows the answer already because he gave it himself. One of the recommendations of the Labour Court was made in 1950 and one in 1967. The house association is not registered as a trade union. Neither is it registered as a friendly society.
There are 250 members of a trade union in this institution, which caters for approximately 930 regular staff. That means that nearly 30 per cent are members of a trade union. Surely they should not be denied recognition for the purpose of negotiation?
I agree. The Labour Court recommended that they should be recognised and I think all Labour Court recommendations should be accepted, including this one. I said the association is neither a friendly society nor a trade union, but, being an excepted body, it has the right to negotiate under the Trade Union Act of 1942.
Is there any legal definition of "house association"?
A bosses' union.
The 1941 Act made provision for excepted bodies and the 1942 Act provided that an excepted body would cover any body which represented people working for one employer and who only spoke on behalf of their own fellow employees.
When there is an official trade union, does this quite cover the situation? I suggest it does not cover the situation in which there are a recognised trade union and a house association existing side by side and the management refuses to negotiate with the trade union and negotiates only with the house association.
The question was whether this association has the right to negotiate: it has.
Is it not a fact that the Labour Court found that the choice between a house association or a trade union organisation was a matter for the employees?
It is a phoney association. It is not a trade union.
If that is so, why are there 900 members in it?
Because, if they were not, they would not be kept in the Irish Hospitals Trust.
They are satisfied with the conditions in an Irish firm giving good employment and helping the hospitals.
The recommendation of the Labour Court was a straight recommendation, without qualification of any kind, that the union should be recognised. Possibly Deputy Cosgrave has some interest in this matter.
None whatever, except that I do not want to see it sabotaged for theoretical reasons.
Who wants to see it sabotaged?
How could one sabotage a multi-million dollar institution?
An institution maintained by Irishmen for the benefit of Irishmen.
Order. I am calling Question No. 12, to the Minister for Finance.
Was it a specific recommendation that the Hospitals Trust should negotiate, without any qualification whatsoever?
The text of the recommendation is:
The Court recommends that the company should concede to the union the right to negotiate on behalf of its members in the company's employment.
Is that not in accordance with the ILO Convention?
That is the second recommendation. The first recommendation——
We are talking about the first recommendation.
It is the ILO Convention. The right to representations is also contained in the Convention as well as the right of association.
That, I think, could be argued.
There is a third opinion in the organisation, of course.
Order. The Minister for Finance.