asked the Minister for Labour if, in view of the fact that in a reply of 7th July, 1966, he stated that the text of legislation to deal with the situation that arose following a Supreme Court decision in December, 1961, in the matter of peaceful picketing was being withheld until the texts of the Trade Union Bill, 1966, and the Industrial Relations Bill, 1966, were available, he will now state when it is proposed to publish this outstanding and necessary amendment to the trade union law.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Trade Union Legislation.
22.
When this draft Bill emerged from the deliberations of the working party set up after the Supreme Court decision in the Educational Company case it was envisaged that the question would arise of consideration of its constitutionality by the courts. Further examination of the draft Bill has suggested that it might be open to constitutional challenge on several grounds. For this reason and also because I am not convinced that, in present circumstances, legislation extending the protection of picketing in trade disputes would be justified, I have decided to defer further action on this Bill.
Does that mean that the reply the Minister gave on 7th July, 1966, is not true?
It is true that I gave a reply. There was an undertaking given, after the Educational Company case, by the then Taoiseach to set up a committee to study whether a Bill could be drafted which would permit picketing to force an employer to force employees to join a union and the undertaking was honoured. The committee was set up. It produced a draft Bill which they thought would have to be tested by the courts for constitutionality. I did answer a question on this saying that the time when it would come before the Government and the House would be the time of the other trade union Bill but, having examined it and taken advice on it, I am satisfied that it would be illogical to introduce a Bill now that is doubtful constitutionally on several grounds. Also, I do not think it is a good time to extend the protection of picketing.
Surely the Minister will agree that, having given an undertaking on 7th July, 1966, that he proposed to introduce such a Bill and in view of the fact that he must be aware that the drafting section would be able to draft a Bill which would be constitutional to cover the necessary points and that a definite undertaking was given by the former Taoiseach and by himself, it is not good enough just to say now that the time is not ripe or something like that, in order to avoid issuing it?
I am not saying that the time is not ripe. First, there is no way of drafting a Bill so as to be sure it will be constitutional. The Bill requires that an employer be forced by picketing to force his employees to join any union or it could be used to make people leave one union and go to another. I think it would be an undesirable power to have even if the Constitution would allow it but I do not think it would stand up to constitutional examination.
I do not think the Minister is entirely fair there. There was never any suggestion that there might be picketing to ensure that a worker would leave one union to join another. That was not the point.
I brought in that idea. I am not being unfair. The idea was that an employer could be picketed and his firm shut down to force him to make employees join a union. The same power could be used for the purpose which I have just mentioned. Apart from that, the matter could be doubted on several grounds under the Constitution. I do not think that at this time this extra protection for picketing is required in the public interest.
Surely the Minister is aware that the only issue decided by the court was that while they were perfectly entitled to put pickets on to force those already members and who were in arrears to put their cards in order, they were not entitled to take action against people who were not up to then members? The former Taoiseach gave a guarantee that he would introduce legislation to regularise that position. I want to know now have the Government decided that they will not introduce legislation to amend the law in order to remedy the decision in the Fitzpatrick judgment?
To clear the former Taoiseach, the first undertaking he gave to the Congress of Trade Unions was to discuss with the Attorney General the setting up of a working party to consider how, without conflicting with the Supreme Court judgment, a trade union's right to take action, including picketing, to enforce union membership, could be made effective again and any legislation needed for this purpose. Now he set up that committee and the working party was set up. He kept his end of it. Another undertaking given was to submit the report of the working party to the Government and to ask for Government approval in principle to give effect to it and to inform Congress and he did that.
Question No. 23.
Is there not a further comment?
No. The intention in his mind at the time—I have not consulted with him, but I think this was the position—was to get the Bill to the Supreme Court to have it decide the matter constitutionally.
This has not been done.
No, because I think it would not be in the public interest to extend the protection of picketing at this time.
Would the Minister not think industrial relations are bad enough at the moment, remembering that lack of consultation is a big feature of the present situation, and would he not agree that the very least that could have been done was to inform the trade unions that he had, in fact, changed his mind? As far as I know, this is the first time he has admitted he has changed his mind and is it not a very bad situation if there is this lack of consultation between himself and the unions on this important problem?
As the Deputy knows; my door is always open. I have had frequent consultations with trade unions but, some time ago, Congress announced in the public press that they had walked out of talks with me. They broke off negotiations, or communications—whichever you like on the Bills. I cannot force them to come back.
Question No. 23.
The Minister means that there is no consultation between him and Congress now and there will not be any more.
On these matters they withdrew from the discussions.
But the Minister did promise them this would be done. He has said he has changed his mind. Has he notified the trade unions of this?
No.
As there is no talk between him and the trade unions is the Minister suggesting we are witnessing a sort of farmer versus Blaney break-up?
I do not think so.
Question No. 23.
Is the Minister talking as a trade unionist or a capitalist?
No. This was a walk-out and a not wanting to consult and their opinion on the Bill came to me not through the channel or in the way one would think desirable in a civilised democracy.
I think the Minister is doing himself a disservice. He is giving the impression there is an impasse.
We cannot discuss this Question all evening. Question No. 23.