Earlier today I strongly advised against incorporating into legislation and into any legal framework so-called conciliation pauses such as were suggested in the British White Paper. I have spoken strongly against the concept of statutory secret ballot which has been fashionable in some quarters. I am against the idea of compulsory legal agreements between employers and workers. Instead, I want to advocate that there is an urgent need for comprehensive written and voluntary general agreements covering the whole range of conditions of employment between workers and employers and that these agreements, signed on a voluntary basis, would give immeasurable impetus and benefit to the industrial relations climate as a whole. This is my basic argument and I propose to develop it in the next few minutes.
We in the Labour Party and in the trade union and labour movements generally have been very conscious that the whole structure of industrial relations in these islands has been developed and built over half a century with a minimum of legal sanction. Employers and workers have been free to use their respective strengths in industry as a whole and at national level, to formulate their own particular code of industrial relations and to devise and ensure their own means of observance—in other words, a voluntary structure. The Government have traditionally and in my view quite correctly, limited their intervention to assisting the parties and providing facilities, as under the Industrial Relations Act, 1946, to ensure that collective bargaining does result and that settlements are brought about in disputes. In that matter, trade unions have been given understandably and quite rightly, some legal immunity and some privileges directly in the furtherance of trade disputes. I submit to those who would sweepingly change the legislative framework at this point of time that it should be only with the greatest care and under the most extreme circumstances that one should consider meddling with or changing substantially the immunities and legal priviledges that have been granted down through the years. I would oppose in particular statutory collective agreements between employers and workers. I quote from "Collective Bargaining: Prescription for Change" by Allan Flanders:
But the case for preserving as much as we can of this aspect of voluntarism does not rest solely on grounds of social expendiency. It finds its strongest defence in the very character of the human and social problems which industry creates; and the more dynamic and advanced industry becomes the stronger the defence. The fact—that industrial activity changes day by day, that technology and markets are constantly in flux, means that it cannot be directed with a sensitive regard for the manifold and diverse interests of those involved by a régime of strict external law and outside regulation. Fixed codes of rights and obligations, rigid notions of justice and equity, are not applicable to industrial relations. Every modification of a process may produce a redistribution of tasks and rewards and so provide occasion for deciding whether the terms offered are reasonable and fair. Since we have no objective or socially agreed yard-sticks to settle these questions they are best decided—within such limits as the public interest may impose— to the satisfaction of those who are most directly and most intimately affected. This can only be done by representatives of their own choosing, who know the facts of the case and the feelings of the people for whom they speak. Such democratic considerations are a substantial part of the case for preferring collective bargaining to State regulation, but they are equally powerfull arguments for our own non-legalistic style of collective bargaining and not for settling industrial disputes in the courts.
I would, therefore, submit to the Minister that there is a danger in a great many of the legislative attitudes in respect of industrial relations developing at the moment in Ireland that we could very easily slip over the brink without perhaps much deliberation or any great intent of reactionary attitudes into a situation where overnight we would have ourselves in the courts surrounded by lawyers, surrounded by legalistic interpretation of trade union-employer agreements. This could easily eventuate. I would therefore urge that any change in that regard should be given the greatest of thought for the betterment of the country.
I noted in the Minister's statement, also, that the intends a continuation of consultations with employers and workers on the proposed legislation to give workers statutory entitlement to a minimum period of notice of termination of employment and also to a right to written particulars of their terms of employment. I particularly welcome, and I think all trade unions and indeed all progressive employers will welcome, the statutory entitlement to a minimum period of notice of termination of employment. The frustration, the bitterness and the internal reaction which can develop in employment where insecurity arises because of a possibility of termination of employment is something which perhaps we do not appreciate until we get on in years. There are many managerial staffs, many management staffs, many supervisory staffs in the country and, indeed, a whole host of general workers, skilled and professional workers in industry, who have only got, when it all boils down, one week's notice or one week's pay in lieu of notice. Four out of every ten workers in the country are not in a trade union and they have no protection at all. Therefore, I welcome particularly the concept in new legislation to be brought in soon by the Minister, of a minimum period of notice of termination of employment and I presume this will be based on length of service and also of a right to written particulars of their terms of employment. This is progressive social legislation and it is something which we on this side of the House certainly welcome very emphatically and something which is in many respects long overdue in this country.
I notice that the Minister also stated that he would be prepared to have a review undertaken of the law relating to picketing which would cover the issues raised in the Educational Company case. I note that he still has this attitude in this matter and that if Congress and the employer bodies are prepared to participate in such a review he would be glad to initiate the review. We welcome that comment from the Minister. I would bring to his attention the fact that wittingly or unwittingly there has been built up in the trade union mind a certain amount of conflict, almost, in respect of the Educational Company judgment, more particularly in respect of previous correspondence between the trade union movement and the Department of Industry and Commerce from mid-1966 to date. It would be a useful exercise if the Minister could clear that much out of the air as quickly as possible. Otherwise it could become a rather difficult issue because separate legislation was to have been introduced to deal with the situation that arose following the decision of the Supreme Court in December of 1961 in respect of peaceful picketing in the Educational Company case. There is nothing to prohibit the Minister from separating that from his attitude in respect of picketing at large and on that basis I feel that the current dispute between the Department and Congress as to who said what on which occasion could be resolved. That could be cleared first and then the other aspects could be got down to as quickly as possible.
I would also urge the Minister to consider amending as a matter of urgency the Holiday (Employees) Act, 1961. Whether it should be incorporated in a new omnibus Conditions of Employment Act or not I am not certain but a straightforward amendment of the 1961 Act certainly could be introduced immediately to provide for, I would suggest, three weeks holidays on a statutory basis. As the Minister is aware, it is now quite commonplace in Irish industry to have extended annual leave but the 1961 Act has not reflected the tremendous change in extended annual leave in Ireland. In that regard I would bring to the notice of the Minister that we in Ireland lag very far behind the Continent and presumably if we go into the Common Market we will have in many respects to follow the Continental practices. I would point out to the Minister that for example, in Belgium adults have from 22 to 28 days between paid and public holidays; in France, an aggregate of 32 days annual leavel; in Germany, between 25 and 37 days annual leave between paid and public holidays; in Italy between 29 and 47 days paid and public holidays; in Luxembourg 28 to 34 days; in the Netherlands 24 to 30 days and generally in Britain as we know between 15 and 21 days. While we may be rather reluctant to go in excess of what is in operation in Northern Ireland and in Britain I would point out to the Minister that there is a good case for amending the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1961, and bringing it into line with what, in fact, is in operation in the current setting in Ireland itself. I feel therefore, that we should bring about this change as quickly as possible.
In regard to the Redundancy Act, Deputy O'Leary previously suggested various amendments to it. I am glad to note that the redundancy fund is now in a very sound condition and that it has a credit balance of approximately £1 million. This is a measure of the foresight displayed by a previous Minister and his departmental officers in setting the particular scales but I would bring to the attention of the Minister that the Labour Party did ask for a reduction in the period for qualification for redundancy payment for a dismissed worker from four years to two years. Now that the fund is in a sound condition and now that I am certain that the Minister is working along these lines I would hope to see this amendment brought in as quickly as possible to extend the scope and effect of the Redundancy Payments Act. I would advocate and strongly support an amendment by the Minister reducing the qualifying period of four years' service to two years for redundancy payment. Likewise, we did seek to have extended the period of notice of dismissal as is in operation in Northern Ireland. The Minister might be prepared to indicate if he will now extend the period of notice of dismissal given to workers under the Redundancy Act. This would be a useful extension of the Act and I have no doubt the Minister could bring it about.
Finally, on the Redundancy Act there is an extremely good case now for having a provision whereby weekly payments should be made after two weeks instead of, as is the current position, making redundancy payments after the expiration of four weeks unemployment. It is undesirable and anti-social that we should have such legislation and ask a redundant worker to wait for four weeks after he is declared redundant before we pay him. I would like to see that period reduced to two weeks. These amendments could be brought in and they would be of immense benefit they would be brought in in a period of considerable growth in employment, in an atmosphere in which we are now emerging slowly but surely into a climate and economic situation of full employment. On that basis, I feel that this Act could be substantially improved.