asked the Minister for Labour (a) if he has taken note of the decision(s) of the Agricultural Wages Board and the decision(s) of the employers' side on that body in formulating the content of the Agricultural Wages Order, 1972, in a manner which appears to be in conflict with the National Agreement of 21st December, 1970; (b) if he is aware of the content of paragraph (a) of report No. 7 dated 2nd December, 1971, of the interpretation committee of the Employer-Labour Conference that the agreement would apply to all categories of employers and workers as from 21st December, 1970; and (c) if it is his intention to ask for a report from the Labour Court on the matter or, otherwise, offer an explanation as to the attitude of his Department to a Statutory Instrument laid before the Dáil which appears to be in conflict with the National Agreement.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Agricultural Wages Order.
I am aware of the Agricultural Wages Order, 1972, and also of the Report of the interpretation committee of the Employer/Labour Conference to which the Deputy refers. It is not my intention to request the Labour Court for a report on the matter.
As I understand that the level of agricultural wages is at present under consideration by the Agricultural Wages Board, I do not propose to comment further in the matter.
I am afraid I would have to ask the Minister to comment further on the matter. What the Minister is saying is that, while the agreement made on wages applies to all other workers, it does not apply to agricultural workers. Is the Minister saying, as so many other Ministers have already said, that agricultural workers are only second-class citizens and do not come under the normal law of the land? If not, why is the Labour Court not asked to report on the breach of the agreement by the Agricultural Wages Board?
Of course, I am not saying any such thing as is implied by the Deputy in regard to agricultural workers. Secondly, the statement that he made that this constitutes a breach of the national agreement is an assertion by him but not necessarily an accurate statement of fact. Thirdly, the Deputy will be aware that there is at least one case which has gone to the Labour Court which has held that in the particular circumstances of that case it was not obligatory that the amount specified in the national agreement should be paid. The Deputy will also be aware, of course, that the figures settled by the Agricultural Wages Board are minima and that very many workers are paid a great deal more than the amounts laid down.
I am well aware that the amounts laid down by the Agricultural Wages Board are minima and apply in the main to unorganised workers throughout the country, but I can assure the Minister that organised workers have got very much better rates of wages. Would the Minister not agree that, if he accepts the report of the 2nd December, 1971, of the interpretation committee, he must accept that there has been a breach? With reference to his further comment about the case which did go before the Labour Court, is he suggesting that the farmers are unable to pay an extra 50p to underpaid workers despite the fact that they have been promised so much on going into the EEC? If not, what is he saying?
The Deputy is trying to put words into my mouth for the second time. I did not, of course, say what the Deputy said nor am I proposing to pronounce on whether or not there was a breach in this case. The Deputy stated that there was.
Yes.
I said that this was an assertion but not necessarily a statement of fact. In this connection, I would refer the Deputy to clause 4 of the national agreement.
I am well aware of it.
It is as follows:
Changes in rates of pay shall be negotiated at industry or company level in accordance with the provisions of this agreement and both trade unions and employers shall have regard to the ability of particular industries or companies to absorb any increase in labour costs without impairing their competitive position or viability.
I am referring the Deputy to that clause to indicate that his statement to the effect that the amounts fixed by the Agricultural Wages Board were a breach of the agreement is not necessarily correct.
Is the Minister again inferring that the employers concerned, the farmers of this country, are unable to pay an extra 50p per week to their employees, to pay the same amount as is being paid to every other worker in the country? Is that what the Minister is inferring? Incidentally, is the Minister aware that farm workers are still working six hours per week more than anybody else?
What I am saying is that it is certainly conceivable that the Agricultural Wages Board in arriving at their conclusions took into account the fact that some farmers might not be able to pay the additional amount and that what they were fixing were minima and that, in the case of farmers who could pay, almost certainly they would have to pay. I am saying it is conceivable. I am not saying what they did take into account. I do not know.
I do. The so-called neutrals had a majority and outvoted the workers' representatives. That is how they did it.