Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 30 Nov 1971

Vol. 257 No. 4

Committee on Finance. - Trade Union Bill, 1971: Committee and Final Stages.

Section I agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Mr. P. Belton

I move amendment No. 1:

In subsection (1), page 2, line 36, to delete "500" and substitute "750".

The purpose of the amendment is to increase the minimum membership from 500 to 750. I feel that the larger the unions the better. As Deputy Desmond said on Second Stage, there are an enormous number of unions in the country at the moment and it will be necessary to amalgamate several of them in order to rationalise the trade union movement. The aim should be to end up with 20 unions instead of the present 94. The more members in a union the better because the more members the greater the amount of subscriptions and the greater possibility there will be of unions employing the experts they need, economists and people with business knowledge.

I do not know what the current subscription per member per week is. It is probably about 25p. In the old days it was 2s or 3s a week. If unions are small they cannot afford, without exorbitant subscription rates, to pay for experts. There is no doubt that in these days unions need expertise to help them to deal with companies. It will be necessary for unions to become aware of how the business is going. They can then proceed for a fair share by way of wages and, of course, they will be in a position to know if businesses are not doing so well and they will then not push them too hard.

I do not mind if we fix minimum membership at as high as 1,000 but I feel that the Minister's figure of 500 is too small. There was only a passing reference made by the Minister to compensation for trade union officials who have to retire on amalgamation of unions. All trade union officials are hard-working men, some of them having to work 24 hour days, and I think we should be made aware of what provision there is for compensating them. We will not get unions to amalgamate if we do not encourage them to do so and the more unions we can get to amalgamate the bigger the unions will become, the more resources they will have and the better they will be able to pay experts to do their work.

The style of work of trade unions will change radically and there will be a need for outside machinery to help to smooth out internal disputes as they come up. I know that congress have their own appeals machinery but I suggest there is a need for an outside appeals body with, perhaps, a Ministerial nominee, perhaps a member of the judiciary. I remember a case in which a carpenter appealed to the court against his trade union and it took the case six months to get into court. I suggest that such cases should get priority in court lists and that as well there should be the type of outside body I advocated.

Minister for Labour (Mr. J. Brennan)

The figure of 500 in the Bill was arrived at as a reasonable figure taking into account what the Bill seeks to do. It seeks to change the old system. Whereas under the old system seven members would suffice with a deposit of £1,000, here we are providing three impediments: first of all, there must be a waiting period of 18 months, secondly, there must be a deposit of £5,000 and, thirdly, 500 minimum membership. When that figure was arrived at, it was considered to be reasonable having regard to the other provisions of the Bill. It takes into account also legitimate specialised groups who, at some time, might want to form a separate union and who would have the blessing of all concerned. It ensures that there would not be too much difficulty for such groups.

These are the main considerations. I do not think that a figure of 750 as compared to 500 would make any difference when one considers the other provisions in the Bill which make it less easy than before to form trade unions. I am inclined to leave the figure at 500.

Mr. Cluskey

We cannot support this amendment because we consider the figure of 500 to be high enough and because there are several considerations that one must take into account. First, there is the right of association. I agree that there are too many trade unions. Congress are conscious of this defect in the movement as a whole and they have been striving and are continuing to strive for rationalisation and amalgamation within the movement.

However, at the moment there are approximately 40 recognised trade unions operating in this State who have a membership of less than 750 and no matter what legislation we might pass here, if we were to accept this amendment, that situation would continue so that there would be about 40 unions who would not qualify. While I agree with most of what Deputy Belton has said, I cannot agree with him in regard to the size of trade unions determining their strength because the specific purpose of a trade union is to defend and further the interests of their members. No matter how much we try to achieve these ends by negotiation, the fact is that the strike weapon is all that a worker can rely on ultimately. What determines the strength of a union is not their number but the state of their strike fund because that fund, combined with the determination of the members, will to a large extent dictate the outcome of any dispute that may arise. Some of the 40 trade unions I have mentioned—those having less than 750 members—have a healthy fighting fund. It would be unwise of the House to accept this amendment.

Mr. P. Belton

The Minister mentioned specialised groups and said that there are quite a number of these with a membership of less than 750. I would like to point out that there are a number of specialised groups whose membership is less than 500 and, indeed, there are some whose membership is less than 100 and some of these might wish to form a trade union. I take Deputy Cluskey's point concerning the 40 trade unions whose membership is less than 750 but my point was that if a union have 1,000 members each paying 25p a week they must have more money than a union who have 500 members each paying the same amount. It is my contention that instead of concentrating for the time being on cutting down numbers, more could be done within trade unions with the money available. For instance, experts could be employed within the unions and any surplus money could be used in cases where it was necessary to resort to the strike weapon. This would enable trade unions, too, to pay a sufficient number of officials who would work, say, 50 hours a week rather than have the present situation whereby officials are working for as long as 90 hours a week. The second reason for my amendment is that it would cut down on the number of trade unions but only after we have brought in some legislation which, in the case of amalgamation, would compensate officers on retirement from a union or whereby they could be dispersed among other unions. My main reason for the amendment is to ensure that trade unions would have the necessary finances to enable them to employ experts.

Mr. Dowling

I rise to speak against this particular amendment. One should examine the situation in its entirety. There are craft unions and general unions but some of the craft unions are diminishing in so far as membership is concerned. Therefore, if the figure of 750 were to be applied to craft unions, the situation would be impracticable. Any legislation that is passed must be realistic.

Mr. P. Belton

These unions are already in existence.

Mr. Dowling

In some cases, especially in relation to the trades as distinct from general workers, it would be impossible for any group of people to get together on the basis of having a membership of 750. It would be wrong if the legislation were to apply to the other section alone, that is the section that would be likely to have groups of 750. As Deputy Cluskey said, the figure in the Bill is more satisfactory than the one suggested in the amendment. I do not think there could be any confusion in relation to finance for staff and facilities because this is a different problem entirely. The issue at stake here is that of numbers. I might say that, in the first instance, I thought the figure mentioned in the Bill was perhaps too high but I would be prepared to accept it.

Mr. Desmond

I would urge Deputy Belton not to press the amendment mainly because I do not think it is entirely appropriate to this piece of trade union legislation. The Bill is designed democratically to prevent the formation of breakaway unions and as such there is to be a membership limit of 500. With regard to the Deputy's comment to the effect that he would like to see trade unions of 750 or more members that would be understandable if one were dealing with legislation that was designed to assist amalgamation or rationalisation of the trade union movement. I understand his feelings in that regard but we are in the very delicate, complex area of freedom of association, of the right of association, and I think the further strengthening of the Bill, as suggested by Deputy Belton, might be somewhat self-defeating. Therefore, I do not think the amendment should be strongly pressed. In any event under the Bill, it is open to any group of less than 500 members to apply to the High Court for general exemption on the basis that an application from such a group with less than 500 members would not be against the public interest. This is a desirable feature and even if we were to agree to the 750 there would still be a substantial "out" for such groups.

Our main preoccupation here is with the giving of a negotiating licence to very small groups of less than 500 members. There is nothing sacrosanct about 500 members. It is an entirely subjective assessment of the situation by the Minister. It may be that in years to come we will see the wisdom or the validity of the point made by Deputy Belton but I do not think that at this stage of trade union legislation it is desirable; it may confuse the situation further and there has not been any great demand for it. Our real purpose is to stop 50, 60 or a couple of hundred people going off at half-cock in the middle of an industrial dispute and setting up their own trade union, not to stop them in any repressive sense but to enact legislation which will give workers cause to pause and to think of the enormity of what they would be doing in forming a trade union where they have relatively little negotiating strength or relatively little finance available to them, and who are forming a union because of passion or frustration caused by a particular issue relating to conditions of employment. That is not the best way to set up a trade union. I do not think Deputy Belton's amendment would be that helpful in the long term and it might raise hares which we, on this side of the House, might not wish to chase. It could prove to be very difficult in the context of freedom of association which is adequately covered by section 3.

Mr. Moore

I think there could be an argument put forward for reducing the number specified in the Bill. We have, I think, 12 unions with less than 100 members. If there was an amalgamation of, say, three of these unions would the Minister consider that they should qualify with a smaller number? This would have the effect of encouraging unions to amalgamate and so reduce the total number of unions.

Mr. J. Brennan

The Bill is not designed chiefly to facilitate rationalisation or mergers, although in so far as it would prevent proliferation or fragmentation, it has an element of that in it. This I would hope to deal with in separate legislation. With regard to the point made by Deputy Moore I should like to point out that any small unions which already have a negotiating licence are free to amalgamate. They will not be required to comply with the requirements of this Bill.

Mr. Moore

Would they not be a new union?

Mr. J. Brennan

No, they need not be. A union have the right to change their name but they could retain any one particular name and amalgamate. So long as they had licences before, they would not require a new negotiating licence.

Mr. Dowling

Is there any danger of a group of 150 or 200 people deciding to enter one of these small unions of less than 100 people as a way around the Bill, and taking over the union, so to speak, and getting a negotiating licence by virtue of the fact that they are able to take over?

Mr. J. Brennan

There is nothing to stop that happening. It is the same as if the Deputy bought a public house that already has a licence. They are free to join the union who have the licence. I would hope they would do that. It is just like new members going in.

Mr. Dowling

It could defeat the whole purpose of the Bill though.

Mr. Desmond

I think this is a fair point but there is nothing very much that anybody can do in practice about it. We have quite a few unions with only about 100 members in them. A couple of hundred people joining could effect a takeover but there is nothing anybody can do if they are accepted into membership of the union.

Mr. J. Brennan

It is up to the union to accept or reject them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Mr. J. Brennan

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, to delete lines 14 to 18 and substitute the following:

"3. (1) A body of persons (in this section referred to as the applicant) which fulfils a condition specified in section 7 (1) (a) of the Act of 1941, and which has deposited and keeps deposited with the High Court the appropriate sum (within the meaning of section 2 of this Act), but otherwise does not fulfil a condition specified in section 2 of this Act, may apply to the High Court for a declaration under this section."

This amendment is for the purpose of clarification. It is a drafting change which clarifies the point that it will not be necessary for a body applying to the High Court for a declaration under this section to have kept the appropriate sum deposited for the previous 18 months. The purpose of that is obvious. The section as it was originally amended would mean that a body intending to go to the court might have to wait the 18 months whereas as re-drafted, clarified by this amendment, the section will enable a body who have lodged the necessary deposit to go to the court without waiting 18 months if they do not comply with the other requirements, say a body of less than 500 who feel that they have a right to appeal to the court for a licence. Instead of having to wait 18 months as stipulated in the Bill generally they could go to court on the lodgment of the deposit.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 3, as amended, ageed to.

Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.

NEW SCHEDULE

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Acceptance of this amendment involves the deletion of the Schedule to the Bill.

Mr. P. Belton

I move amendment No. 3:

Before the Schedule to insert a new Schedule as follows:

"Subject to the requirements of section 2 (1) (b) the deposit shall in all cases be £5,000."

In my first amendment I proposed that the number should be 750 instead of 500. The Minister said 500 was sufficient. Where people lose their heads and break away from a union they must have 500 members to form a new union. Therefore, I feel that £5,000 should be sufficient right through. I would not mind if it were £6,000 or £7,000 but there should be just one scale, not a sliding scale. This is a fivefold increase on the amount in the 1941 Act. It is difficult enough for a trade union to get subscriptions from their members and £5,000 is quite a sizeable amount for a breakaway union with 500 members to have in hand. A union with 2,000 members can have £5,000 to £8,000 without any trouble. I do not see why £5,000 of anybody's money should be tied up. The deposit could go to £15,000 and in that case I do not see why £10,000 should be tied up in the case of the bigger unions. Admittedly the union get a dividend on the money lodged in court but they could use that money to better advantage in, say, building for themselves. A big trade union might want to have a branch in Cork. To build an office there, using their own money, would be a better investment for them than to deposit the amount in court. I suggest that there should be a minimum and a maximum. I do not see any reason for having a sliding scale.

Mr. Desmond

The proposition made by Deputy Belton might complicate matters even further. In relation to trade union organisation, money is no great incentive to amalgamation. The deposits required have never stopped people from setting up a trade union, if they were really serious about setting up a union, or from amalgamating. While it is true that there will be two levels of contribution arising out of the Schedule, Deputy Belton's amendment will not prevent this. On balance, we would prefer to allow things to stand as they are within the Bill. We honestly could not support the amendment.

Mr. J. Brennan

I, too, would advise Deputy Belton not to press the amendment as it would create anomalies, in that under the 1941 Act there was also an ascending scale and some unions at present have deposits as high as £10,000, which is the maximum under the 1941 Act, and if Deputy Belton's amendment were accepted, the unions that might be registered under this Bill, would be put in a better position than those registered under the 1941 legislation. For that reason alone, it would create an anomaly and could not have our support.

There are other reasons for which it is well to keep an ascending scale. As Deputy Desmond has said, people who wish to prove their bona fides as an association or as an organised, registered, legitimate trade union, will not baulk at lodging the necessary deposit.

It is not a payment; it is just a deposit and as such, is not really a drag on a union.

Mr. P. Belton

I am not pressing the amendment. I felt that if £10,000 was payable under the previous Act there is no reason why it should be only £5,000 now. It is stupid when you get to a big union, who have to pay £15,000. I do not see why £5,000 should not be sufficient and let them use their £10,000 in any way they like. It is waste of money to put it into court and invest it in certain securities yielding 4 per cent and 6 per cent whereas the money could be used to the advantage of unions and their members in some other way. That is the only reason why I put down the amendment.

Mr. J. Brennan

It might not be a cash deposit at all.

Mr. P. Belton

We know that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question: "That the Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill," put and agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill received for Final Consideration and passed.