This Bill is being discussed with the Industrial Relations Bill, 1966.
Trade Union Bill, 1966: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Before moving the Adjournment of the debate I was about to pay tribute to the President of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, Mr. James Dunne. This has been done by quite a few people already and one of the main reasons for these tributes is the fact that employers and trade union members alike realise that in this man they are dealing with a man of integrity whose word is his bond. They are not dealing with a man who is unreasonable in any way or looking for the impossible.
It has become abundantly clear in the last few weeks that the trade unions themselves will be required to put their house in order by freezing out, if necessary, these unions that threaten the livelihood of the vast majority of workers. The damage that has been caused by the present dispute will take quite some time to assess. I wonder what the various strike committee members of the unions that are on strike at the moment will do about obtaining employment for the numerous workers who will lose their employment because of the present situation. They may not foresee how this will happen but it is simple to explain that orders have been lost abroad: orders will have been placed with manufacturers in other countries and, therefore, we shall have to work a long time to recapture the position we held before this strike. We must start competing all over again on less favourable grounds. Unfortunately, it is the lower-paid workers, the men on the minimum scale, who will suffer most because most of them, being in unskilled trades, will be the first to lose their jobs as a result of the present dispute. This dispute does not take into consideration the well-being or welfare of the lowly paid workers at all; there is no interest in them. This is the tragedy that affects the vast majority of workers in Ireland at present.
I hope that Mr. James Dunne will get support from other unions and I hope that he will take upon himself the responsible task of sorting out some of the people who are at the root of the present trouble. If I interpret Mr. Dunne's speech correctly he has implied that there are subversive elements responsible for some of the trouble we are having with these people. If that is so we should not tolerate it. Many people look to the Government to intervene and ask: "What are the Government doing about this problem?" If the Government intervene, on whose behalf do they intervene—on behalf of the worker or on behalf of the employer? No matter how neutral they are in their intervention they will still be blamed in the final analysis for any settlement that is not pleasing to the other side.
Certain speakers stated—Deputy Esmonde was one of them—that the Trade Union Bill did not go far enough, that we should enact stronger legislation. I know this is the feeling of many people who say that strong legislation should be enforced, but I would go along with the Minister when he says that without the co-operation of employers and trade unions whatever legislation you introduce will not work properly. Imposed settlements very rarely work.
I should like to see as many unions as possible taking advantage of the group negotiating licence. I have spoken with a number of trade unionists, particularly in the last few weeks, about this point and they have said emphatically that they are very much in favour of the idea of the group negotiating licence. The Labour Party have implied that this Trade Union Bill will really solve nothing but I am inclined to think it will go a long way towards providing the workers with the instruments necessary to organise a consolidated body within their own industry instead of, as we know, two or three people, perhaps, keeping a whole factory out.
Some people have been blaming the employers for the present industrial troubles—not specifically for this strike but for the long series of strikes we have had over the past number of years. Unfortunately, in many cases, this is true: the employers are to blame. I should like to see one employers' organisation coming together and a policy implemented by that organisation to try to bring under modern conditions and modern thinking the role of the worker in employment.
When he is engaged, the first thing a worker looks for is security of employment. Without it, he will not be very happy and, therefore, will not give of his best. Employers should encourage in their workers a sense of belonging to the industry or organisation whether it be a chain store or a factory, and so on.
Welfare facilities for workers could vastly be improved. Canteens could be brightened up if they are shabby or shoddy. In some factories, the toilets seem more like a cow byre. All that is simply because the employers do not care about the workers: as some people say "They are `them' and we are `us'." Many employers have an awful lot to learn in relation to the worker who is doing not merely a job of work but who has a role to play in the industry and has a responsibility. The worker is not told everything he has to do, unless he is absolutely stupid. If his job is to sweep out the dock area then that is his function and, if people have a complaint to make about it, they come to him and say "The area is not as it should be today" instead of bringing him along and pointing to a corner and finding fault with it and then to another spot and finding fault with it and bringing him around to the various places which should have been swept. A worker is not treated in that fashion unless he is an absolute moron which, most often, he is not.
It is very important that industries in Ireland should take a look at themselves and at the people they employ. All of these people are very decent, when it comes down to it, and will be as good company having a "jar" with the boss in the "local" as any of his colleagues at management level. Workers will give much greater output if they know that the management care about their welfare.
To come back again to the trade unionists, let me say that we have seen some outstanding trade unionists in our time. "Young Jim Larkin" was one of those men of integrity whom we respect so much. If he knew a man at the other end of the phone was also a man of integrity, then a problem could be settled without formal meetings. I know many instances where his reply to somebody on the phone to him— who, he knew, had the interests of the workers at heart—was, in effect: "Whatever you do will be OK in this matter because I know you will meet us half way". We require this integrity in the higher echelons of trade unionists.
The sooner the unions increase their size and become more powerful, the better. Whenever unofficial action groups within unions challenge the leadership of a union and test their strength by way of strike action to settle domestic problems, they should be taken very firmly in control by the leadership of the unions. We know there are some big cogs in very small machines in some of these smaller unions of maybe 100 to 200 members. They do not want to lose that position by going into a big union and becoming small cogs in a big machine. They want to retain their individuality.
I see nothing whatsoever wrong with bringing in the secret ballot. It is the most democratic form of election. I should be very suspicious of anyone who opposed the idea of allowing a secret ballot.
I fear it is of no use my urging the workers to go back, as some of my colleagues have done, because I do not think my voice will carry that far. My urgings go to the trade union leaders to show their strength. The country is behind them and wants them to do something—which is their responsibility. The country looks for leader-ship to the big trade unions here to sort out, once and for all, this continuous spate of strikes which we have been having.
While not believing that the two measures before the House will do all which a number of speakers here have claimed they will do—that they will solve all the problems that these same speakers have said they will solve—I feel, nevertheless, this debate will be very fruitful and very helpful in regard to industrial relations in general in this country. It is unfortunate that we are discussing these measures in the very unsettled climate prevailing at present in our industrial field. It is unfortunate in the sense that the views expressed here may be narrowed to the present situation. I think it would be wrong to do so.
Our industrial relations problem is not of a few weeks making. It goes back many years. Therefore, I shall attempt to speak broadly on this subject and I would hope other speakers would try to look at the overall picture of industrial relations as we now see it.
The first conclusion one must reach is that the present system has failed miserably. We must, therefore, look for new ideas and ways of dealing with worker/management problems. A number of people have criticised the Labour Party for not examining this problem and producing a solution of it. We have been very conscious of our responsibilities in this field and have studied all the problems affecting industrial relations. We have produced what we feel is a very helpful guide to the solving of the industrial strife, the everlasting strife between employer and worker. We have produced a document which we feel will be very helpful in eliminating this unending strife.
I was glad to hear Deputy Briscoe advocating the same type of solution. He said that the worker should have a sense of belonging in his place of employment. Indeed, many other speakers from all sides of the House have advocated—maybe not to the extent that we have advocated it in our policy—giving the worker this sense of belonging in his place of work. We feel that this is the principal root cause of the frustrations and difficulties that confront workers in this day and age. It is a continual struggle for survival, a continual struggle of worry and of trying to meet rising costs of living, rising rates, rents and other social problems.
We have had here for many years and still have a very serious unemployment problem. Far too many employers took advantage of this unemployment problem and, indeed, are taking advantage of it at the present time by offering employment to people on a charity basis and more or less saying to workers: "You are really only employed for charity and we do not need you at all. We can do without you if you look for higher wages". This kind of attitude is far too common particularly in rural areas. It reduces the worker to a nervous wreck. This situation also gives rise to many other difficulties in the employer/worker relationship. It gives rise to further frustrations because more often than not a worker finds himself compelled to accept employment for which he is not fitted or which he does not like or does not find fulfilment in. This gets back to the old problem of not having a proper or adequate career guidance section in the Department of Education or the Department of Labour. The absence of this for so long caused people to be placed in employment for which they were not suited and could not get the best out of. In other words, they were square pegs in round holes.
The biggest cause of industrial unrest is the lowly paid worker coupled with the attitude that a worker is lucky to be at work and should regard himself as very lucky to be at work and beyond that should not have any further concession or benefit of any kind. I suppose this attitude has developed because of our critical and crucial unemployment problem for many years, the attitude that the principal thing is to be at work, no matter what one is doing or how he is treated, whether he is treated like—and in many cases they are—an animal or a machine.
The present emphasis on maintenance men and their importance to the community highlights another aspect of this problem, that is the absence of the human maintenance men. They have been referred to in this debate as personnel officers or people in management responsible for looking after the employees in a particular factory or plant. We all know if an expensive machine breaks down in a factory or starts giving trouble the fuss that is created and the attention it gets. No expense is too much to put the thing right. Experts must be got over from England or in some cases from Germany to look at the machine. Everything must be done to ensure that that machine is put right and kept right. However, the unfortunate worker who for some reason or other feels ill just has to go home. In most cases he has to get up on his bicycle and cycle home even though he may be very ill and once he goes outside the door he is forgotten about and his place taken up by somebody else. Nobody seems to care whether he ever goes back or how he is getting on. Indeed, the only concern of the employer is that if he is not able to give of his best he should not be there.
Before I go any further I want to say that we have in this country a number of extremely good, extremely Christian employers who not alone fulfil all their obligations to their workers but are at all times available to discuss problems with the workers' representatives and if possible to grant concessions and all the fringe benefits that the particular concern can afford. Nevertheless, these employers are in the minority. Certainly great credit is due to them. At times they have to suffer because of the wrongs that are inflicted by their fellow employers.
Legislation such as the Trade Union Bill, in my opinion, does not help the good employer, but it does help the bad employer to continue being a bad employer. In my experience there is only one type of language or argument that the bad employer will understand or recognise and that is the strike weapon. Far too often I have seen cases where workers are paid low rates of wages and work under bad conditions of employment, and when the employer finds out that the workers have eventually organised themselves into a union, he sacks one or two of the men in the hope that he will frighten the rest of them, so that they will toe the line for him. There is only one way to counteract that type of conduct from employers, which happens all too often, and that is to serve the employer with immediate strike notice to protect the other workers in that firm. This will not be possible under the legislation proposed by the Minister. A meeting will have to be held, a ballot vote taken, and the result sent to the employer; and in the event of another union being involved that union has to be notified and has to go through the same process. This may take many days or even weeks. The only course open to these unfortunate workers is unofficial or illegal action. I do not like to see any legislation brought into this House which will help to protect the bad employer, but this Bill certainly will.
Hostility to trade union organisation —I do not think it was referred to in this debate so far—is very common, particularly in country areas. I have had many experiences of trade union hostility. On one occasion as a trade union official I went to a certain factory in a rural area to meet the workers. I arrived just at finishing time and stopped my car outside the factory on the opposite side of the road. I called over the first worker who came out merely to inquire from him when the others would be out. He came over to the car, looked at me and said: "I have to go. If the boss sees me talking to you I will be sacked." I will never forget the look on that man's face when he saw whom he was called over to talk to. He just scurried away like a frightened rabbit.
This situation is not uncommon, and if there is to be an appeal for responsible trade unionists there must also be an appeal for responsible employers, and this continuing hostility by many employers to the organisation of their workers in trade unions should be brought to a end. Some employers will co-operate initially with the trade union in order to find out who is responsible for organising the union in their factory or place of work. They will try to frighten those and immediately the relationship is off on the wrong foot. Particularly with so many foreigners coming into this country now and setting up industries, it is most important that a proper relationship be established even before the undertaking starts to operate.
The Irish Congress of Trade Unions recognise the need for close examination of their own position and the position of the various unions within Congress, and they have been actively engaged in studying the various problems that confront them. Only in November last they had a delegate conference and arrangements are being made for further delegate conferences to go into all these problems. They realise—and I think the Minister realises also—that those problems within the trade union movement cannot be solved by legislation, and they certainly cannot be solved by legislation of the type contained in the Trade Union Bill. If the Bill is passed as it stands at the moment, we shall find that most of our industrial disputes will end up in the civil courts rather than in the Labour Court, and this, of course, is not by any means a satisfactory position.
Take, for example, even section 14. I certainly have no objection to the taking of a ballot vote. In fact, all the disputes in which I was personally concerned were conducted in that way. Most trade unions that I know of have always taken ballot votes on major decisions such as strike action or offers made as a result of wage demands. There is the legality that now surrounds this business. If I was negotiating with an employer and things got difficult— I am sure Deputy Donegan would know this—one of the old weapons open to a trade union was to say: "I am afraid if you do not concede this, I will have to serve strike notice on you." Something like that was said. Under section 14 you would be breaking the provisions of that section if you were to say such a thing before a ballot or a meeting was held. I suppose that is said quite a number of times in negotiation matters but it is never really meant. I expect it is meant in the sense that if the person does not get some reasonable offer he will have no option but to serve strike notice. Those are matters which possibly could be cleared up on Committee Stage.
This section creates another problem to my mind. It has to do with the cumbersome nature of the procedure that once this decision is taken and all the exercises gone through, as laid down in the section, and there is an intervention by some civic-minded person in the dispute an appeal by that person to withhold or withdraw strike notice pending further discussion members of the union would be very reluctant to withdraw notice now because they will say that they will have to go through this very cumbersome procedure if the discussions break down. This section could mean that once strike notice is served it would be more difficult to withdraw it. When strike notice is served in most of those cases it is withdrawn. Most strike notices are withdrawn before the week's notice is up. The local mayor or some local prominent civic-minded person may intervene and ask to have the strike notice withdrawn and it usually is. Now, if one has to withdraw strike notice having gone through all those procedures and having had further talks break down and having to go through all those procedures again this section could do the very opposite to what it is intended to do.
The section dealing with the group negotiating licence is also one that gives rise to a good deal of doubt and one which may not do what it is intended to do. It is something which could be looked at further on Committee Stage. Section 10 restricts the application of sections 2 to 4 of the 1906 Act to an authorised trade union, which is the holder of an negotiation licence, and requests the union to have a ballot of all its members or the authority of its own executive. In regard to any of the requirements that a group should adopt rules for the holding of a secret ballot in relation to any proposed dispute of its own there appears to be nothing in the Bill which would give legal sanction to any strike conducted by a group or would give the protection of the 1906 Act to any group.
There is also the question of the 18 months duration before the Minister would give his sanction to a negotiating licence. This should also be looked at because it could in a good many cases be far too long. In regard to the provision of the lump sum to be laid down this could hold up amalgamation of small unions because in the first place the amalgamation might not give the required number of members or then financial assistance might be required in the case of two very small unions and in such cases the legislation should facilitate the small unions to amalgamate. As the Bill stands, there is nothing in it to facilitate the procedure of amalgamation.
Again, on the section which deals with the picketing of a private residence of an employer this section will help the bad employer. The good employer will go as far as he possibly can to try to avoid a strike. He will do everything he possibly can to avoid a strike and if the strike takes place he will not act in any way to prolong it. He will cooperate in every way possible but there is the bad employer who goes off to his private house, tries to do his business there and if he is in some kind of distributive trade he will try to bring a part of his business to his home and by doing so will prolong the dispute. This makes it more difficult to end the strike. This particular section says that unless there is proof that this is going on nothing can be done. If there is proof that this is going on the union can picket the place but if there is no proof which will stand up in a court they cannot picket. The bad employer will not provide proof to his workers who are on strike. He will do this type of thing in a very hidden way and it will be impossible for the union to get the necessary proof. They will not know it is going on and it will, therefore, be impossible for them to get the proof. Any section of the Bill which gives that type of extended protection to the bad employer, who is anti-union and wants to beat the strikes, should be amended. That person should not be given further protection under this Bill. That is the position under this particular section. An employer who is in dispute with his workers should not be permitted to fight out the dispute, to try to break the morale of the workers, to go to his own place of residence, to do his business on the phone and to do his business in a way that it would not be possible to get proof of it. He could carry on working and the workers in dispute could not picket this place.
I should like the Minister to have a look at that because, as I read it anyway, the section would not permit the picket of an employer's residence if he was not doing any business from that residence. While the workers may know that an employer is, in fact, carrying on business at his residence, they could not prove it in court or at least it might be very difficult for them to prove it. Perhaps, on Committee Stage, we can have another look at and a full debate on sections like that because these things need to be examined fully. In this legislation, the intention should be to help the good employer and the good trade unionist to solve their differences and to reach agreements quickly. There should be nothing in these Bills which would help in any way the bad employer or, indeed, the bad trade unionist.
As the Trade Union Bill stands at the moment, it comes down on the side of the bad employer as, in fact, most legislation up to now has done. However, I am not saying that this has been intentional because the intention of everyone in this House is to help those who are genuinely trying to create good relations as between employers and employees.
I have just a few remarks to make regarding the Industrial Relations Bill. I believe that the Labour Court should be extended even more or that there should at least be power in the Bill for the Minister to extend it further. I say this because there is a feeling among people down the country that the Labour Court is a place on which Dublin workers have first call. It has been the experience of trade unions in country areas that cases which arose subsequent to theirs were heard in the Labour Court before theirs. Therefore, I believe that the extension of the Labour Court could be expedited and that even further extension should be provided for.
One thing, though, which must be guarded against is a tendency among certain employers to have a very casual approach to negotiations with the unions on the basis that if they get into difficulties they will refer the problem to the Labour Court where it will be solved. I am not saying that that happens very often but I have on occasions come across this type of casual approach.
I do not think that the Labour Court should provide a national personnel service for people who are careless or indifferent and who do not take steps to provide this service for themselves. There is a problem here because, on the one hand, the Labour Court cannot ignore any appeal made to it for help but, on the other hand, there are people who will not get down to the problem of solving their own difficulties. Something should be done to prevent the spread of this type of attitude. I suppose that it is due to the very good service that the conciliation officers of the Labour Court have given to Irish industry during the past number of years. It is only natural, when any organisation gives good service, as they have done, that they will be called upon more and more as time goes on.
On the other side of the coin, there are people who will not co-operate and who will not attend meetings with conciliation officers. This does not arise very often but there are cases when there are point blank refusals to attend conciliation conferences by one side or the other. However, I am glad to say that that practice is not widespread.
I should like to place on record the appreciation of numerous employers and trade unions of the tremendous amount of work that is being done and has been done by the conciliation officers. On Committee Stage, I will deal further with the sections that I have mentioned. I ask the Minister in the meantime to consider withdrawing the Trade Union Bill, at least for the present time, in order to have further consultations with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions because, as the Minister has said, there is only one type of legislation that is any good in this field of activity and that is legislation which has been agreed on by all sides. The Trade Union Bill gives rise to too many doubts, to too many ambiguous situations and if it goes through it might place the solving of our industrial strifes not in the Labour Court but, perhaps, in the High Court or the Supreme Court.
We come to discuss this dual legislation on our industrial relations in this country at a time when everybody is horrified by the degree of industrial strife and the nature and the duration of the present dispute which involves directly very few but which at times has involved as many as 35,000 workers and at the moment involves as many as 25,000. To that must be added the loss of profits, the loss of growth in our industrial effort, referred to by the Taoiseach yesterday—losses that cannot be made up. It is like being short of sleep. It has been said it is not the number of hours of sleep you lost that affects you but the number you were on your feet.
It is the same in this industrial dispute. No matter how hard we may try, we cannot make up the goods that have not been processed during the past five weeks. It is sad, therefore, that we have to address ourselves to this legislation, which has been on the Statute Book during the past two years, in the circumstances. When it was first produced in its original form, in a statement of intent by the Minister, it was rejected by the ICTU. The debate here has gone on many hours and the dispute has continued for five years, and the ICTU have again rejected this legislation. The first thing the ICTU, the FUE and legislators must realise is that there is need for some form of legislation of this kind— that there is a necessity for change, for guidelines to be laid down and for better methods of conciliation.
This debate has been widened partly because it is more or less a cross between a debate on the joint Estimates for Industry and Commerce and Labour and on the Second Stages of these Bills. While we are discussing these things in general, we have on our hands a dispute situation which shows no signs of ending, and the introduction of this legislation at this time is obvious evidence that there must be some change.
I appreciate the long months the Minister has waited, the long time he has spent trying to get agreement from both sides in industry. It was forthcoming from the employers' side but not from the ICTU. Deputy Briscoe said his voice would not make much difference to heads of unions, to the great number of unions involved. My voice will not be any more effective but I add it to others to say that there should be an end to this impasse and that there should be some form of legislation accepted in this field.
Deputy Pattison dealt with the proposed Committee Stage of the Bill and he said it would be most interesting to him from the point of view of putting down amendments. When we are on Committee Stage the Minister should accept amendments for the improvement of the legislation. We may come from either side of the House, from any social stratum, but if we are to address ourselves properly to this legislation we must agree there should be amendments. I am sure that in the drafting of the legislation there could have been ten different ways of doing what the Minister desires to do. If that is so, accordingly there is room for amendment.
My plea to the ICTU now is that they should remove their objection to the Bill, and I ask the Minister to indicate, when he is replying to this Stage, that he is prepared to accept reasoned amendments during Committee Stage. That is the only basis on which this legislation will bring good to the people of the country.
I must, however, advert to a feature of life in this country which has been spoken about here by the Leader of my Party, Deputy Cosgrave, and which must come in whole or in part into discussion here. It is the matter of a prices and incomes policy. If Mrs. Barbara Castle, a Labour Party Minister for Labour in Britain, can stand up and say what in her view and the views of her advisers should be the percentage increase in money incomes which the British people can allow themselves without harming the economy, our Minister for Labour or any judicial body he might desire to set up, could come forward and say: "If you want to get a real increase in prosperity, in your standard of living, the best increase in money incomes you should take in this economy in this year should be X, Y or Z."
We could then enter into discussion about what the lower paid worker needs by way of income improvement in relation to other incomes. There could then be union argument anywhere you want to discuss it. However, we need the Minister or some judicial body to tell us what we can afford. Unfortunately, the pattern during the past number of years has been the exact opposite. There have been occasions when the Government have been extremely irresponsible, extremely at fault. The first occasion that comes to mind was that on which Deputies' and Senators' salaries had to be increased. Of course, this should have been done during the years by measured amounts as they were required. They were required but what happened is that during the years there had been so many elections—by-elections, a Presidential election, referenda and general elections—that no increase was given to Deputies or Senators. When it came to be given it was so large that it indicated to trade unions that the proper thing for them to do was to go as high as they could in their demands. That is what has happened in the present dispute.
The Government in this respect have been politically-minded in their approach to Deputies' and Senators' salaries. I do not regard the present rates as being a bit too high but I regard the manner of their award as being wrong. At this stage I wish to throw my mind back. Before I do so I want to discuss something that was emerging until about six or nine months ago and which was a good development. I refer to the contract of service system and the fact that the Labour Court and joint labour committee—I served on one as did Deputy O'Leary and many others—were working over a wide spectrum of industry towards a system whereby you would have two-year contracts of service. A typical one, on a joint Labour Committee on which I served, was 17s 6d on 4th of last April, a further 17s 6d on the anniversary date, two extra days holidays this year, three days extra next year to bring the employee to three weeks holidays; two and a half hours reduction in working hours, in two slices of one and a quarter hours each, in return for which there was a productivity agreement whereby workers agreed that they would co-operate with management in getting greater productivity within the particular industry. This is the sort of thing we want, the sort of arrangement that must come and which would have seen to it that there would not have been a maintenance strike that would put 35,000 people out of employment.
What is the record of the Government in this regard? When there was a spate of by-elections pending, Deputy Lemass, whether as Taoiseach or Minister for Industry and Commerce—I forget which—indicated that the proper increase to be given to the Civil Service, local government, semi-State companies, State bodies and so on, was 12 per cent for two and a half years. This was right before two by-elections. The workers got 12 per cent. It was wonderful that Saturday night but they forgot about the lengthy time involved. In this—and I say it deliberately— dirty political way the good labour relations that should have been cemented by a responsible Government were thrown away. I do not want to advert to the former dereliction of duty. I challenge the Minister to tell me that I am wrong. Over a wide area of industry these contracts of service to which I have referred were coming into being and could have stopped this dreadful industrial holocaust that we have at present.
In the Civil Service and semi-State companies the position was that prior to the referendum on 16th October last the Department of Finance had instructed all those semi-State companies and the Civil Service negotiating bodies that there was to be a two-year contract of service agreement, that the maximum increase for the period should be 11 per cent and that it was to be no more than 7 per cent in the first year and 4 per cent in the second year. Eight weeks before the referendum they said: "Settle for 9 per cent" and there was no productivity arrangement and no two-year agreement. Now the position is that on 9th June next the whole horrible revolution can start again, not on the basis of a proper income for the civil servant doing his duty by his country, not on the basis of a proper income for the man working as hard as he can in a semi-State company but on the basis that they wanted to win a referendum. Even then they lost it by 267,000 votes. This is why the Minister for Labour found himself over the past two years unable to move from the day when he first produced his intentions in the form of this legislation and before that when he produced them in the form of a type of White Paper which was then rejected by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.
Instead of the work which he could have done in that Ministry in cementing the system of contract of service and in trying to get a proper prices and incomes idea moving, on trying his best to get away from the "hire them and fire them" attitude and the strike attitude, there was the political government of which he was a member seeing to it very efficiently, from a political point of view until the referendum, that every wage increase, every movement in the advancement of workers would be prostituted for the advancement of the Fianna Fáil Party. I am not exaggerating when I state these truths, when I talk about the 12 per cent. It is all very well for Deputy Briscoe to make a highly responsible speech here but you cannot make that sort of speech and sit on those benches and speak in the same vein as those who have other ideas.
We must also remember the Kildare and Cork by-elections. Where is the biggest population of Army people? In Kildare. Who got an increase six days before the Cork by-election? Has this any relation to a proper approach to incomes for workers? These are things the Government should be reminded of and I have every intention of doing so.
The perfect situation for this country, although my words may be twisted and I may be criticised for saying this, would be if we had slightly lower money incomes than Britain but a better purchasing power because if that situation existed we would have a better standard of living and our exports would be cheaper. But because of the dog-eat-dog philosophy, about which the Government have done nothing for their own political purposes, we have a situation in which it will not be very long—if it is not already here—before we have a lower standard of living than Britain with higher money incomes. If that occurs, our exports are gone and our workers' jobs gone. This is something that must be diligently guarded against.
There is a necessity, whether or not we like it, for legislating to curb the activities of trade unions remembering at the same time it is very difficult to do it, because if a trade unionist is put in jail for breaking the law in relation to trade unionism, as far as he is concerned, this carries no stigma. You can lock up a man for incorrect picketing but it is not like locking me up if I robbed money from the Minister's pocket. If I was convicted of that crime my greatest punishment would be my conviction which would mean that my status in society had been taken away and I should be a convicted thief. If the trade unionist, in pursuance of a strike, crosses the law and is sent to jail he comes out as a hero and so long as he moves in the same society as that in which he works he remains a hero and the punishment is merely the punishment of being locked up for whatever period he was in jail. There is no stigma. We proved that in the case of the NFA. No man who was a member of the NFA and was incarcerated in Mountjoy is regarded in his own society as a convicted person but rather as a hero. We can legislate all we like and impose penalties and fines but when we have done it the power to make the worker follow the law is not there.
My plea, therefore, is that there should be a committee Stage to the Bill in which reasonable amendments would be debated, coming from the Labour Party which naturally would be supremely interested, from my Party and from Fianna Fáil. If after a proper debate the House found that there had been produced by amendment a better section than the section at first produced by the Minister, the Minister should accept those amendments. That is the way the Minister should approach the Bill. Any other way, any forcing of legislation through the House would create a situation which might make our second position considerably worse than our first. We must legislate, as we have been doing here, against the proliferation of small unions. The decent worker will not pass a picket. If he argued the whole thing out logically and thought about his wife and family suffering privation at home he probably would decide to pass the picket, but his automatic reaction is not to pass. In such a situation you cannot have proliferation of small unions where a few people—the present dispute is a classic example—can stop a whole factory from employing workers and carrying on with production. Even thinking about that is useless because it just does not work. At the same time I can see a certain strength in small unions.
I remember the late Mr. Feeley, Lord rest him, who was the head of the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers' Association, maintaining that his strength lay in the fact that he represented only one section of agricultural production and could completely and absolutely disregard the other sections of agricultural production. His strength lay in the fact that he could press home his point with regard to milk whereas other organisations had a broader spectrum to cover and therefore their strength was diversified whereas his was concentrated.
It is possible that maintenance men could have been done without for quite a time but when the thousands of other workers refused to pass the picket, the strength of the maintenance men was multiplied a thousandfold. To me, that appears to be wrong. Not passing the picket is, in my opinion, a little bit like not telling at school; it has the same sort of aura. We are all adults but, if there is a dispute with maintenance men and, at the same time, a contract of service with other workers who do not come into work, where are we? The contract of service is gone. Everything is gone and one is in the horrible position of having the strikers outside one's gate. If we can get a proper approach by the Government to incomes and percentage increases in broad perspective, together with an acceptance of the fact that the lower-paid workers must naturally enjoy a greater percentage increase than the general, and if we can avoid taking up positions from which we refuse to budge, then maybe the best thing that ever happened is this present nearchaotic position in industry because it may result in an approach to these two Bills which will ensure better legislation when they leave this House, legislation designed to obviate the sort of situation in which we now find ourselves with a maintenance strike involving thousands of workers who are not themselves directly on strike.
Deputy Moore said last week that if the increase in Deputies' allowances was responsible for the present unrest then we should examine our consciences. Deputy Donegan stated just now that the Government stand condemned because of these increases and he accused the Government Party of indulging in dirty politics. Surely, if Deputy Donegan examines his conscience and reflects on the statement he made, he must realise that he, too, is indulging in dirty politics. I merely mention this to keep the record right because statements like that are inclined to reflect on the accused if they are not answered. If statements like this are repeated often enough the day may come when people will believe they are true.
The increase in Deputies' allowances came about through the medium of an all-Party agreement. When the matter came before the House the Leader of the Fine Gael Party spoke on behalf of his Party and the Leader of the Labour Party spoke on behalf of the Labour Party. The Minister for Finance spoke on behalf of the Government and the Fianna Fáil Party. The matter was agreed. Let us not be under any delusion as to the Government being solely responsible for this increase in our allowances. The merits or demerits of the actual increase is another question. Perhaps we can deal with it at another point in time. I would remind Deputy Donegan and any who may be tempted to follow his line of argument that no objection was voiced by anyone to this increase. I certainly did not hear Deputy Donegan's protest. It is essential that this should be said. It is imperative it should be put on the records of the House in order to disabuse the public mind of the idea that the Government are solely responsible for the increase in the Deputies' allowances.
Deputy Donegan might give back the increase now.
I have no desire to be personal at the expense of any Member of this House, least of all Deputy Donegan. I merely want to keep the record straight. Deputy Briscoe said earlier today that his voice will not make the least impression on the present chaotic situation confronting the country. I frankly do not think that what I will say will make any impression either one way or the other. However, we have a responsibility to express our point of view. We have been debating these two measures for a few days now and, if anything, during those few days the industrial situation has worsened. What we have said to date, therefore, does not appear to have made any impression on the present industrial chaos.
The Government have indicated that they have a clear duty in the field of industrial relations; that duty is to guard with special zeal the position of the weak and underpaid worker. Later I shall give an example of what I mean by the underpaid worker. If both sides are equal then, like the figure of Justice, we must hold the scales evenly between the two sides. Our Party is dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal and, in the words of the American Declaration of Independence, they are entitled to life, liberty and the pusuit of happiness. When I say "men" I include women also. It has been suggested that the Minister has introduced these Bills in precipitate fashion. He has indicated that it took him a number of years to bring these two Bills before the House and in those number of years he was engaged in working out what we now have before us: the Industrial Relations Bill and the Trade Union Bill.
People have suggested that the Minister has been doing nothing. This is the Minister's idea: this idea of co-operation, of bringing people together to discuss the various problems involved. These two Bills have arisen out of those years of discussions. So, there is no question but that the Minister has encouraged the trade unions on the one hand and the employers on the other to put their point of view. Let us disabuse our minds of any suggestion that these two Bills are creatures of the Minister's own hand. They are not. They arise out of consultation, as I say, between employers and employees.
Again, certain of our newspaper correspondents and newspaper commentators have suggested that the Minister should do something about the present impasse. We all agree that something should be done about it, but has anyone given us any lead as to how the Minister can on his own interfere with the present situation? What is he to do? The alternative was open to him to introduce stronger legislation. As you know, Sir, it is unfashionable nowadays to use the word "strong". Politicians, particularly, who use the word "strong" are sometimes misinterpreted.
What sanctions should be contained in the legislation which these commentators suggest the Minister should bring in? If agreements break down, are people to be sent to gaol? Is that the ultimate sanction? We on this side of the House say it is not and should not be the ultimate sanction. So, what is the Minister to do? Will the people who say these Bills are not satisfactory please give us an alternative? That is what they want.
In that regard may I refer to a statement made by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, with great respect to that body? I am sure they are sincere and dedicated men in the interests of their own, and fair enough. They have suggested that the Minister should withdraw the Trade Union Bill. I want to ask the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, again with the greatest respect, if the Minister were to withdraw the Trade Union Bill, can they give us an alternative to it? Can they propose an alternative suggestion to the House?
We want to get a formula for the improvement of industrial relations. The withdrawal of this Bill would achieve nothing. Will those who suggest we should withdraw it please give us an alternative to it? Better still, could the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, through the Labour Party or through any Member of the House, suggest amendments to this Trade Union Bill? Surely, it is not all bad? Surely it is not all repressive, as they say? There is no use in saying: "Withdraw the Bill" without suggesting some alternative. If they feel very strongly about the Trade Union Bill let us have amendments. Do not pretend, because the Labour Party shout long enough about their allegiance to the trade union movement, that other Deputies in other Parties are not also associated with trade unions and not equally interested in the worker. We are all rightly interested in the worker. Basically, we are all workers. Is not that the truth of the matter? I think the word "worker" is a misnomer in its present-day context. With great respect, the Taoiseach is a worker, and the Minister for Labour is a worker. The man who wields the brush on the trade union floor is a worker.
I am working on these letters.
Fair play to the Deputy and his constituents would not have it any other way. That is what I suggest to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Let them produce an alternative, or else, amendments to the Trade Union Bill as proposed by the Minister arising, let us remember all the time, out of consultations with the trade unions. I do not want to be abrasive about the Labour Party. This matter is too important for us to indulge in catch cries. I do not want to offend the Labour Party but what I say, I say with conviction.
The Deputy is getting good at it. As he goes along he will get used to abusing the Labour Party.
They are always calling for dialogue—another fashionable word—concensus politics, and all the cliches. The Labour Party have produced their new document containing a section dealing with industrial democracy. Some time ago I was asked by the industrial correspondent of the Sunday Press to comment on it. This was immediately after the document appeared. Having studied it very carefully I suggested that it was utopian and, having examined it subsequently, my opinion has not changed. I asked my clubs and cumann in Dún Laoghaire to help me—we believe in this sort of politics—and they came up with the same answer, that this document is full of slogans, full of piety, full of headlines but has no depth. It seems to say: “Wait, chaps, this is only the beginning. There is more to come.” I say to the Labour Party: “Do not give us any more, please. We have had enough.” We have had enough of their industrial democracy and what they think of industrial democracy. Unfortunately, I did not bring the document in with me. I have a number of copies. It is important that I should have a number of copies so that we will know what we are speaking about when we come to talk about it.
When he was speaking in this House Deputy O'Leary gave the impression that we must not criticise this document, that it was brought in with the best of intentions. I am sure it was but, as a politician belonging to a different political Party, I am entitled to give my point of view on it. That is what I have done and that I hope is what I am doing now. I hope to do so in the future also, perhaps in more depth, because I do not think this is the place to discuss the Labour Party document on industrial democracy. With respect, Sir, I can see that you are becoming restless at this point.
We have also held certain rights of the workers to be self-evident. The difference between us and the Labour Party is that we have recognised those rights; they have now become operative. We recognised the right to compensation for injury at work, the right to unemployment, sickness and other welfare benefits—all introduced by this Party—and the right to efficient health services, legislation in respect of which will be coming to the House shortly, we hope. Recently we had legislation dealing with redundancy payments in the case of workers thrown out of work. These are all matters which we recognised and brought into operation on behalf of workers.
The Redundancy Payments Act was a tremendous piece of social legislation which, in my opinion, did not get the praise it deserved. Maybe that was because Fianna Fáil were in the valley period of their political popularity and people were not prepared to admit the truth. This Act should be and will be recognised in the future as a really magnificent piece of founding legislation. It is a beginning. It is an extension of the thinking which influenced this Party. It is there in black and white and it is working on behalf of the workers. As I say, it is founding legislation.
We must go further and strive for three things in particular, that is, first, that there shall be a minimum wage law; secondly, that men and women be paid on an equal pay for equal work basis—this arises out of an International Labour Organisation conference in 1962: these are matters we believe in and hope to see implemented; and, thirdly, that no man shall be sacked on the spot under any circumstances and that we should strive progressively towards a system whereby workers will always be given fair notice when their services are no longer required. Undoubtedly, we need to improve the status of our trade unions. We took over from the British the Trades Disputes Act, 1906, which was conceived out of the cauldron of the class war in Britain. At some time in the near future we should have a look at that Act in the context of this country.
I was a member of a trade union at one time: I am no longer a member of a trade union. I often wonder what the real link is between the British unions and some of our unions here. Could we not have completely autonomous Irish unions? One suspects, in some instances, that the British unions make decisions from London which are applied here. Deputy Dillon may have dealt more forcefully with this point. These are matters which can be the subject of some future discussion but they can also be related to the present industrial unrest. I do not decry everything British but we are people separate from the British which is as I should like it to be although still trading in the usual manner, of course. It is desirable, however, that we should have autonomous Irish unions in this country, operating from Dublin, Cork, Galway, Limerick or elsewhere.
This debate has dealt specifically with unions. That is all very fashionable: maybe a lot of people are criticising unions. However, we must look at the Federated Union of Employers and see what they are doing for the worker, the person who is helping to put the profits in their pockets. I do not suggest, of course, that there is anything evil about the profit motive, because, without it, there would be no work. I believe that the concept of professionalism in industrial relations should become pre-eminent and that employers should recognise this fact. Are there personnel departments in many of our large and not so large industries? We should look into these matters. Without personnel departments and a decent, educated person who knows how to deal with employees, there is a breakdown in communications straight away.
I strongly urge the Minister to recommend the Federated Union of Employers to have a look at the very nub of industrial relations, the shop floor, because, if you have a decent personnel department or a decent personnel manager there, you can stop many a problem at the very source and it would do away with the very office the Minister suggested in his Bill: however, I do not want to go into that at this particular point of time. Many firms are just bumping along from crisis to crisis. They are not, as it were, projecting their future. This comes down to professionalism. There is nothing wrong in the industrial relations field: we have so many professionals round about nowadays that an additional profession would be no harm at all. From the point of view of the country, this is a very important profession.
If we have personnel departments, let them properly be staffed with people who know about human relations and can break down a problem and follow it and bring it to a conclusion to the satisfaction of both parties. This is what the expression "human relations" is all about. Indeed, in many areas in this country at the moment, if we had more humanity—"evolution" rather than "revolution" in industrial relations—it would be all the better for the community. At this point in our history it would indeed be well if the Federated Union of Employers would recognise that such an approach would be beneficial for the community as a whole.
In how many firms are the conditions of workers good? How many firms have proper wash places for the workers, male and female respectively? It is all part of the scheme of human relations and of the dignity of a man or of a woman that they have a proper place in which to clean themselves. Some time ago, I was down the country and came back at 7.30 one morning. At Dún Laoghaire I saw workers going to work in indescribable clothes and, the same evening, I saw them returning from work and they were absolutely filthy. We must talk about this sort of thing and we must solve any problems connected with it. To continue bumping along in a crazy fashion achieves nothing and does nothing to promote the confidence of the employee or worker. Again, this is a matter for the Federated Union of Employers. With the greatest respect to them, I do not believe they are all they are built up to be or, indeed, that they are what they should be.
When talking about the trade unions and the Federated Union of Employers, we should get the situation into perspective. I have already mentioned the importance of the shop floor. If workers could develop the single channel system of representation—this idea is enshrined in the Bill, the idea of a group negotiation licence—and if we could have it accepted by the House, I believe it would achieve much more than a system of having 20 or 30 unions going all over the place and having 20 or 30 conferences. Surely it is not unreasonable to ask that such a system be adopted, namely, that if there are ten unions on the shop floor they would come together and send up one representative who would be inter-union, as it were. It is not reasonable for "X" to think that, if "Y" is the representative, then "X" and others will be done down and therefore "X" want their own representative to go to the employer. It is desirable that it should be recognised that inter-union representation is the only answer to a multiplicity of unions. The group negotiation licence might be the answer which can bring about single-channel representation where there would be a unified, robust representation by the unions in their own interests and in the interests of the workers, in particular.
One gets time to read now and then. It is indeed instructive to read about rights of property which, again, is related to the worker. Consider the position of a worker who has worked 40 years for a company. When he retires, he has no ownership in relation to that company. On the other hand, a man comes along one day and purchases a number of shares in the same company. As a shareholder, he has more rights in that company than the worker has having worked 40 years in it. This is a situation which has given rise to unease among workers and rightly so.
The final point in this particular matter I am bringing out is that we should in some way affirm the significance of the employee's place in the firm. This is self-evident. It does not really need to be explained at any great length. We hear about the employee being a cog in the wheel. This, of course, is a euphemism for a non-being on a shop floor. This, again, comes back to the question of human relations. Do we believe in the dignity of man or do we believe in the dignity of woman? It would be a good thing for an employer to say: "Good morning" or, as my colleague Deputy Briscoe said, to offer a "jar" as I know some employers do to their employees. I know this cannot be done in a concern like CIE because there are too many workers there but this would be a thing for personnel departments if they had their heads screwed on. I know of two factories where they do not believe in this business of discussion, this "Good morning" idea or first name terms.
"Fratting" is the word.
I am not sure. The Deputy could be leading me astray but I will accept that with reservations. This is very important and it is such an easy matter for both sides to bring about this situation.
I should like to have adopted as a general rule what was said by the Fogarty Commission which inquired into relations in the ESB. At page 19 of this Commission's report it is set down as a general principle that:
Just as employees have an interest in effective and dynamic management...so the Board as well as its staff has a clear interest in helping the development of powerful and effective unions, able and seen by employees to be able to fight employees' battles for them.
I do not know what the Minister thinks of Professor Fogarty. Certainly, I had the pleasure of listening to him some time ago at a symposium organised by Comhchomhairle Átha Cliath at which he and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs were on the same platform. Apart from the Minister's speech, I was singularly impressed by what Professor Fogarty said. I studied this Commission's Report at some length and it is all based on reason.
Our present society does not seem to recognise that reason is the panacea for many of the ills afflicting us at this point in time. Reason seems to have gone out the door. Professor Fogarty had many reasonable things to say that evening, that very instructive and educative evening, as, indeed, the other members on the platform had interesting things to say, not that I agree with everything they all said but I was singularly impressed by the points the professor made.
To sum up, I would hope that we could reach a stage of (a) increasing the rights and status of workers, (b) improving the status of unions and (c) as a long-term prospect, having agreements made which would have legal force and would be enforceable before the Labour Court. This is a matter which the Minister cannot deal with in this Bill because apparently at this stage it is not acceptable to the people with whom he discussed these matters. We hear so much about going to the Labour Court. I refer particularly to my last point, this idea of giving agreements which come before the Labour Court legal force and making them enforceable by this court. You go along to the Labour Court at the moment, get a decision and either side can break it. What is the point? The Labour Court has done and is doing magnificent work but I hope at some future time the Minister can give Labour Court decisions finality. There is no use introducing legislation that will send people to jail. Maybe in future the Minister would introduce financial sanctions. That would appear to be the only answer, to give the Labour Court this legal status I have been speaking about.
I said I would give an example of what actually happens during a strike and the effect that strikes have on a family. On Sunday last I had down with me in my bureau in Dún Laoghaire a member of a union. He came to me and outlined the fact that he was a father with five children, that he was paying £3 13s 4d for a flat in Dún Laoghaire, that his union is paying him a fiver a week and that the Social Welfare Department do not see fit to give him unemployment benefit. This man is not involved in the strike as such. He wants to go to work but he is being kept out of work by the maintenance men. If you want to know about inter-union rivalry this man would tell you all about it. You have the mother of those five children getting a fiver a week and you have some landlady, a Christian lady, pressing that family for an increase in rent. If this is what strikes are all about, God help Ireland and God help that landlady who is pressing that worker for increases in rent at this time. That is an example of the hardship caused by strikes to people who are not even involved in the strikes, who have nothing whatever to do with them, who are anxious to go back to work in the morning. I would sincerely ask the Minister for Labour to try to come to some agreement in the future so that certain people who are not responsible for strikes, not involved directly in them but who are out of work as a result of them will receive some sort of social welfare payment.
You would have double the number of strikes.
I do not agree. If you saw this person coming to me on Sunday morning——
Do not mind what the little capitalist behind you says. I am not talking about Deputy Dowling.
That is the strength of the Fianna Fáil Party. We have all this inter-argument through which we arrive at a consensus. This is the sort of problem that arises out of the strike. This is one example of what is happening. I wonder how many other people are involved——
Hundreds.
——people who are not directly responsible for the strike at all and who would be willing to go to work in the morning? This man gets a fiver from his union. Fair enough. The union is giving him money—which is more than can be said for the State— but it is not enough. If his wage is from £15 to £20 a week, he has gone into debt in the past four weeks to keep his wife and family alive, and it will take him a year or 18 months to get out of debt.
Debate adjourned.