asked the Minister for Labour if he is aware that young persons under 18 years of age are working over 40 hours every week at a factory (name supplied); if he gave permission for this although the ICTU made a strong objection; and, if so, why.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Employment of Juveniles.
48.
Under section 39 of the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936, young persons under 18 years of age may work a 40 hour week but section 41 of that Act provides that they may work a further ten hours overtime, making a total of 50 hours per week.
Would the Minister indicate why he gave permission to the firm mentioned, EI, continuously to work people in excess of 40 hours a week, having regard to the strong objections made by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions?
They may work ten hours overtime, making 50 hours a week. The law allows this. The Deputy is asking a supplementary to the wrong question.
Is the Minister saying he gave permission for this factory to work people of less than 18 years of age in excess of 40 hours a week every week?
The law allows it. My permission is not required. They may work ten hours overtime in any week, making 50 hours per week. The law allows it. There is no permission needed.
Is the Minister in a position to say he is satisfied that the ten hours have not been exceeded?
That is a separate question.
Surely it is the Minister's responsibility to ensure that the law is carried out?
Question No. 49.
What the Deputy is referring to is allowed by law.
The Minister knows that his Department got those objections from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.
No.
Yes.
Actually, the law allows what the Deputy is objecting to.
Having regard to the other industries to which the Minister referred, does he mean other industries within the Shannon Estate?
Policy on this applies to the whole country.
Could the Minister be specific about this? Did he give such a facility to other industries within the Shannon Estate? Why did he particularise with regard to EI?
The facilities were sought by other companies and the Congress of Trade Unions was consulted. They had no objection to another company but in relation to this company they thought it was against policy and normal practice.
Is the Minister saying that the same application was made in respect of other companies? Was it not a very different application that was made? The same principle was not adverted to.
Perhaps I should say this:——
This company got preferential treatment from the Minister's Department.
——the commencing time is common in a number of industries.
The commencing time is earlier and the finishing time is later than in other firms in the Shannon Estate.
We are talking about industry, not about the Shannon Estate. The other industry which applied for the same concession was not in the Shannon Estate; the policy applies to the country. I consult the Congress of Trade Unions but I do not have to do what they say. However, I did consult them and I found that they had no objection to one industry, but in the case of this other industry they found it was against practice and policy.
Within the Shannon Estate?
I do not see that the location matters.
The Minister has indicated that he consults the Congress and I took him as saying that he does not have to do what they recommend, which means it is purely a formality. I would be anxious to know to what extent he attaches importance to the recommendations of Congress?
I make the decision.
Then the Minister is only codding the people.
No, I consult them and I listen to them.
(Interruptions.)
Order.