Amendments Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7 and 8 contain alternative suggestions and amendments Nos. 2, 4 and 6, also contain alternative suggestions. These two groups may be discussed together and separate decisions on amendments Nos. 1 and 2 should suffice.
Committee on Finance. - Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Bill, 1972: Committee and Final Stages.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 4.
I accept that decision. I move amendment No. 1:
In subsection (2) (a), page 3, line 40, to delete "two years" and substitute "one year".
My reason for putting down these amendments is obvious: I wanted to try to get some logical order into the system. The Parliamentary Secretary puts out his hand in astonishment. If he thinks that what is in the Bill is logical he is welcome to it. He has promised to help me on this discussion and I am glad to see him at it already. It is very good of him.
I do not think anyone wants to delay the House unduly today. I am simply attempting to provide a logical system so that there will be one week's notice for each year of service. For example, I do not think it appropriate, with all respect to the Parliamentary Secretary who is now leaving——
I will be back.
——that a person with 14 or 15 weeks' service should be given the same period of notice as a person with one and a half or two years' service. We have a period in the Bill of from two years to five years. To my way of thinking, there is no connection whatever between two years and four and three-quarters years. This Bill is no improvement on one which was passed in Northern Ireland many years ago and we know how conservative that Government up there were. Nobody could suggest that they were unduly liberally minded but they passed a Bill years and years ago far more favourable than the one we are now dealing with. That being the case, I do not see why we should not improve on this. I will wait to hear what Deputy Barry has to say on his series of amendments which are also an improvement on what is in the Bill.
Deputy O'Donovan and I are approaching the same problem from opposite ends. He is trying to relate the period of notice to the years of service. Anyone who has been two years in a job can be said to be a permanent employee and that for that reason he is entitled to more than one week's notice. In a later amendment I am endeavouring to increase the period of notice. After five years in a job a person is fully trained and after five years it may not be so easy for him to get alternative employment elsewhere.
The purpose of the Bill seems to be to give a person laid off as much time as possible to find alternative employment and I suggest that the Minister should appreciate that a person who is two years in a job should be regarded as a permanent employee. Such a person has no intention of leaving that job and if he is forced to do so he should be given as much time as possible to find another.
The provision arrived at in the Bill was considered to be reasonable considering present circumstances in which weekly workers, irrespective of the period of their employment, are entitled to a week's notice. The Bill is intended to help those with long service. Indeed it leans towards that category very much. The period of notice provided for goes up as high as eight weeks in the case of a person with 15 or more years' service. We must have regard to all sides in employment.
I would point out that these are minimum periods. There is nothing to stop a firm contracting with employees to have longer periods of notice. This is the minimum employers are compelled to give. I cannot accept the amendments, particularly in regard to two years. If both sides in employment wish to extent the periods of notice, they can do so. I do not think the Bill is ungenerous in this respect.
Is the Minister afraid of the civil servants?
No.
If he is not, he should decide that this Bill as drafted is quite illogical. It is illogical that a man with one year's service should get the same notice as a man who has up to five years' service. If the Minister does not do so, he is closing his mind to it. He has said the minimum can be exceeded. Many employers probably already are operating something like this and, therefore, the Minister's argument in this respect is worthless. He should remember that when a minimum is provided for in a Bill of this sort it becomes the maximum.
The Deputy might take into account the redundancy payments legislation.
That is at the back of my mind all the time but we in this House should not pass a mixum-gatherum piece of legislation of this kind. Much more progressive legislation than this was enacted in Northern Ireland years and years ago and, as I have said, that Parliament was not noted for its generosity or liberality. Deputies Barry and Belton in their amendments met the Minister to a certain extent. I have also met him and in one amendment I met him more than they did. They have put in a period of two weeks' notice at the beginning, whereas I put in only one week. I stayed with the Minister up to that point.
In subsequent amendments I set about laying out a logical system. The Bill as it stands is illogical at certain points. It would be fair enough to give only a week's notice to a man with only a few weeks' service but to apply this to a person with longer service is completely unfair. What is the logic of dividing this into periods of up to two years, up to five years, up to ten years or more and then to 15 years or more? There is a logic in five, ten, 15 but that is the only point at which the provisions of the Bill become logical. Lumping together two to five years is the worst drafting I have ever seen in a Bill. I can see no reason why the amendment I put down should not be accepted. The Minister has produced no argument whatsoever. He is just saying he will not accept it, Mr. Noman. I have listened to the Minister again and again in the House and I do not remember his ever accepting an amendment.
That is wrong. I accepted a few of the Deputy's amendments.
They must have been very minor ones because they made no very great impression on me.
I think there is a great deal of logic in what Deputy O'Donovan has said in regard to this lumping together. As I said earlier, he approached it from a different angle to Deputy Belton and I, but what we both had at the back of our minds was the same thing—that a man with five years' service is entitled to more than two weeks' notice in his job. This man is a permanent employee and he will find it exceedingly difficult in two weeks to get the kind of work he is accustomed to. The Minister should cater for these people. Deputy Belton and I have tried to cater for the middle income group. We have accepted what the Minister provided in regard to the first series, and it is only when we come to the people who are in the middle terms of employment that we have tried to extend the amount of notice to be given. When these people are in a firm for four years they consider themselves in a permanent job which they will be in for the rest of their lives. It would be difficult for them to look for other jobs and they need as much time as possible to do it.
I can appreciate what the Deputies are seeking to do, to go one better.
That is not true.
I am trying to get this question of minimum notice legalised and written into our legislation.
That is not what is in our minds at all.
I have the feeling that, if I tried to improve on it, the Deputies opposite should seek further improvements. Nothing is static. We can see from experience that it will be quite easy to improve it as time goes on. This introduces a completely new dimension into our industrial relations in that it writes into our legislation minimum periods of notice. It may not be over-generous, but minimum periods must be conformed to.
Can the Minister not do any better than they did in Northern Ireland years and years ago?
Our industrialists have to compete with industrialists in other countries, and I do not think we are yet in a position to go one better than the people with whom we are competing in the sale of our goods.
The Minister is not really making an argument.
It is a good argument.
All he is doing is talking. We all know this is rubbish that is talked: if you increase wages you price yourself out of the market. Now if we arrange that the people should get notice, not stop work, we are pricing ourselves out of the market. This is merely the conventional pub talk. I am quite prepared to give way to what Deputy Barry and Deputy Belton have put down, but there ought to be some change in this two-to five-year business here. If the Minister would even go so far as to change that on Report Stage— that is, if he would bring in an amendment here tomorrow—I would have no objection. Certainly that two to five years is too long a stretch, and there is also too long a stretch between 13 weeks and two years. In regard to the other periods of longer notice, all I did was make a logical approach to the matter: one week for each year's service, and the Minister does not think that is logical. By the way, in how many Bills that go through this House about financial matters of this sort is the Minister's approach acceptable? If I made the kind of approach in one of the Finance Acts as he has made in this Bill the Revenue Commissioners would very quickly tell me what they thought of me.
The Minister will accept that the majority of employers will be glad to accede to anything that is equitable and just. If they have to let somebody go they will want to give him the maximum amount of notice; they would give him six months if they knew about it. However, it is for the minority we are trying to cater. We are trying to protect the people who are working for the minority of firms who would do as little as possible for their employees. For that reason, the Minister perhaps will accept Deputy O'Donovan's suggestion and bring in an amendment on Report Stage that will allow some extension in the middle periods of the notice to be given.
This is a vast improvement on what we have had up to now.
We have had nothing up to now.
That is right. In regard to the figures we have got from the Labour Court in relation to productivity agreements and other agreements that are entered into voluntarily between employers and employees, the best we have come across is four weeks. In the face of that, there is no great demand for going as far as Deputy Dr. O'Donovan would want us to go. I grant that he is very socially-minded.
I already said I am prepared to meet the Minister, but he is not prepared to meet me at all.
The Deputy has pressed me a bit too far and for a start I am being as liberal as it is possible to be, taking both sides into account. I would remind Deputy Dr. O'Donovan that these provisions—it might be thought we cogged them— are exactly what has been written into the UK Industrial Relations Act, 1971.
A coincidence. They thought of it first and the Minister thought of it then.
I do not think that is an argument, what they are doing in the UK.
It is not, but we do sell 70 per cent of our goods there.
That has nothing to do with the amount of notice a man ought to get. He is working during that period and therefore he is producing at the same rate as before he got the notice. Therefore this will not increase the price of our commodities in other countries. The man will be working during the period of notice anyway.
The Deputy is pretending he is innocent here. Employers could find themselves in the circumstances in which 15 weeks' notice could be a very big impost on them. They might find they would have to notify men today that they did not anticipate the previous week, and you must have some regard to their position.
It is not 15 weeks.
I am sorry. Fifteen years' service, eight weeks' notice, which is quite good.
He is standing it on its head now. Whichever way he looks at it, it is quite good.
I am prepared to grant the Deputy that the lower end of the scale is where the greatest discrepancy might be, but the eight weeks is better than anything we have at present. I am not unduly worried now because the Redundancy Act does encourage employers to give much longer notice; it pays them to do so.
The Redundancy Act does not do anything between two years and five years to make up for what the Minister is doing here to the man who is just verging on five years.
There is an incentive under the Redundancy Act for the employer to give longer notice. The rebate he gets in respect of the lump sum is increased in relation to the period of notice he gives.
I appreciate this. It does not alter the fact, however, that the person who has five years' service or close on it should get longer than two weeks' notice. As Deputy Barry has pointed out, a fortnight's notice is not enough for a person to get alternative employment. We all know what the circumstances are in this country at the moment. We know that people are unemployed. The Minister likes to pretend that everything in the garden is rosy, that we only have to look after exports and that we will be all right. Our exports are doing marvellously but employment is doing very badly.
They are very closely related.
The Minister cannot deny that employment is doing very badly, extremely badly. I cannot understand why the Minister will not take a look at the thing instead of digging his heels in in this fashion. Deputy Barry and I are quite open to persuasion on anything reasonable in this intermediate period.
The only promise I give the Deputy is that in a year's time I will have a look at it in the light of experience.
Ah, now. Look, Minister——
This is not like the Deputy's form at all.
This is very bad because so far I have been very kind to the Minister. I have not said, for example, the kind of thing that I could have said, comparing it with the North. If I wanted to, I could develop that thesis. I have not compared it with what the North was like two years ago. Then the Minister says he does not like my form. What have I said to the Minister so far that is in any way out of order? Nothing—except that what he has in the Bill is not logical. Neither is it logical. It is in no way logical. It may be a "cog" of something else. There is no other defence for it.
I have given the Deputy a very logical reply to his question as regards improving the timing: let us see how it works.
This is not serious. We got the VAT imposed. Did anybody ever suggest looking at it to see how it works? Did anyone suggest putting it in at 1 per cent and seeing how it worked?
They are not comparable.
It is just as logical as what the Minister is saying. The logic of West Donegal does not appeal very much to me. Neither does the social philosophy of West Donegal appeal to me.
There is nothing to prevent a trade union coming to an agreement with an employer on the period of notice. There are a great many trade unions that have agreements with employers on the period of notice—both ways. There is nothing in the Bill that will prevent a trade union negotiating with an employer on the period of notice.
That is correct.
That is quite true. The Minister pointed out on Second Reading that he is also concerned about the one man working in one shop or one industry. This is the man who must be protected as well as the large number of trade union workers working for large firms. These people, particularly those in the distributive trades, find it extremely difficult to get alternative employment if they are laid off. There is a great deal of competition in the distributive trades. Small shops are closing at a fast rate. There may be one or two employees who have been five years in one job and who find it difficult to get alternative employment. A man who has been four and a half years in a job would need more than the two weeks that this Bill will give him to obtain alternative employment.
Is it not important that this be given a trial and recommendations would come to the Minister from the trade unions as to how it had worked and how it could be improved? This is important legislation.
This hare will not run. If Deputy Wyse had as much experience of legislation and how long it takes to gestate as I have, he would know how long it would take for a promise of that kind to work. I would not even take a promise from the Minister that he would consider it in the Seanad. I would disagree with him and would press the amendment. The fact is, all we want from the Minister is something that would put some kind of coherence into the Bill. Deputy Wyse has not dealt with the point at all. He said, let us give it a trial, in fact, although it is bad. That is not the way we should legislate. We should legislate certainly for some period of time. There is no use in pushing a Bill through the House and saying let us legislate for one year. I will not buy that. I will not have it because it is not the proper way to legislate. If we are going to legislate we should legislate for a reasonable period. I hope the Minister will promise us something out of all this.
I am always promising. I would remind Deputy O'Donovan that it was anticipated that there would be a demand for changes. As he knows from reading the Bill, there is a subsection providing for that. The Minister can at any time come in with an order which must go before both Houses, get an affirmative vote of a simple majority and can alter the time. That should meet the Deputy.
What method will the Minister use to keep tabs on what is happening under this Bill? Does the Minister understand what I mean by that? What method will he use to see how it works?
I take it that the terms of employment must be made known to the employees. I take it that if they are not being given the benefit of the terms of their employment, they will bring it to our attention. There are penalties written into the Bill for breaches.
That is not the meaning of my question. The Minister said he would consider improving the Bill.
Oh, yes. I am sorry. I know the point. The Deputy asks by what means will I find out——
——whether it is working equitably or not.
I would say that circumstances would easily indicate whether or not the provisions were adequate. The Deputy must realise that no Minister will be let go without being reminded that legislation is falling short of its objective. This Bill is designed to legislate for minimum notice and terms of employment. I am very sure that when it has been in operation if it is found to be inadequate there will be a move. I can visualise various ways of reminding the Minister that improvements are needed. Deputy O'Donovan would be one of them.
If somebody drew my attention to it. I have not that much connection with industry.
The Deputy is not bad.
Is amendment No. 1 withdrawn?
I think these ideas, both Deputy Barry's and mine, should be put to the House. Let us put amendments Nos. 1 to 8 to the House.
We will put amendment No. 1.
I am not sure I agree with Deputy O'Donovan. I am very disappointed by the Minister. I thought both Deputy O'Donovan and I had made some effort to improve on this section. The Minister seems to me to have set his face against our amendments. He seems to have come in here with his mind made up that no matter what arguments were put up and no matter what he thought about the arguments he would not accept our amendments. He has not come any of the road to meet us. I do not see much point in putting the amendments to the House. The Minister is obviously not going to accept them.
Does Deputy O'Donovan wish to have his amendment put?
I would again refer the Deputy to subsection (4) of the section which provides for the change of the Bill by way of statutory notice to both Houses.
That is at the Minisster's instigation. We can do nothing about that except ask questions.
If that was not in the Bill, I would have to regard the amendment in a more serious light but with that provision in the Bill in rejecting the proposal at this stage I am not being difficult.
That is the first good point the Minister has made. If amendment No. 1 is put to the House that will satisfy me.
Question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" put and agreed to.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 2:
In subsection (2) (a), page 3, line 40, to delete "one week" and substitute "two weeks."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 3 to 8, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 4, lines 2 and 5, to delete "prescribed by" and substitute "specified in".
This is a drafting amendment. The words "prescribed by" are not appropriate words to use here and I propose to put in the more appropriate words "specified in".
Unlike the Minister, we agree absolutely. Once he makes a logical point we accept it straight away.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 4, lines 26 to 28, to delete "one week's notice from his employee of his intention to terminate his contract of employment" and substitute "not less than one week's notice from an employee who has been in his continuous employment for thirteen weeks or more of that employee's intention to terminate his contract of employment".
This, again, is a drafting amendment designed to make it clear that a week's notice by a worker is a minimum requirement and only such employees as are themselves entitled to statutory notice are required to give notice under this section. It makes it more definite but does not preclude more than a week's notice.
I cannot see how it makes it more definite except where over a week is given.
If it is "a week" it would have to be a week but "not less than a week" can be more.
I am not a lawyer but I would say that is very doubtful law.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill".
I am opposing this section because, as I said on Second Reading, I believe that the weight of this section is all wrong. At present the ordinary common law determines what the relationship is to be between the employee and the employer and that is what we are trying to improve here. The Minister remarked a while ago that he did not like my approach. I did not like what the Minister said in his reply on Second Reading when he talked about a worker being caught with his hand in the till. I have a piece of information for the Minister. For his information, if an employee of Imperial Chemical Industries, a company which employs a quarter of a million people, is caught with his hand in the till, nothing happens to him until he is convicted in court. This West Donegal stuff of catching a worker with his hand in the till does not carry any conviction with me.
Apart from that there is the word "misconduct". I believe this is too indefinite a word. Misconduct can mean anything from using a four-letter word to giving the employer a puck in the jaw.
Or turning up late.
Quite right. Turning up late more than once in the week. The weight of this is all wrong. What misconduct can an employer be guilty of? I can only think of one kind of misconduct and I do not think it is done to mention that kind of thing in this House.
That is what makes it misconduct.
I always like to be helpful. What would be the consequence of leaving this section out of the Bill? I believe the whole thing would fall back on the common law and that the relationship would become what it is already. I do not quite understand why this should have been brought in. I think I know what was in the Minister's mind but there would be no harm at all in taking this section out.
I cannot understand what this section means. It is probably a legalistic thing in other legislation but what misconduct by the employer is I do not know or why it would be necessary for an employee to be able to terminate his employment because of misconduct by the employer. I do not understand what is meant by that.
I am quite serious about this section. I do not think we could delete this section. Remember the employee under this Bill is entitled to give notice as well as the employer. If an employer began abusing an employee for some of the many reasons that none of us has any difficulty in visualising, does the Deputy not think he could walk out the door and tell him what he thought about him; or would he have to hang around for a week and undergo it every day?
Even though it is covered in common law, although I am not a lawyer, I would submit that, if we were not to put in the section, employees or employers could plead that the terms of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act applied in cases where the common law at present operates. That is quite possible and remember that there is an appeal to the tribunal. If an employee feels that he has been wrongfully dismissed, that the terms of his contract were not observed in regard to minimum notice, he can appeal to the tribunal and, if he is not satisfied with the decision of the tribunal, he can still bring a case in common law to the High Court, so I think the safeguards are fairly reasonable. I think the Deputy is opposing the section merely for——
No, I do not behave like that. At least on this occasion, the Minister has produced some bit of logic other than this business about catching a fellow with his hand in the till about which he was so vocal on Second Reading. To that degree, we have got him down to firm land. I must say that his reply has some merit and, I withdraw my opposition.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
I move amendment No. 11:
To add to the section a new subsection as follows:
"( ) Within one month from the commencement of employment an employer shall furnish to each employee the particulars specified in this section."
This is one of the amendments I am very keen to have the Minister accept because I feel strongly about it. The section sets out in subsection (1):
An employee may, for the purposes of ascertaining or confirming any term of his employment (including the date of commencement of that employment), require his employer to furnish him with a written statement containing all or any of the following particulars in relation to the following matters...
This is well-intentioned but it is not going to operate at all because generally speaking employees are quite happy in their jobs. They know all these things without their being written in until a dispute arises and then they want them and it is embarrassing to go or if an employee goes to his employer and asks for these conditions of his employment in writing, the employer will tend to become suspicious and to wonder why he is looking for these things in writing and if he has anything else up his sleeve. It would be much simpler if the Minister would agree to "Within one month from the commencement of his employment an employer shall furnish to each employee the particulars specified." If it became the right of an employee to have in writing the various things specified, it would avoid a lot of embarrassment later on, while conforming with the section of the Bill, and give an employee a written confirmation of the amount of notice he should get, his holidays and other conditions. It would be simple to administer because a standard form could be prepared in the Department and circulated to employers to be given to employees within a month of joining the firm and it would make for good industrial relations if an employee could have in writing as of right the particulars specified.
I agree with Deputy Barry.
I am pretty slow to accept anything on this, though I do not like to be rejecting amendments all the time.
You must be getting fond of it tonight.
I am thinking of the employer who hires and fires people regularly by the nature of his work. We could be giving him a lot of trouble. Take the construction industry——
If they were a standard form, that could not arise.
In no time at all some printer could produce such a standard form.
A standard form with six different figures to be filled in.
I thought I saw some reason in this and I asked the draftsman to prepare something that might meet the situation but I still am a bit worried about imposing on employers. We are imposing quite a few burdens on them and this is just another one.
Indeed you are —the Revenue Commissioners are certainly.
Yes, everybody.
Most of the impositions which you put on employers are for the benefit of the Government. This will be for the benefit of the employee.
The Government are getting their work done free.
They are the people we depend on to create employment.
I thought the Government created all employment.
No, they create the climate in which it thrives. Perhaps this wording would suit:
An employer shall within one month after an employee commences work with that employer furnish to that employee the particulars specified in this section.
Is that not the same as mine?
It is reworded by the draftsman to eliminate any ambiguity there might be legally.
If it does the same thing, I am quite happy with it.
It has the same meaning.
The House is taking this amendment by the Minister by consent.
Instead of "furnish to each employee", it says "furnish to that employee". There is a little difference that makes it legalistic language.
It is put more directly. Instead of "Within one month" it says "An employer shall".
Amendment No. 11, by leave, withdrawn.
I move the amendment:
In page 5, before subsection (5), to insert the following new subsection:
An employer shall within one month after an employee commences work with that employer forward to that employee the particulars specified in this section.
Will it make any difference in the first paragraph of section 9 or will it still stand?
I do not think it would.
The section can stand with this new subsection?
Yes.
One will not have the effect of nullifying the other?
I do not think there is any overlapping there.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
Section 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 5, line 33, after "under this Act" to insert "(other than a dispute arising on any matter under section 9 of this Act)".
This amendment is designed to make clear something that is implicit in the Bill, namely, that a dispute arising under section 9 would not be referred to the tribunal but would be dealt with under normal legal process. Under section 10, failure by an employer to furnish a statement requested under the provisions of section 9 is an offence which can be prosecuted by the Minister. It is envisaged that these provisions will be administered in the same way as the Holidays Act is administered, namely, the Department of Labour will investigate complaints and a prosecution will be initiated only if an employer persists in refusing to comply with the Act. This is an improvement on the original wording.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 12 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 15.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 6, between lines 33 and 34, to insert a new subsection as follows:
"( ) Prior to making an order under subsection (1) of this section, the Minister shall consult with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions."
The purpose of this amendment is quite clear. Of course, it is realised that it is pious hope that one Minister would consult with another. This amendment means, in effect, that the Minister shall tell the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. If they express a view with which he does not accede, the view of the ICTU will not carry any weight. It has no legal significance except to oblige the Minister to tell the ICTU about some matter. In other words, he is giving them an opportunity to express their point of view.
There is one sacrosanct rule in this country that if there is consultation it shall be with the two sides of employment. I cannot agree to this unilateral approach because employers would be equally concerned if changes were made by the Minister by way of order. Section 15 states that wherever an order is proposed to be made under sections 3, 4, or 9, a draft of the proposed order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. Any changes made would be of concern to both employers and workers, and to consult with only one side would create an imbalance. Free collective bargaining is regarded as a system where the two parties are always equally consulted.
The Minister has a point regarding the wording used—that a draft of the proposed order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. It is obvious the Irish Congress of Trade Unions will hear about any such matter at that stage but there is a difference in that if the Minister consulted with them before making the order they would know about it before the matter became public knowledge. Recently I asked a question if there had ever been an occasion where an order was rejected by both Houses of the Oireachtas but the person I asked did not know of any such case. I would make the point that the employers are not represented by one single body whereas the ICTU represent the trade unions.
I do not think there is much weight in the Minister's remark that he must consult both sides with regard to industrial relations. I realise that the ICTU will get an opportunity when a draft order is placed before the Houses of the Oireachtas to make public any objection they might have——
It is usually done in practice.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 15 agreed to.
Sections 16 and 17 agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 7, after paragraph 2, to insert the following:
"3. A lay-off shall not amount to the termination by an employer of his employee's service.".
This amendment is designed to make clear that a lay-off shall not amount to the termination of an employee's service and the amendment is self-explanatory. It is in conformity with other legislation and it can be of importance to the worker with regard to termination where there are redundancy rights involved.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 7, paragraph 3, line 3, to delete "A strike" and substitute "An official strike."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
SECOND SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 8, lines 6 and 12, to delete "paragraph" and substitute "subparagraph".
I do not think this required an amendment. It is a correction of an error and it could have been done in the Dáil Office without coming before this House.
I am afraid it is necessary to move the amendment.
No. If the Minister wishes I can quote the Interpretation Act, 1937, which provides that a matter like this can be dealt with in the Dáil Office without coming before the House. Occasionally, I like to teach Ministers a point. They have so much help it is no harm to teach them something.
The parliamentary draftsman advised that it was necessary to move the amendment.
If this matter were dealt with in the Dáil Office the Deputy would complain it was undemocratic.
I would not. It is in the Interpretation Act of 1937. Would the Deputy care to have a debate with me on it?
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 8, lines 15 and 16, to delete "to the employee by his employer".
Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments, received for final consideration and passed.