Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 4 Mar 1969

Vol. 238 No. 14

Private Members' Business. - Trade Union Bill, 1966: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

Mr. Andrews

Before the Adjournment I was dealing with the effect of a strike on a worker who has no say in the original decision to take strike action. Through no fault of his own he is prevented from attending his place of employment by the erection of pickets. I referred to a discussion I had on Sunday morning with a number of trade unionists and to the position of one man who is paid £5 a week by his own trade union, who is paying over £3 a week for his flat, who has a wife and five children, and whose landlady was pressing him to pay increased rent. I have already expressed my view of the landlady concerned. I asked that the social welfare benefit be made available to a man in that position. It has come to my knowledge that he can apply for public assistance, but the person I have in mind has never been out of work before and would find it very difficult to bring himself to go to the public assistance officer for help. He is prepared to put himself into debt for a number of years ahead rather than suffer the indignity as he said, of going to the public assistance officer. This man has asked me specifically to express the point of view that some social welfare benefits should be payable. However, this is not altogether feasible inasmuch as many other people, taxpayers, who would have absolutely nothing to do with the strike would be paying him.

I suggest—I think it is an original suggestion—that the union putting up the picket should have the responsibility of compensating the workers who did not have an opportunity of voting on the original strike action. A number of these unions, particularly the British-based unions, are very wealthy. He cannot get social welfare benefit or public assistance or, as in the case of my constituent, the latter is unacceptable to him. There is another point, that the trade unionist might not be in benefit with his union and if he does not get some benefit or compensation, he must live on fresh air or the goodwill of his friends. My constituent is living on £5 a week and on the goodwill of his friends and will have to repay all the money he borrows from them. I would urge the Minister that a union should be made pay compensation in the circumstances I have outlined.

The second point of view put to me does not relate to a strike; it relates to this fashionable word "rationalisation" which, as this worker felt, is a euphemism for redundancy. In his Christmas pay packet from his firm he received notice that the factory intends closing down in five years' time. This, of course, is what a happy Christmas is all about apparently in the view of some employers. This man lives in Dún Laoghaire and the factory is to be re-located over 15 miles away. It intends to rationalise its whole operation in one area. Fair enough, but this worker is a specialist who has been working in that firm all his life. As he said, it is not reasonable to expect him, on a salary of £15 or even £20 a week, to spend a lot of money on bus fares, which are very high at the present time. This man is unemployable in his own locality in the sense that he is a specialist with his firm; there is no similar type of employment for him locally when his firm rationalises.

I undertook to those two men and to a number of others, but particularly to those two, that I would express their point of view in this House. I expect this is what representation is all about. I have fulfilled my obligation to them. However, talk is one thing; work and payment of subsistence allowances to people who are on strike through no fault of their own is another thing. I would urge the Minister for Labour to take a look at these two cases which I have put before him when this whole strike has been concluded.

If a worker has not security it is very difficult for him to talk of productivity, to increase productivity for the good of his country. Basically life comes down to the family unit and the obligation of a man to his wife and children or parents-in-law—who in one instance I know of are living with the family. Out of that security evolves. One has the duty to do the best for one's country but, as this man said, it is very difficult to be patriotic without security. I frankly told this man that I could not give him an answer to that problem.

In the context of the present strike it has already been suggested by a number of speakers that we should have a cooling off period similar to that applicable in the United States. This is a good idea, but, again, it is a matter possibly for future legislation as it is not acceptable to the trade unions at this time, arising out of the prolonged discussions they have had with the Minister for Labour. The matter should be given some thought in future legislation.

Coming specifically to the Bill before us, the Leader of the main Opposition Party, Deputy Cosgrave, made the point that there should be an all-Party Committee of this House set up to discuss the present industrial situation and generally the whole concept of industrial relations. As I say, this is a matter which I think is being discussed responsibly and reasonably. I always feel that the best place to discuss matters is in this House. I am a firm believer in the committee type discussion, again relating to the Senate in the United States of America, but this is too important an issue to discuss behind closed doors. I would respectfully disagree with the Leader of the main Opposition on this matter. This is a matter of public concern and should be discussed in public. If Dáil Éireann is not the place to discuss it, where else?

The Minister provides in his Bill the concept of secret ballots. It amazes me at present that there are trade unions and other types of organisations which express their decisions by a show of hands. This is an anachronism and could be subject to great abuse if there are a couple of very strong personalities and a number of weak personalities voting on the same issue. In such a case you would have the strong personalities looking down the body of the hall at some of the weaker individuals and the weaker individuals would not be prepared to show how they felt and even if their opinions were contrary to those of the stronger personalities they would vote with the stronger personalities. Therefore, the secret ballot must be welcomed. Anything else is completely out of date. In industrial organisations or any other organisations, the proper way to vote in a democracy is through the ballot box.

The group negotiations licence must be welcomed. I have already mentioned it. I called it the single channel representation. You could have a large number of people on a public floor all rushing to talk on one issue. The question of industrial relations officers was also mentioned. I know that the conciliation officers have worked very hard in the past and I have no doubt that, whether they are called by a new name or otherwise, they will work very hard in the future. Again, with respect to those hardworking individuals, I would ask the Minister when appointing new officers to consider—I do not know whether the present officers have such qualifications or not—that they should have some basic knowledge, some degree or diploma or some training in sociology and psychology. This is very important in the field of human relations, a field in which there appears to be a breakdown at the moment. It is very important that those people should have the basic knowledge as to how to deal with both sides if there should be a breakdown in trivial matters and with statements from one side or the other that do not result in decisions being reached. This is a waste of time and money from the point of view of the individuals concerned. This is a point I would ask the Minister to keep in mind when he is making appointments in future. I intend no reflection on the men who have acted as conciliation officers.

With regard to the question of the amalgamation of unions I believe the unions would welcome this. Again, it is a question of who is the chief. If there are three or four unions going to amalgamate the House can appreciate that this is a human matter, and it is a question of who is to be the head of those three or four unions. A, B or C may be the president at the moment. Who of A, B or C is to become head of those three unions when they amalgamate? This is a very human thing and I can appreciate it. Rather than abusing A, B or C, they could be encouraged to appoint their head and should amalgamate under the one head. I am not one of those who are wont to be jealous. If a man is successful, good luck to him. I do not profess to be a psychologist but I know this is a matter which could cause jealousy when unions are amalgamating.

Basically, strikes are not caused by issues. They take place because of lack of communication. I know that has become a cliché and I am sorry to use it. It expresses exactly what I mean and therefore I use it. Strikes also take place because of paternalism and this comes back to the Federated Union of Employers. It is not the accepted thing that you hit a worker on the head and say: "Go on and do your bit". That may have been accepted in the last century but it is not accepted now. Fear is basically responsible for many strikes. The employer feels that he has more education than the man representing the union and maybe the man representing the union feels, because of lack of education, a bit inferior to somebody he feels is more educated than he is. If an employer gives that impression he deserves in his firm any chaos which comes. This is again a question of human relations. As I said, fear may cause strikes.

I have already discussed the ILO Convention of 1962, on the question of equal pay for equal work and there is just one final point I should like to make in that regard. I refer particularly to the rights of widows. It appears at the moment that a widow receives the pay of a single person but a widower with children is paid the same rate as if he were married, in other words, a widower is given an allowance for a housekeeper but a widow receives no such allowance. This is most unfair to widows and it is a matter which the Minister might consider at some future time.

Finally, one point in regard to the present negotiations. Since the present negotiations are an attempt to negotiate a national agreement, a settlement at high level will be just as bad as if the strike continues. Anybody engaged in industrial relations will be well aware of what I am talking about in that context.

Before concluding, I should like to pay tribute—a tribute from one Dublin family to another—to the late James Larkin for the significance of what he did for the trade union movement in Dublin and in the rest of the country. He was a man of great integrity and he came from a family with a great tradition in the history of this country. His father was a trade unionist at a time when it was very unpopular to be connected with a trade union and young Jim Larkin, as he was known, carried on this tradition. He was an intelligent and worthwhile man and his monument will be the Workers' Union of Ireland and the trade union movement in general.

I should also like to pay tribute to Mr. James Dunne, the President of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. There is a lot to be learned from that man. He, also, is a man of great integrity and a man who says what he thinks. Perhaps, if we had more men of his type in our society today—men who would be willing to express a courageous point of view and who would lay down guidelines as to what sanity is as distinct from insanity—we should be much better off.

I should like, also, to thank the Minister for bringing such legislation before the House. I may have an amendment or two and hope that the Minister will favourably consider these in relation to the Bills before us. The Minister has brought these two Bills before us after long consultations. It is not as if the legislation were drafted in one night at the Minister's desk. The Bills have been brought into the House after long discussions and a lot of hard work by the Minister and his officials.

Mr. Mullen

I certainly cannot compliment the Minister on bringing in these two Bills because, first of all, they are badly timed and, secondly, there are some objectionable features contained in them. What I am saying is very evident if one has regard to what has been said by every Deputy who has spoken up to now. In particular, they made reference to the present maintenance dispute and I am quite sure that many people will be left wondering as to what is contained in these two Bills that could resolve the present dispute.

Even if these Bills had been brought in last year and had been accepted word for word, there is nothing in them that could solve the present dispute. There is no doubt about this and I hold that the Minister, through a certain amount of confusion, has been led astray to some extent. Legislation of this kind should be introduced in a calm atmosphere.

Tributes have been paid to trade union leaders who went before us. Reference has been made to the late Jim Larkin. The tributes that have been paid to Jim Larkin could also be paid to the late Sean Conroy. Both of these men, right up to the time of their deaths, were working hard to improve industrial relations but they did not accept the contents of these two Bills. It is imperative that one looks at things in their proper perspective. It would be very wrong for people to get the impression that these two Bills will ensure that not only will the maintenance strike be settled but that a strike of its kind will never again occur. This is not so. It is important that we understand what is the cause of such disputes as these.

Regarding the Labour Court, we know that they have done a very good job but everybody does not accept this. We know that at times the Labour Court have issued favourable recommendations but that at other times they have issued recommendations that were incomprehensible and would seem to have followed a line laid down by the Taoiseach or the Minister for Finance. On the other hand, the chief conciliation officer of the Labour Court, Mr. Dermot McDermott, is an excellent man. The trouble is that we have not enough Dermot McDermotts and the efforts that have been made to secure more men of his calibre have not been sufficient. There is nothing in this Bill to indicate that any efforts are being made to secure more people of this kind. To change the title of conciliation officer to industrial relations officer is not a good thing to do and, furthermore, in fairness to these conciliation officers, they should be properly equipped for the type of work they do. I agree entirely with what Deputy Andrews said in that regard. I believe that many of our difficulties are due to this inadequacy. In saying that, I am not for one moment decrying the efforts of the existing conciliation officers. I marvel at the progress they have made, having regard to the equipment at their disposal. Theirs is a very important job.

Having regard to the introduction of these Bills in the atmosphere I have described, we cannot be unmindful of one happening last week. We saw a change in so far as the labour relations machinery, arbitration, are concerned in the ESB. Dr. John O'Donovan was replaced as chairman, a position he held for a number of years. The workers did not always agree with him but he kept the ESB out of trouble on many occasions. He made decisions in arbitration which the workers did not always endorse but there were times when the officials did not like it either and Dr. O'Donovan is now paying for the last decision he made. This is purely a matter of having confidence in people and the workers in the ESB resented the action of replacing Dr. O'Donovan because they had learned to appreciate the seriousness of his endeavours. Of course, there will be nothing more about this, though the ESB workers are protesting against it.

Apart from possible defects in the machinery of the Labour Court, it is only right that on an occasion such as this we would try to ascertain the cause of strikes. I say that the root cause of strikes is the inability of our people to make ends meet. The Minister, and others of his Party, during contributions to this debate, referred to the lower-paid workers. Though reference was made to them and to their predicament, there was no indication given that their situation would be relieved. Take, for example, a man with £12 a week living in Ballymun, paying differential rent and having to maintain a fridge because his flat is centrally heated—he has to pay for that, too— and he must keep his food, his butter, and his margarine, mainly, in proper condition. He must get a bus from Ballymun to the centre of the city and very often he has much further to go.

They are the things that inspire workers to seek more money. We hear a lot of talk about productivity but at the same time representations have been made about hardship imposed on people through taxation of overtime. It has been suggested also that such overtime should not be reckoned in respect of differential rents. Representations have been made to give lower-paid workers more social benefits, such as children's allowances. Yet, when the workman indulges in the last resort, the strike, everybody screams about it. At the same time, the people who have some power to control these things, the Government, do not take action about it. They do nothing about price rises.

Deputy Andrews very fairly painted a picture of a man living on strike pay of £5 a week. There have been cases of people who were out of benefit with their unions. In other cases, workers considered that they were not involved in a dispute and they should, of course, have got social welfare benefits but when they sought assistance it was denied. All this is due to Government inaction and workers have the feeling that nothing is being done about their grievances. They are expected to pay for all, to stay mum and not to look for more wages.

I was glad to hear Deputy Andrews make a point about equal pay for equal work. We in Labour have been screaming for this for a long time. So have the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, and the Government have paid some lip-service to it. There was opportunity in this legislation for the Minister to do something about it but he has failed. Perhaps, he will accede to demands for it, particularly to the pleading of Deputy Andrews.

We must pay serious attention to the provision in this legislation about ballot control—the control of the workers' ballots. I agree with the secret ballot but how are we to get the idea across that the secrecy is to be respected in one direction only? The week end before last, we had a secret ballot in the maintenance dispute but it had been scarcely held by the workers when the press, radio and television were on to it. On the 8 o'clock news on the Saturday morning the Radio Éireann newsreader indicated that the proposals would be turned down: he had information, despite the fact that many of the workers were still balloting throughout the country and that the result would not be made known until the following Monday. Then, there was the heading in the Sunday Press which went something like “Picture Looks Rosy”. We suggest that the workers should indulge in secrecy. What about this interference——

Mr. M. O'Leary

And influence.

Mr. Mullen

——and influence? This kind of thing happens in the news columns of newspapers and the leading articles castigate the unions on the management of their affairs. Who is codding whom? What control will be exercised on the way in which the employers make up their minds? Who will supervise their way of voting? We acknowledge that the FUE are a trade union and that the Minister is not spelling out the names of the unions in this legislation. I hope that when the opportunity is presented to him by way of amendment he will ensure that this is not one-sided legislation—that if it becomes illegal for workers to take certain action, as it is now, despite the promises given by the Minister to the ICTU, there will be action taken also to deal with employers who conspire to extend the dispute.

We have had an abundance of evidence of this in the maintenance dispute. Cement Limited was one case. They were not affected but they dismissed a number of craftsmen. There was a decision by four establishment men to picket and the company decided to lock out the others though they were not involved. Surely this is one-sided and I should welcome an assurance by the Minister that he will ensure this kind of thing will not be allowed to continue—that employers will not be allowed to conspire to continue a strike just because they have a right to do so. They say they have a right to stand by their fellow trade unionists. This is one-sided trade unionism and it is time something was done about it.

The ICTU urged the Minister to extend the divisions of the Labour Court. They said they would agree to four or five divisions. What is the Minister's response? It is that there should be a second chairman. There is a lot more we will say in connection with this proposed legislation. I have a few points to make and having regard to the fact that they are being recorded, I assume that the Minister will later comment on them. They deal directly with some sections contained in this proposed legislation. Section 11 mentions fair employment and rules which will apply. It reads:

make rules which apply to, and which, in the opinion of the court, provide for fair employment conditions for the workers and employers in that industry and are approved of by organisations representing a substantial number of the workers aforesaid and organisations representing a substantial number of the employers aforesaid.

There are in existence at the moment joint labour committees. I should like the Minister to explain, when replying, the difference between a joint labour committee and the body he is referring to in that section. We know for example—and this is my real worry about it—that a joint labour committee is set up of representatives of the employers' and workers' sides and has a neutral chairman and whatever decisions they eventually arrive at become the minimum, whether the rates of pay or working conditions, and are legally enforceable. What is the difference between that and what is proposed in the Minister's section 11 (1) (a)?

In section 13 (2) reference is made to a "body of workers". What is meant by a "body of workers"? Is one worker, for the purposes of this Act, regarded as "a body of workers"? Also, according to this section, the rights commissioner may make a recommendation only if both parties agree. What is the sense in this? I have already adverted to what I consider to be the importance of people having more confidence in the Labour Court. Now we are bringing another person along to be made a rights commissioner and people who could not obtain satisfaction from their point of view can go to the rights commissioner but only if both parties agree, because if both parties agree, whatever he says is binding.

Dr. Hillery

Read all of it.

Mr. Mullen

I shall read it.

(i) make a recommendation to the parties to the dispute setting forth his opinion on the merits of the dispute, and

(ii) notify the Court of the recommendation,

What is the purpose of having him there?

Dr. Hillery

The Deputy is dealing with something that is not there and getting agitated about it.

Mr. Mullen

The Minister will be glad to deal with it then? I should also like to know from the Minister what is meant by section 13 (6) which also deals with a rights commissioner. It says:

A rights commissioner may provide for the regulation of proceedings before him in relation to an investigation under this section and may provide for the cases in which persons may appear before him by counsel or solicitor and, except as so provided, no person shall be entitled to appear by counsel or solicitor before him.

In that connection what is the position of a non-trade unionist? Does this apply to the possible fragmentation of trade unions? After all, we had a number of speakers from the Minister's Party stressing the necessity for a smaller number of trade unions. Subsection (9) (a) of section 13 dealing with the rights commissioner says:

A party to a dispute in relation to which a rights commissioner has made a recommendation may appeal to the Court against the recommendation and the parties to the dispute shall be bound by the decision of the Court on the appeal.

Why can they not go to the Court in any case? What is the point in introducing the rights commissioner?

What I say now refers to section 18 but I did already mention that the number of conciliation officers at present is insufficient. We have frequently asked the Minister to do something about this. He is now changing their title to industrial relations officers, but he has not indicated to what extent he is going to make an improvement, not only as to the knowledge of the persons who will act as industrial relations officers, but also in regard to their numbers. If I am not mistaken the Minister did say that the present number of conciliation officers deal with 1,000 cases a year. I believe they could deal with many more if they had time.

I expect the Minister, on Committee Stage, to clear up section 18 (1B) which reads:

Where the Court is of opinion, in relation to a trade dispute which, but for this subsection, it would be precluded, by virtue of subsection (1A) of this section, from investigating, that there are exceptional circumstances which warrant its so doing, it may investigate the dispute.

This is rather loose. I know there has been, at almost all times, a fair-sized queue for Labour Court sittings. In some cases the Court have decided to fix a date for the hearing. In other cases they have refused to fix a date unless the parties concerned agree to wait for a long time. Very often the decision to fix a date is governed by the type of industry involved. Having regard to that, there is great need to tighten up the section.

I believe the Minister would need to re-consider section 20 in its entirety because undoubtedly it means arbitration and we know how unfavourably arbitration is regarded by the majority of workers.

Deputy Lemass was very concerned about the group negotiating licence. He made a sort of a case, having regard to his trade union knowledge—he is a member of a trade union—and he pointed out how unfair it would be to a member union of a group if it was found that the other unions were voting against it. He mentioned his own union which could be described as a very small organisation. It was quite obvious that he did not know how groups within the Irish Congress of Trade Unions at present work and are expected to work and what Congress sets out to do because Congress policy on that matter has been: one union, one vote. Under that policy, in a group of unions a union with a few thousand members may still have only one vote, as compared with a union which may have only ten members. I fail to see the cause for Deputy Lemass' concern in this matter. Quite obviously, he does not know enough about it.

The same applies to almost all the supporting speakers with the exception of Deputy Andrews who quite obviously set about finding out something about industrial relations and how trade unions operate. The other Deputies displayed absolute ignorance of trade union negotiations. That being so, it would be only right and proper that they should make it their business to get a little closer to the trade union movement. I know for a fact that no trade union will object to any Member of this House going along to any of their educational programmes and processes and listening in. For the benefit of the House it is only right and proper that I should say that there are thousands of pounds being spent annually by the trade union movement on the education of their members in industrial relations and allied trade union matters. This is not generally realised. It is very seldom acknowledged, but it is absolutely true.

It would not be a bad thing, I think, before we start going too far into industrial relations in this proposed trade union legislation, to do something to gear the Members of this House with a little knowledge of the problems that confront trade union officials, section committee members, shop stewards and what-have-you. It is very easy to criticise. To listen to some people here one would imagine that this problem could be solved with a wave of a wand. What most people fail to realise is that not only paid officials but also rank and file members of trade unions work night and day in order to avoid a trade dispute.

I have yet to meet the man who deliberatly sets about bringing about a trade dispute. But I met a few in the last few weeks on the employers' side who were deliberately setting out to prolong the strike, and that at a time when there is all the talk about the nation's economy. At a time of the year when things are not going too well and it is convenient for them to lay off people they jumped at the opportunity of extending the trade dispute. There is nothing in this Bill about that.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

We are discussing this legislation this evening in what might be described almost as a "chatty" manner. That applies to the contributions from the Government benches, the Labour Party benches and the Fine Gael Party benches. No one so far has captured the real atmosphere. The country at the moment is in the grip of a very serious crisis, a crisis which is threatening the way of life of many of our people and which may have repercussions on the entire economy. This legislation, I suppose, scarcely presents us with an opportunity of trying to ascertain the cause of the present situation but it is, I think, worth saying that our people today seem to lack a sense of purpose in many of their sectional efforts. We do not seem to know where we are going. We do not seem to know why we are going in a particular direction or what kind of country we are aiming to make. We do not seem to have distilled any national aims which find support and understanding amongst people in different walks of life. The gospel seems to be each man for himself and the devil take the hindmost. I do not say that by way of stricture on any section of our community. It is, I think, a stricture which can be applied generally. It stems from the fact—I regret having to say this—that in recent years the people have not been getting the kind of leadership they should be getting. It is a cliché, but let us use it again: we are living in a competitive world, a world in which no country can survive unless it can trade at a profit with its neighbours. Our standard of living, the services provided from central funds and through the local authorities, the things that the people demand in their homes—the things that Deputy Mullen talked about, the washing machines and all the rest of it— all these amenities depend in the last resort on our ability as a community to trade at a profit with neighbouring countries.

If we cannot export successfully then we cannot maintain existing living standards. That, surely, is a truism, it is surely something that all of us can state with credibility and with conviction. But many people, unfortunately, seem to forget that; they seem to think that our present standard of living is something that we can continue to have without making any effort to maintain it, to retain it, or to improve it. But its maintenance and retention depend ultimately on our ability to enter into this competitive world and sell the goods we produce competitively on the export markets available to us. It is another truism to say that our ability to trade depends on our selling goods which are not just occasionally excellent but consistently good and at prices which make their sale attractive. This comes down in the net to a question of cost. It surely should have been a matter of concern for all of us over the last four or five years to aim at a proper harmony between management and labour, with the question of the costing of the goods we produce as an important part of that common concern and common outlook, in the knowledge that the more we can export the higher and the better will be our standard of living. Surely that was something that could and should have been aimed at in our industrial relations? It has been talked of. It has been hinted at. It has been referred to from time to time. What, I want to know, has been done about it?

I am not for one moment suggesting that wages and labour costs are the only elements affecting the prices of our goods abroad. They certainly are not, but they are an important element, an element which has an effect, and will continue to have an effect, on our ability to trade successfully. To the extent that they had an effect in the past four or five years—I am referring only to the period of the present Dáil —it has been true to say that price increases have come about, and in one notorious instance were brought about, by direct Government intervention.

In any event, they have come about and have been followed inevitably by increases in domestic prices which have corroded the very wage increases which were initially agreed upon. In the past four or five years since this Government came into office, we have had a repetition and a continuation of the old cycle of prices following wage increases. We had them all going around in a circle and no one any better off as a result. That has led to instability and dislocation and a situation in which we make periodic advances in relation to our exports and then fall back, because domestic prices have risen, because wage increases have taken place, or wage increases have taken place because domestic prices have risen.

The Government have presided over a situation in which there has been a complete jungle of confusion. This affects industrial relations; this affects the economy; this affects stability of currency. It has an effect on savings and it has an effect on the ability and desire of everyone to plan his own future. No one knows where it will end. Today everyone who has a £ note in his pocket knows that it will be worth considerably less 12 months hence. Is it surprising that in those circumstances, people today are searching around, not knowing where to look, not knowing what to aim at, and merely concerned with looking after themselves?

In the first days of this Dáil from these benches here, from the Fine Gael benches, we advocated and put forward a proposal that there should be a serious effort to establish a prices and incomes policy in this country. We put forward that proposal because of the experience we had in the previous Dáil of the effect of leapfrogging of wages and price cycles, causing instability and dislocation in our economy and in our trading. We wanted a prices and incomes policy which would apply to all incomes and not merely to wages, because that is only one part of incomes. The view advocated by Fine Gael was put forward in the terms of a Dáil motion some three and a half years ago. The terms of that motion were accepted by this House and accepted by the Government, and one then felt that the initial steps would be taken towards establishing such a policy.

Of course, nothing has been done towards achieving that end, nothing whatsoever. The idea of a prices and incomes policy was considered by the NIEC who reported in its favour in their Report No. 11 some years ago. What has been done about it? I suggest nothing whatsoever. Apparently it is too difficult for the Government to embark upon this task. A prices and incomes policy related to the income of each person, whether he is an entrepreneur, a person living on capital, a member of management deriving returns from profits earned with his capital, or a wage earner in any capacity, connotes incomes tied in the appropriate way to the increase in the wealth of the country which is a very difficult thing to achieve, but it is essential to achieve it if the country is to survive.

It is only by establishing such a policy that a wage increase, coming as a result of an increase in productivity, will, in fact, mean a real increase in the earning power and the purchasing power of the worker affected. We have not such a situation established here. Any wage increase is absolutely illusory and it is frittered away and disappears in a short space of time by reason of the consequential increase in prices.

I charge the Government with complete neglect in relation to this aspect of our national affairs which could be the means of saving the country. In my view this neglect is the source of our present difficulties. Because we have not a prices and incomes policy, we have today complete industrial unrest. By sitting back and doing nothing the Government have led people to believe that our economy is a free-forall and that everyone just shoves his snout into the trough and tries to gobble up as much as possible. How long will this continue?

Bad industrial relations are merely one symptom of the real confusion and difficulties that exist in the community. The Taoiseach spoke sternly yesterday. He spoke well. Má's maith é is mithid. A very silent man he has been for too long.

The Minister for Labour brings these proposals into this House. I shall not pass judgment upon them but I suggest that probably the truth is that Deputy Dr. Hillery has been in Labour for a number of years and has produced a mouse. With the elements of crisis all around us, what is the sense in playing footy-footy with industrial relations? A time of crisis is no time to try to lay down guidelines, as Deputy Andrews spoke about. A time of crisis is no time to talk about reconstituting the Labour Court, or anything of that kind. This could have been done years ago.

I do not want to be unduly hard on the Minister for Labour but I should like to know where he has been for the past three or four years. If no other Member of the Government saw to it, it was his responsibility to seek to achieve some realisation within the Government with regard to an incomes policy. The attitude, apparently, is to go along and, if there is no strike, if there is no industrial unrest, to forget about this awkward question of an incomes policy and whistle and hope for the best. That attitude achieves nothing. We are now beginning to reap the harvest of years of neglect of this important aspect of national affairs. I am certain the inbuilt sense of responsibility in most of our people will overcome any less benign feelings and that, in the end, this crisis will be overcome.

It is good to see, in relation to what is happening at the moment, that there have been men of principle and of courage who have not been afraid to speak out. I have no doubt their words will prevail in the end and that this difficulty will be overcome. When that happens, will the Government breathe a great sigh of relief and say: "This is great. We can forget about it now and think of something else"? I regret to say that that has been their attitude far too often up to this. I fear that, next time, whenever it comes, the confrontation, the dilemma, the problem, the crisis, will be far more serious.

The one solution to our problem of industrial relations is an incomes policy. I know the difficulties, the very real difficulties, that surround it and that lie ahead. They have been "at it" in Great Britain for some two and-a-half or three years. It is not necessary to point out that they have not achieved any outstanding success: that may be so. At least, they are walking along that road, perhaps slowly, in the right direction. Here, we have not even started to mark out the road on the map, let alone start to walk along that road.

I believe that this legislation which the Minister has brought forward consists of so many trappings, so much window dressing, but does not get to the root of the problem. I agree with Deputy Mullen that perhaps the problem is not amenable to being dealt with by legislation. It affects the way we manage our economy, the policy we embark upon and the way we order our affairs. To that extent, what is proposed here appears entirely irrelevant. I have no doubt the Labour Court requires to be changed, requires to be strengthened. I have no doubt that, if there is to be a strike, it should be decided by secret ballot. I have no doubt many things can be done in regard to industrial relations which may lead to a better understanding but, fundamentally, so long as there exists a situation in which the labour force in any industry does not trust the management in that industry then we have the seeds of confusion and difficulty. So long as we have suspicion, so long as the man employed does not trust the man who employs him, does not trust the management of his firm, does not understand what the firm is about, and, above all, so long as he does not know what profits the firm is making, then we have all the seeds of further difficulties of this kind.

Unless we can remove the atmosphere of suspicion, unless we can get people to understand that, in a small community such as ours, we shall not be able to survive unless there is a proper partnership between management and labour, if that point is not driven home, understood and accepted, then we shall continue to have difficulties such as those we have at present. That is part of what is involved in an incomes policy. It has been dealt with fully not only in the policy of the Fine Gael Party but also in the various reports from the National Industrial and Economic Council. Involved in it is the question of not controlling prices, because that is a dead end in itself, not controlling profits. Why should profits be controlled? The profits earned by a firm or an industry should be of benefit to everybody employed in it but there should be a marching together of individual and personal incomes whether they are being earned by management or labour, related to the increase in productivity. If we can start along these lines and if we can remove the suspicion that exists, which stems frequently from lack of knowledge, from lack of understanding, then, perhaps, we can make some headway towards better industrial relations in this country.

I do not want to say anything about the present dispute except to say again that it presents this country with a problem of crisis proportions. How is it to be solved? Deputy Liam Cosgrave, the Leader of the Opposition, said the other day that possibly an all Party approach might be a method of bringing about a solution. I am quite certain that there are no politics in this and that the continuance of the present industrial crisis is a matter of concern to every political party. It certainly is of deep concern to the members of the Fine Gael Party. I am certain it is of equal concern to the Labour Party as it is to the Government. I should like, in pursuance of what Deputy Liam Cosgrave said, to assure the Minister that if there is any help whatsoever that we in the Fine Gael Party can give or suggest towards bringing about a solution it will be fully and generously given.

Indeed, I would like to see the leaders of the three political Parties in the Dáil—the Leader of the Government, the Leader of my Party and the Leader of the Labour Party, pooling their resources, asking people to come to meet them to try to end this present difficulty. It would be, I suppose, an impertinence for me to suggest that there is another person who holds a high office in this land who might interest himself in this particular problem because if someone does not take the initiative, if we are going to have a situation in which there are people who whether it is faulty or otherwise have a particular point of view, and if they are going to dig themselves into an entrenched position, then a solution becomes more difficult as each day passes. I would hope that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the dispute may be, everybody concerned with it would recognise their responsibility to the country and their responsibility to enable the people of this country to meet the challenge and the competition which exists and if there is any fear of a loss of face, surely the leaders of the political Parties in this House may be able to intervene and bring about some step towards a solution?

When this present difficulty has been overcome as I am sure it will, what then? The present Government or the next Government that will come after the next general election will be faced with the same problem, will have the same task ahead of them and that is to achieve sooner or later a situation in which the money which is earned by workers will have a reality, will have some purchasing power which will be associated with an increase in national productivity and that, when an increase in wages is earned, it will represent an increase in purchasing power? Until we can achieve that we will continue to have this cycle of difficulties which leads and has led to considerable national weakness.

Mr. Kyne

It is a pity that we are discussing these two Bills which deal with workers and their relations with employers at a time of such serious crisis when a strike of major importance is taking place in the country. I feel it would be advisable that discussion of these two Bills should be deferred until such time as a settlement has emerged as a settlement must eventually come. There is a grave danger that people speaking in this House will inadvertently, perhaps, say something that instead of helping will worsen the situation and make a difficult case much more difficult.

It was in an atmosphere such as this that we had that unfortunate piece of legislation the ESB (Special Powers) Act passed during an emergency and rushed through this House. I think nobody in this House, after reflection, would take any credit for that particular piece of legislation. It achieved nothing but it did put in the minds of the workers the fear that the Government of the day, which is the present Government, would in an emergency, not hesitate to do what they threatened to do in that Bill, that is, put workers in jail for exercising their right to withdraw their labour. I remember saying on that Friday morning, in common with a number of my fellow Deputies of the Labour movement that you cannot legislate to make a man work. You can do what Hitler did, hang him and jail him, but you cannot make him work unless, perhaps, you can intimidate some of the other workers and force them into an agreement which they have no desire to carry out. No one in this House I am sure would desire such a state of affairs. Panic legislation is a dangerous thing. That is why I feel that it is most inappropriate in the midst of a serious crisis, as we are in at the present moment, to be discussing what should be discussed in a calm and calculated way during a period of reasonable industrial peace.

I was surprised, indeed, shocked, to hear of the attack made by the Leader of the Fine Gael Party apparently on either the Leader of the Labour Party or the Labour Party in general. I was surprised to hear his spiteful outburst and his reference to Cuban socialism. We in the Labour Party did not get our socialism from Castro or Mao Tse Tung.

Mr. H.P. Dockrell

He was only quoting a television interview on behalf of the Labour Party.

Mr. James Tully

It was not an interview on behalf of the Labour Party.

Mr. Kyne

It was here in this House The Deputy was not here.

Mr. H.P. Dockrell

I was here.

Mr. Kyne

Our socialism came from our leader James Connolly who spoke about socialism away back in 1912 and 1913 and all the years up to his execution. He did not have to learn his socialism from those latter day socialists, Castro or anyone else. Perhaps, Deputy Cosgrave wants us to take our political philosophy from Franco of Spain, Salazar of Portugal or somebody like that. We have no intention of doing that and whether it be Cuba or anywhere else we are taunted with we are quite satisfied that we have our own type of socialism and that we got it from the teachings and the writings of our Leader. We are not ashamed——

Dr. Hillery

They were trying to join you and you refused.

Mr. Kyne

Perhaps. This outburst is not an isolated thing. This is the second Fine Gael attack on the Labour Party and, indeed, a certain newspaper political correspondent is finding time to write a considerable amount about our Leader not interfering in the strike.

Dr. Hillery

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

Mr. Kyne

Exactly. I shall be coming to that point.

Mr. H.P. Dockrell

Did he misquote the speaker on television?

Mr. Kyne

I have not been discussing television.

Mr. H.P. Dockrell

That is all he quoted.

Mr. Kyne

I have been quoting what I heard. As I say, not only one Fine Gael member but a second Fine Gael member has endeavoured, within the past couple of weeks, to ridicule and to pin to the Labour movement things that were never said or were never done. Political writers in a certain paper take Deputy Corish to task because he has not intervened in this dispute. Deputy Corish has enough sense to know that well-meaning intervention can very often do more harm than good. Deputy Corish took the natural step of consulting with Congress, the leaders of the Labour movement, and offering to them any help he could give in an effort to achieve a just settlement. No one can do more than that. This has got to be solved in the way it is working out. I heard Deputy Cosgrave asking the Minister to intervene. What does he mean? Does he want them to bring in the troops? What can the Minister do?

Dr. Hillery

They said the legislation was a mouse, so——

Mr. Kyne

I do not know what they want. They ask why does the Minister not intervene and why does the Labour Party not ask the Minister to intervene? We never want the Government to interfere with our rights to negotiate freely. By all means if helpful legislation can be passed—I shall be dealing with that in a few moments—then certainly we shall avail of it if we feel it is for the good of the trade union movement and for the good of the country.

I was wondering would we have all these attacks if instead of saying we would not coalesce with any Party after the next election, we had said "We will join an inter-Party Government with Fine Gael"; would we hear anything about Cuban socialism or anything else like that? Some other Fine Gael Deputy was talking about the pill and various other things that came up at our conference—figments of the imagination, of course. It is amazing when you do not fall into line with a particular side, they always want to damn you. I am surprised at the Leader of the Fine Gael Party demeaning himself to take part in this type of criticism or scurrility, because it is nothing short of it, and to avail of this Bill to hurl it at the Labour Party. He certainly was not extinguishing any fires; he certainly was not pouring oil on troubled waters; rather was he throwing it on the fire and causing a further blaze.

I was particularly impressed by a speech on this Bill by Deputy Dillon last Thursday week. It was a sane, constructive speech intelligently given. The trade union members here in the Labour Party, Deputy Tully and I, who had a chance of hearing that speech agreed wholeheartedly with most of what he said. He certainly gave an example of how to discuss this legislation without tending to cause further upset than there is already. He pointed out something worth noting, that private firms, managements who own their own factories, very seldom have disputes with their workers. The vast majority of our industrial disputes take place either in semi-State bodies where you have individuals who are aloof from the workers such as the ESB, Bord na Móna, the Sugar Company and so on, or where there is no personal contact and where they do not understand or care to understand the difficulties of the worker. He pointed out that in private firms there are scarcely any disputes or if there is a dispute it is quickly settled because of the personal contact between worker and manager or owner. In semi-State bodies and other companies the shareholders and directors are aloof from the workers and have no concern and no interest other than their profits.

I have over 20 years' experience as a trade union official. I have been involved in strikes; I have settled strikes, and have prevented them, and I know what causes a strike. A just claim is put forward in respect of wages or conditions. It is delayed, obstructed and dragged on. It goes through conciliation; it goes through the Labour Court and there is delay in coming to an agreement. Finally the workers will force their officials into saying: "There is only one way to get a settlement and that is to withdraw labour," and this is true. Anything the Minister can do either in this Bill or in any other Bill to stop these delaying tactics, to reduce the period of suspension and to permit the grievances to be ventilated and examined will be welcome. What very often starts like a thorn prick develops into a running sore and within a very short time causes an outburst that has no relation at all to the original grievance. It is caused purely by the delaying tactics adopted by employers in general—not all employers, of course; as with all people, there are good and bad.

I should like to come to what I really stood up to talk about, that is, these two Bills in particular. They must be taken together, and even if the House did not permit them to be discussed together, certainly no sane trade unionist would talk on either of them without automatically switching his mind to the other. In fact, most of us in the trade union movement, those of us who are active trade unionists anyhow, have a great worry as to whether we should include another Bill in our thinking about these two, that is, some parts of the Criminal Justice Bill. It is unfortunate that some parts of that Bill have already appeared to workers to have a bearing on the possible future conduct of the Government in relation to strikes. I hope that is not true. I do not believe the present Minister would have any part in it, but that thought has already entered into the minds of many workers. I would hope the Minister will assure workers, when he is replying to this debate, that the Criminal Justice Bill has no connection and was never intended to have any connection with industrial relations or proposals of the Government as to how to control industrial relations.

I should like to congratulate the Minister on his very sane approach in these two Bills. He stressed in his speech, as indeed he stressed before on television, that this is permissive legislation to permit trade unionists to accept the offer he is making through both the Industrial Relations Bill and the Trade Union Bill, if they feel it is of interest to them. I see nothing, certainly in the Industrial Relations Bill, that is objectionable. There may be some parts of it that need some modification or examination. In section 8, for example, it is suggested that the hearings of the Labour Court should be in private. I wonder is that a sensible thing to do. I feel there is always a suspicion caused in the minds of workers when something is heard in private. Mind you, the negotiators who go into the Labour Court representing workers have to go back to convince the workers that when a decision is given that decision was a fair one. They have to endeavour, if they believe this is so, to convince their members that the Labour Court decision was a reasonable and a just one. If the workers feel it is something which goes on in private, that they are not allowed to hear or read about it, then it will be more difficult for those who go to the Labour Court to go back and convince maybe 200 or 300 men that justice was done, that their case was put as fairly as it could be and that the decision arrived at was a fair one.

We would all agree that private hearings are necessary in the case of rival firms and nobody would object to that. Nobody would object to the accounts of a firm produced before the Labour Court being kept private and not being discussed. In fact, my experience up to date regarding the Labour Court is when they get accounts they do not allow any of the opposing parties, such as the trade union officials, to have any access to them. They get them to look at them privately. This is one part of the Industrial Relations Bill I feel the Minister should have a look at. It is just a minor suggestion of mine.

I think it was the Minister in his opening speech who remarked if anyone could advise him as to how he could induce workers to have more confidence in the Labour Court he would be very pleased. He pointed out where nominees of the trade union took part and nominees of the Federated Union of Employers took part there is an independent chairman. Would it be possible that the chairman, perhaps independent, perhaps the most honourable man in the world, would be completely independent? If the workers and the employers joined together and had an agreed chairman, I believe this would strengthen the faith of the workers in the Labour Court.

The chairman plays a very important role in industrial concerns of all sorts where wages and conditions of employment are dealt with. We have employers on the one side and workers on the other. They pair off and finally the decision rests on the three people appointed by the Minister who merely has to say what the wages should be or what the conditions should be. Again, in the Labour Court you have trade union nominees and you have employers nominees and they hold opposite views. Then it is solely the chairman who decides. If the chairman is a Government appointed man, be he a civil servant or a high court judge, there is always in the back of the minds of workers the feeling that this man, because he is a high court judge, is a man of a class and standing different from the ordinary workers. It is only where they will agree with the employers federation or they get an agreed chairman that the workers will have more faith in the decisions arrived at. This is a personal opinion of mine but from my experience of over 20 years in regard to arbitration matters and settling of strikes in my own part of the country, I feel there is a growing feeling over the past few years that the Labour Court are not always impartial. I feel it will be difficult to change that. I cannot see very much chance of any great improvement in the confidence of workers in the Labour Court unless some change of that sort is made. The same applies with regard to the deputy chairman who will be appointed by the Minister and will act as chairman in certain considerations.

I agree with the Minister regarding the appointment of extra courts and two additional members so that we can have three courts. Very often there is a minor strike but it could be a serious matter in a small town. If there is a vast range of disputes listed here in Dublin we often find that we are left for six, eight or ten months before we get a Labour Court sitting. It is true that we will have conciliation officers and they do a good job but when there is danger of a strike and there is delay in the hearing of the Labour Court and delay in coming to a decision it is much more difficult to settle a strike quickly.

I should like to congratulate the Minister on the type of legislation which he has brought in which I say is permissive and has no compulsion in it. However, there is a section in the Industrial Relations Bill which I am quite sure the Minister is quite happy about and which refers to workers employed by local authorities. I know there are a number of health authorities which are also local authorities. I know there are four health authorities, Dublin, Cork, Waterford and Dún Laoghaire and the local authority and the health authority are combined, that is, the corporation and the county council but I am not quite sure that the expression "local authority" will cover workers employed by a health authority. If it does not, it should be written into the Bill and made definitely clear that it covers employees of such health authorities as I have mentioned.

On the Trade Union Bill, I find it slightly difficult to make up my mind how section 4 should be interpreted. It is only a question of the phrasing of this section. Section 4, paragraph (iv) reads:

Any trade union the membership of which includes a number, other than a negligible number, of employees in the employments catered for by the authorised group.

What is this small number? Could the Minister indicate what kind of percentage would that "negligible number" that he would be prepared to include be? Would it be five per cent or two per cent or does it mean just one or two people? I think it looks like that but when this becomes law it will be interpreted either by a court official or by somebody else and I think it should be much more clearly defined. "Other than a negligible number", could mean anything. It could mean ten or 20 and it could mean as little as one or two. It would be much clearer if a specific percentage of the numbers involved were given.

For the Minister's information, I should like to say that section 10 is causing some concern to the Congress of Trade Unions. They are not happy about this section and I understand that they have already sought legal advice and that they will be communicating with the Minister and with the members of the Labour Party in this connection.

Some members of our Party have already discussed portions of this Bill with Congress and that is only natural since we will be the spokesmen on this. It will be the responsibility of Labour Deputies and especially of those of us who are active trade union officials to put forward our views and we should like to do this in a constructive manner, in a manner in keeping with the wishes of Congress and in keeping with the wishes of established and recognised trade unions. Notwithstanding the fact that at the moment we may see many things that are objectionable in certain parts of the Bill, it will be necessary for us to have fuller definition and, perhaps, the Bill can be amended by us on Committee Stage. Any amendments which we may put down will be in the spirit of trying to improve the legislation. The only change we want is change that will improve the position and the Minister has indicated that is also what he wants.

I agree with Deputy P. Belton when he says that the Minister should endeavour to get firms to appoint experienced personnel officers and that on the agenda of directors' meetings the question of labour relations between the staff and the management should be one of the first items. Deputy Dillon also touched on that particular point and I think it is a suggestion which, if adopted, would improve relations between management and staff.

I think it was Deputy P. Belton also who mentioned British based trade unions operating in Ireland. I am attached to a British based trade union and I should like to say that it is completely manned by Irish personnel and that we are not interfered with in any way in our decisions in relation to Ireland by our head office in Great Britain. In so far as we are concerned, all our decisions are controlled by our head office in this country. Most of our members would refuse to give up their connections with the British trade union because of the fact that if through unemployment, they emigrate from here their trade union card is invaluable to them in Great Britain. By having this card they can secure employment and they will be welcomed in industry.

The British-based trade unions have a very strict rule with regard to an unofficial strike. If members go on strike unofficially there is only one way in which that strike can become legal and that is that the members must first return to work and then put forward their grievances and give the trade union proper notice. I wonder if all the Irish unions do that. I am not aware that they do but from the knowledge I have of my own union, I will say that before a strike is sanctioned, the workers must go through all the machinery which is available to them in the country in which they are operating. We have to negotiate, first of all, with the employer and then if we fail to reach an agreement we must engage the services of the conciliation officer. If we fail there we must then go to the Labour Court and wait until their decision is given before any question of strike sanction is arrived at and such sanction can only be arrived at after a valid vote and a majority decision to go on strike. If the decision is for a strike, due notice must be given to the employer. I would suggest that many of our Irish trade unions might follow that example.

I should not like to conclude my discussion on these Bills without paying tribute to Mr. Dermot McDermott for the discussions in which he has taken part over a long period of time —discussions which, at times, must have been soul destroying. The fact that a settlement has not been reached is certainly not his fault. I have met Mr. McDermott during part of these discussions and I have seen how hard he worked, late at night and even into the early hours of the morning, giving his whole service to achieving a settlement. I should like to thank him for the efforts he has made towards securing peace in the building and engineering industries.

Mr. Booth

I could hardly start off in a better way than by echoing the statement with which Deputy Kyne concluded his speech. I might even go further than that and say that my experience of all the officials, including Mr. McDermott, has been of men who are really dedicated to their job and who, as Deputy Kyne has said, work all hours of the day and night to restore harmony where it has been broken. I should like to try to follow Deputy Kyne's example and also to try to base my remarks on the two Bills which are before us. There is a temptation to pontificate on industrial relations rather than to discuss as objectively as we can the terms of the Bills.

Mr. Dillon

This is an industrial relations Bill.

Mr. Booth

Yes, it is but, at the same time, some people—I do not include Deputy Dillon among these— have tended to pontificate rather irrelevantly. We must try to keep ourselves as near as possible to the terms of the Bill in question.

Deputy Kyne considered that both these Bills can be improved and developed in Committee, but I should like to mention certain sections. Section 6 of the Industrial Relations Bill relates to the renaming of certain officials under the Labour Court as industrial relations officers rather than conciliation officers as at present. I have only had experience of one operation with conciliation officers in the past and I found them excellent at their job. However, I think "conciliation" was an unfortunate word and "industrial relations officer" shows a much more constructive approach to the whole problem and widens the scope of their activity.

Section 7 relates to the interpretation of employment agreements. This I hope would enable the Labour Court itself to prevent disputes, to stop them before they start, but, of course, a difficulty arises here in cases where the recommendation of the Labour Court is not accepted by both parties. I hope every effort will be made, both on the part of employers and trade unions, to encourage those whom they represent to agree in advance in all cases that the recommendation of the Labour Court shall be accepted as a final judgement in this matter.

Section 8 introduces a very useful improvement in that it provides for investigations by the court to be in private, though the court may at its discretion, if requested to do so by a party to the dispute, conduct its investigation in public. I think that wherever possible investigations should be in private because parties to a dispute are apt to adopt attitudes and to make statements which are much more propaganda statements for the benefit of their members than arguments such as would be advanced in a court of law. This observation, however, does not reflect on one side or the other. If the press is present, there is a tendency to play to the press, but if the parties come together in the atmosphere of a private office they are not as liable to make propaganda statements to each other: there is a much greater possibility that they will give mutual understanding to the problem. It is perfectly right that this provision should be there even though there is power given to the court, on request, to hold the hearing in public if it feels that is wise. There may be a case occasionally where it would be wise to hold the court hearing in public, but in general my vote goes for privacy at all costs.

Section 10 breaks new ground, and rightly so. I hope this provision relating to breaches of registered employment agreements will not discourage any parties from entering into such agreements. We should build up an industrial system which is governed by employment agreements freely negotiated between employer and employee. If we do not do this, if we do not have something done in this direction, there is always the danger that there will be misunderstandings. My experience certainly has been that many more disputes arise from misunderstandings than out of injustice.

However, where an employment agreement has been freely negotiated and signed, it is essential, as is provided in the Bill, that it should be also enforceable. An agreement which is merely a collection of pious platitudes is not of any value to anybody. That section reads on to section 11 and the question of fair employment rules. Here the same comment should be made, that in far too many cases there are not any definite rules setting out the rights and obligations of the worker and the employer. We should not forget that the employer also has his rights but in no case should those rights override his obligations.

There is everything, therefore, to be said for the creation of a code of fair employment rules which will set out clearly for anybody, before he enters into employment with a company or an individual, exactly what his rights and obligations are. If these are clearly set out and freely negotiated, a great deal of tension and uncertainty will be avoided, and uncertainty is the greatest single source of tension in the industrial scene.

Section 12 relates to the continuing inspection of premises by inspectors appointed under the code to ensure that fair employment rules are being kept. If we do not provide for regular inspection, there is always the danger that fair employment rules may be drafted, discussed, agreed and accepted and thereupon forgotten until some crux arises. That is fatal, because when the crux arises and when a breach has occurred, it is almost always too late to solve it. It is essential that we should have a body of inspectors going around, checking all the time to make sure that these fair employment rules are being strictly observed by both sides.

Section 13 relates to the appointment of a new officer to be known as a rights commissioner. This appeals to me enormously because, even with fair employment rules and everything else, anything in writing can be interpreted in slightly different ways and it is that which causes trouble. When something has to be interpreted, it is all too easy for each side to take a different view and start an argument.

In my experience recently we had a case put up by the employees to the management on the question of service pay. It was a difficult point. On the employers' side we were quite definite that a certain view should be taken; on the employees' side, an exactly opposite view was expressed, argued backwards and forwards and no progress was made. I suggested we should go to a conciliation officer. There was some reluctance and, without any acceptance in advance by the union, we went to a conciliation officer though I made it clear that from the company point of view the recommendation of the conciliation officer would be accepted. We went to him and to my surprise I found that my view was wrong but nobody would have persuaded me of that.

I was convinced I was right until the conciliation officer produced the evidence for me which showed quite clearly that if we took the matter to a full hearing of the Labour Court the decision would go the other way because a somewhat similar decision had created a precedent. That, to my mind, was the end of it. There was no purpose in going further. No actual dispute had arisen, and in a matter of about ten minutes the whole thing was cleared up and the decision was given in favour of the employees in this case and we all drove back to the works together. That seems to me to be something which we could achieve time and again but we could achieve it far better if we could go to the court and say in advance: "We will accept your decision."

Even though the new rights commissioners will only have the power to make a recommendation—they will not be making a final ruling—somebody who is going to conduct a quick investigation with very informal procedure could in very many cases sort out conflicting interpretations of regulations or agreements to everybody's benefit. I strongly support this new conception of an informal hearing before a rights commissioner. Like Deputy Kyne, I agree very much with section 17, the extension of the services of the Labour Court to a wider number of people. Under section 20, I think it is wise to give some indication of a different procedure where both parties agree in advance to accept a recommendation of the Labour Court. I think it is right that the court may, in other cases, at its discretion issue a recommendation. I believe it is right that where both parties agree in advance to accept the recommendation of the Court, the Court should have no further discussion and must issue a recommendation which shall be binding.

Section 21, relating to the dissolution of the ESB tribunals, is a good tidyingup measure because any tribunal which is dealing only with sections of the whole industrial fabric is bound to get out of step and in the past these have caused a lot of unrest by their findings. I think it is far better to centralise all these activities in the Labour Court and to eliminate in future these tribunals.

In the Trade Union Bill, Part II, there is reference to the group negotiation licence. There is possibly some looseness of working here and there with which we can deal in committee. The fact remains that this is a very wise provision. I should like to stress that this is something introduced for the protection of workers against other workers. There is plenty of power given to protect workers against their employers but as we have seen, to our grief, in the past couple of weeks one of the greatest dangers in the present set up is that workers will be set against each other and that people will be disemployed because of a trade dispute in which they have had no hand, act or part and which they cannot influence in any way.

In any large or even medium-sized company there are various groups of workers, labourers, tradesmen, craftsmen, technicians of various sorts, clerical workers, sales staff and so on. There is quite a wide variety of people and there has been a tendency for one group to feel that it is in such a strategic position that it will use its power to its own advantage even where the use of power in that way is at the expense of fellow workers, much more than the employer. This conception of a group negotiation licence by an organised group is something that I have heard criticised as being an attack on certain trade unions. I do not view it in that way but as a way in which the existing unions structure can be used to the best advantage, a way in which a new team spirit can be built up in a large concern, a way in which all employees can be made to feel that they are their brothers' keeper in a very real sense. That is something which some people seem to have forgotten at the moment. They are stressing: "We must get what we want," regardless of what it may cost somebody else. There is no use in saying: "This is a fault in the system; it is not our fault." It is the fault of anyone who goes out on strike and pulls out other people after him who are not involved in it. It is his fault if that happens and no legislation can stop him doing it if he is sufficiently bloody-minded to want to go on doing it.

All we can do and all we are trying to do in this legislation is to show people that there is a better way of achieving a settlement and of building up a proper relationship between workers in one department and in another. I look forward to the debate on this part of the Bill because I think it will be very interesting and constructive and I hope, helpful to the Minister. As I see it, this is a chance to prevent the fragmentation of the labour force in medium as well as in large companies. It will be a way in which a group decision can be taken, a way in which workers in one group can be made to see the difficulties and problems of other groups and in which they can be brought together to participate in management to that extent very much to the benefit of all concerned.

Section 9 of Part II relates to the statutory right of peaceful picketing. It is an improvement, but here, again, I suggest it would be improved further if there was some restriction on picketing so that it would affect only the person or the company with which the dispute originated. The spreading of picketing to another person or company indirectly connected with the company in dispute is an intolerable misuse of power. Very often that company to which the picket is extended is unable to take any action to solve the dispute. The picket outside its premises will prevent its staff from entering and carrying on their lawful work. That is an intolerable situation.

I believe it is a basic obligation on all governments to prevent the misuse of power by any sector of the community to the disadvantage of other sectors. No society can hold together if sections are exercising brute force against each other and, however peaceful a picket may be, in the end it comes down to brute force in that there is a moral obligation on a union member not to pass a picket and, simply because of the presence of a picket, a man is compelled to discontinue his work and to forgo his wage packet. Various reliefs may be given by trade unions in one way of strike pay, but it is asking a great deal of a man, and still more of his wife, when he has to go without his wage packet, not through any fault of his own, not through any dispute of his own, but owing to a dispute which is no responsibility of his good, bad or indifferent.

I suggest seriously, therefore, that we might take a closer look at section 9 on the Committee Stage in order to prevent a proliferation of pickets, with disastrous results not only to the national economy, which is a somewhat intangible asset, but to individuals who are compelled to live in dire hardship. I know nobody enjoys being on a picket. Nobody likes being out on strike or disemployed because of a strike. It is bad enough for the pickets —I know that—but it is even worse for their wives and families.

In Part IV, section 12 provides for certain additional restrictions on the grant of negotiation licences. That is a wise provision. I was glad to hear Deputy Kyne say that his experience of British-based unions was that the final control lay actually in Ireland so far as Irish members are concerned. That may be the case in certain instances, but in one instance of which I had personal experience it certainly was not. The final approval had to be obtained from the United Kingdom.

Mr. James Tully

How many years ago?

Mr. Booth

Six or seven, I think.

Mr. James Tully

That would not be the position today.

Mr. Booth

If that situation has been improved in the meantime I am glad, because the speed at which the approval was communicated from headquarters in Britain to the branch headquarters here was utterly ludicrous. One would have done better by pigeon post or packhorse. It literally took some weeks to get a decision. The British headquarters were far too busy and the dispute here was of such comparative insignificance that it did not get the priority which we naturally thought it should have. If the position has improved, so much the better. I trust the improvement will continue.

Section 14 deals with the serving of strike notice. This I thoroughly support. At column 1358 of Volume 238 of the Official Report Deputy M. O'Leary is recorded as saying:

It is interesting to note that some are of the opinion that strikes take place for trivial reasons. That is another fallacy.

I do not think anybody enters into a strike readily or with any enthusiasm. A strike notice is a threat. Everybody always hopes up to the last moment that the threat will not have to be implemented. A strike notice is served when workers feel that all alternatives have failed. I do not believe the average working man supports the serving of a strike notice otherwise than with the very definite hope all the time that the strike will not come off. Small blame to him because a strike is no fun. Basically, a strike notice is a threat.

In my opinion the strike weapon is completely out of date now. Originally it was the only weapon which could be used by an exploited labour force against brutal and thoughtless employers. It was the only weapon when people were working for an employer who was also the proprietor and, by withdrawing their labour, they were hitting the employer in his pocket, hitting him where it hurt him most. That was the purpose of the strike weapon. Workers now work where the proprietor is not the manager or the managing director. The strike affects the owners, admittedly—that is, the shareholders—but only to a marginal extent in most cases. It may make a one per cent difference in the dividend or it may make the difference between no dividend or a very small one, but the effect on the actual owners is, comparatively speaking, slight. The dispute is between the employer and the employee, and the employer is the managing director. He will get paid his normal salary, win, loose or draw, strike or no strike. He will get his salary, his allowances and his perquisites even if there is a picket outside the gate.

The whole thing has got completely out-dated because the person who is getting hurt by the strike is not the actual person whom the employee is fighting or disputing. So, I say strikes are completely out-dated. We should have outgrown them years ago. A strike is still a very powerful weapon. It is very like a nuclear weapon, very useful as a threat, but utterly disastrous if you have to use it because it blows up both sides.

No one ever wins a strike. One side or the other may achieve a certain result which it originally intended to get but, by the time it is got, it was not worth getting in the first place. We cannot legislate strikes out of existence except, as Deputy Dillon very correctly said, by dictatorship. It was a very wise warning to point out that while we say in a Parliamentary democracy we cannot legislate strikes out of existence, we can by the exercise of freedom, which is what we are doing at the moment in industrial relations—we are exercising freedom—achieve such chaos that people will be prepared to accept dictatorship as an alternative.

We must remember that Hitler did not grab power. He was given it. The colonels in Greece at the moment are different in that they did grab power, but now apparently they are supported by a great majority of the Greek people simply because those very ruthless army officers, although they have abolished liberty, have at least restored law, order and discipline. We must not let ourselves get into the position where law and order and discipline are gone to the winds, and where any section of our people will say: "For God's sake give us a Government that will really rule, and tell us exactly what to do". There is this terrible danger of a reaction against something approaching anarchy and so, we can only encourage other methods of settling disputes which are less costly to everyone.

As I said before, no one really wins in a strike. I heard this afternoon one of my fellow Members saying he was talking to a man who was on a picket and asked him: "Is there any settlement which you would accept?" He said: "Yes, I think we would accept another 3d an hour." Granted that may have been an entirely irresponsible statement by one man only, but still it was his own statement made off the cuff: "I would agree to another 3d an hour". That is a man who under the proposed arrangement would be getting about £18 a week minimum. Another 3d an hour is another 10/-a week. In actual fact, with a bit of overtime which I gather is very common he would probably earn £20 a week.

Even under the existing scales he was probably getting £16 or £17 a week. He is losing that at the moment. He could have got the extra £2 a week, but now he is standing out for an extra 10/-. Even if in the heel of the hunt he gets the additional 10/- it will be six, eight or ten months, before he even catches up on the arrears of salary which he has lost through being out. It is not only a question of not getting his regular weekly wage, but he is also running himself into debt, and into additional expenses, and putting additional anxiety on himself and his family and loading himself with a burden which he will carry for months and months and months. That is a stupid way of negotiating wage rates. It is the most stupid, the most clumsy, and the most costly arrangement under the sun. It was not consciously developed as a system. It is something which, let us face it, employers and workers have walked themselves into. I do not like to keep coming back to Deputy Kyne but I hope it does not embarrass him to find me agreeing with him. I do not think it would.

Mr. Kyne

No.

Mr. Booth

It is one of the encouraging things about this legislation that we seem to be discussing it with such a common realisation of the real problems at issue. We are working at it in the right way and, if we can get some way of working out a settlement of disputes whether they are wage rates, or what have you, otherwise than by tearing each other to bits, we will have done a very good job.

One other matter arising from the Bill is the value of a majority of those entitled to vote being necessary before strike notice is served. This is something that deserves a lot more consideration. It is generally accepted that when it comes to a union voting on strike notice, where clerical workers are involved there is a fairly high poll for the very good reason that clerical workers can leave their jobs in the evening and go straight down to the union headquarters and vote, whereas a tremendous number of men particularly—and in certain cases probably women too—who are engaged in factory work as such, are not prepared to walk down town and walk into the union office when they come out of the factory.

They are tired after their day's work. They probably feel dirty and want to get home, have a wash and have their tea. They say: "We will go down to the office afterwards when we have had a wash and something to eat. We will cast our vote then." Human nature being what it is, after you have done a full day's work and then cleaned yourself up, changed your clothes and had your tea, and the fire is going, there is a terrible temptation to say: "What difference would one vote make here or there?" Goodness knows at every election we ourselves have to try to convince people that it is essential that every man and woman should cast his or her vote. We cannot throw any bricks at trade union members who fail to turn out to vote. It is a very human failing.

We have to provide for the fact that a number of people, being human and frail, will not turn up to vote even though they do not want a strike. Therefore, it is right that a majority of those entitled to vote should be necessary before a strike decision is taken. It is not a question of protecting the employer against strikes. It is not even a question of protecting the community against strikes. It is basically a matter of protecting the workers against irresponsible action by other workers. That is something which, to my mind, is very valid.

Section 15 refers to financial assistance to be given by the Government towards the expenses of amalgamations of trade unions. I am delighted to see that.

Mr. James Tully

There is nothing new in that. It is exactly the same as the law at present. There is no change.

Mr. Booth

I like to see it in writing. If Deputy Tully does not mind I should like to go a little further. The same encouragement should be given to employers because employers are just as much at fault in having a multiplicity of trade organisations. Some people say there is the FUE only, but there is a great number of other small trade organisations of all sorts. There is just as much vested interest in employers' organisation as there is in trade unions. There is just as much resistance against amalgamation. We cannot build a better system of industrial relations unless we have both sides of industry organised on a thoroughly efficient and effective basis. This means we must have a strong, resolute and effective trade union congress and, on the other side, we must have an equally strong efficient and effective employers' organisation.

I do not say for a moment that these two organisations should be at each other's throats all the time: far from it. My experience is that a responsible approach to a trade union executive is something which has a very high chance of producing successful results. One of the weaknesses, I think, in the trade union side is that very many trade union members do not appreciate the very high calibre of their officers and executives. It is a very hard business to run a democratic organisation and to try to convince the membership that the executive is really doing its job but this is a problem which we all have as elected representatives ourselves and so it should not come as any surprise to us.

The fact remains that we have got to develop a strong and effective trade union organisation with an executive with power given to it by the members. This is an awkward thing for some people to swallow. People talk about industrial democracy as if this meant that everybody must decide everything. That is not democracy in any shape or form. Democracy is a system where the membership, if you like, accepts that, as a whole group, it cannot act effectively and delegates its power to a small executive to make decisions which are binding on the membership. That is the only way to run everything.

Mr. Larkin

The Deputy is not very familiar with the trade union movement, to talk in these terms. Does the Deputy want to create a new trade union movement?

Mr. Booth

No. Over the past few weeks, we have become very much aware of its weaknesses. We have got the basis. We do not want to see a new one. Too much has been built on that basis too rapidly, too weakly, and the cracks appear in all directions. It is something far too valuable to allow to perish. When I say "effective", I mean effective and on both sides. We have to have some executive which will speak for employers and will ensure that, when an employers' executive reaches a decision with the trade union movement, all employers will comply with that decision. That can be achieved only voluntarily. It is up to us, as leaders of public opinion, to persuade workers and employers to do this for themselves.

Certain points in general occur to me. At columns 1349/50 of the Official Report of 19th February, 1969, Deputy Michael O'Leary is reported as saying:

Too many Deputies think that there is a kind of short-cut to industrial peace—I referred to this before—and that the way lies as much as possible in bringing our industrial relations code into line with the sanctions of law in our civil courts. Too many Deputies at the back of their minds have this kind of approach to industrial relations.

This is a point which I think is worth discussing, even at this late hour of the night. I should like somebody to tell me why every other aspect of human relationships in this State is subject to the rule of law with the solitary exception of industrial relations. What is so different which gives employers and employees the right to say in effect: "We shall not bring our disputes before a court of law: we shall fight each other and the strongest man or body will win"?

Mr. James Tully

The Deputy had a shot at bringing one of them before the court of law and knows what happened.

Mr. Booth

Yes, because there was not a voluntary acceptance of this.

Mr. James Tully

As Deputy Dillon says, you cannot legislate a man into work. However, you can put him in jail and pay his fine to get him out.

Mr. Booth

What we have got to do is to bring some members of the Labour Party forward into the 20th century, before it is too late and we are in the 21st.

Mr. M. O'Leary

It is impossible to legislate in the matter of incomes. You would not accept any decision from any court about your right of profit. My speech was a long speech.

Mr. Booth

I shall come to the other point later but this was a point on whether it was entirely wrong to suggest that we should bring our industrial relations code into line with the sanctions in our civil courts. Deputy O'Leary did not speak of bringing it under the "jurisdiction" of the civil courts: he spoke of bringing it "into line". Are we to have industrial relations governed by the law of the jungle? That is what we have at the moment and it is not good. Let nobody say the law of the jungle means that the employer will always win, because he will not. He has now lost his power. The greatest power now lies in the hands of the workers.

Mr. M. O'Leary

That is nonsense.

Mr. Booth

It is a matter of trying to ensure that authority is exercised only by people who have responsibility. If we do not bring the industrial relations into line with the procedure in the civil courts, then we are admitting that industrial relations are a trial of strength.

Mr. James Tully

What exactly does Deputy Booth mean by that? Unfortunately, I do not know. I am only 22 years at it and, therefore, I would not know much about it.

Mr. Booth

Deputy Tully is not as stupid as he would make himself out to be.

Mr. James Tully

One of us is.

Mr. Booth

Deputy Tully knows well what I am driving at. To settle a dispute by force is crazy and to settle a dispute by any other method is obviously preferable.

Mr. James Tully

How?

Mr. Booth

There are many ways— by submission to the Labour Court. That is what the Labour Court is there for.

Mr. James Tully

Compulsory arbitration?

Mr. Booth

I never suggested anything compulsory at all, as the Deputy knows. He is trying to walk me into something and I am damned if he will walk me into it.

Mr. James Tully

The Deputy is already in it I am afraid.

Mr. Booth

When two parties fall out they must go to court. In industrial relations which is a matter of human relations the obvious thing to do is to get both sides to agree to come to court, not to force them there.

Mr. James Tully

If they do not go?

Mr. Booth

If they do not go, God help them. That is our trouble at the moment. They will not go. Why the hell will they not go? Because they believe that by the exercise of force they will get more than they would get if the matter was discussed in an objective way. This is not a matter of people struggling for a living wage. I know Deputy O'Leary was talking about the £10 and £11 a week man. This is not about the £10 and £11 a week man. This is a strike by people who want more than somebody else. This is the driving influence behind it.

Mr. James Tully

Are they not entitled to payment for their craft?

Mr. Booth

It is not a question of payment entitlement according to their craft. It is a question of people wanting more than others. This goes right through the whole of society. This is not just a question of employers and employees; it goes right up to the very top. You will get it in the top echelons of the income groups. People do not say: "I am not getting enough, I am only getting £10,000 a year". I hasten to add that I am not getting that, but people are saying: "I know a fellow who is not doing any more than I am and he is getting £11,000. Therefore, I have a grudge against society until I get £11,000." That is the sort of thing which exists everywhere and sooner or later we must cop ourselves on and snap out of it.

There is a very real claim for the lowest paid workers in the State.

Mr. James Tully

We say that but we do not act on it. We never make any attempt to do anything for the lower paid workers.

Mr. Booth

An offer has been made by the Minister to initiate a wage increase—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—for the lower paid State employees on condition—wait for it, this is the crunch—that it does not start another wage round.

Mr. James Tully

Does that mean that the Government will pay the lower paid workers if the strikers go back to work?

Mr. Booth

The Deputy knows that is not what I am talking about.

Mr. James Tully

The Deputy is away above our heads. I just do not understand.

Mr. Booth

It is time the Deputy got up from his knees.

Mr. Larkin

I am afraid we are not getting much enlightenment. It could hardly be expected. The Deputy knows nothing about the trade union movement.

Mr. James Tully

What about the Minister's offer? Deputy Booth said the Minister made an offer to lower paid State employees.

Dr. Hillery

I made an offer to the Congress of Trade Unions to raise the pay of the lower paid worker if they do not use it as a jumping-off ground for other claims.

Mr. James Tully

Did the Minister make an official offer?

Dr. Hillery

They took me up on it and they are coming in to me. Does anyone talk to anyone else on your side? Does anybody tell you anything?

Mr. James Tully

We heard the Taoiseach talking about this in the middle of the present dispute.

Dr. Hillery

This was in the Budget debate.

Mr. James Tully

Which Budget?

Dr. Hillery

November. I will send you copies of my speech.

Mr. Booth

They hear what suits them. If the Minister says something which upsets the normal, orthodox, 19th century tradition of the Labour Party they do not hear it.

Mr. James Tully

The only 19th century thing I heard of lately was when everybody last year got their increase from April and State employees got it from July.

Mr. Booth

I do not know how irrelevant one can get. To try to get back to the point I was making about the absolute craziness of trying to settle disputes simply by force, nobody wins a war and nobody wins a strike. If the parties would only have the wit to submit their case to arbitration by an arbitrator or, much better, to have a hearing by the Labour Court or to go to a rights commissioner or to make use of any of the other facilities available that is the way to get a quick solution of the trouble. Nobody in any dispute gets everything he wants but you can get a lot more than nothing by that means and by the extravagant use of the strike weapon far too many people are getting nothing and are losing an awful lot.

Deputy O'Leary at column 1350 referred to the ESB (Special Provisions) Act which was supported by the majority of Deputies. He suggested, I think, that Deputies were out of date in their view that sanctions of the civil courts were involved. Let us get the facts in that case. There was a crisis in which electricity supply was being stopped and in which the entire economy of the country was grinding to a halt and in which a number of people might have been put in mortal danger. Can any Government tolerate such a situation where one small group can exercise its right to strike in such a way as to put other people in peril of their lives? That was a case in which in an effort to get people to see sense we had to introduce emergency legislation and I think a number of people have seen sense.

Mr. James Tully

Yes, the Government and Fine Gael have.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Not the ESB Tribunal which said it was a useless piece of legislation. It is now universally recognised as useless.

Mr. Booth

It was a very useful bit of education.

Mr. James Tully

An expensive one for the Government. They had to pay the fines in the end and send taxies to take people home from jail.

Mr. Booth

I do not think that came between the Minister for Finance and his sleep. We had to make it clear that no one group in the community could hold up the rest of us to ransom.

Mr. M. O'Leary

It was highly irresponsible.

Dr. Hillery

Fine Gael are looking for stronger legislation now.

Mr. Booth

If we can get this new machinery working properly nothing will please the Government more than to repeal that Act. I would be delighted if it could be repealed, not because it was bad or wicked or immoral——

Mr. James Tully

Because it was no good.

Mr. Booth

——but because at last trade union members had seen that there was a better way to get justice.

Mr. James Tully

You are tempting them to repeat it again, you know.

Mr. Booth

I am not. I am inviting the trade union members to grow up. It is an awful pity members of the Labour Party have not grown up too.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 5th March, 1969.