I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
The Government are committed, as part of their overall programme, to the introduction of legislation to eliminate discrimination against women. The Government have already indicated their general acceptance of the recommendations contained in the final report of the Commission of Inquiry on the Status of Women which was published in May last. The commission recommended that legislation should be enacted to ensure the implementation of a policy of equal pay for work of equal value.
Equal pay is but one aspect of the general question of the status of women in employment and, indeed, in society generally which needs attention. Much remains to be done to eliminate unfair discrimination on grounds of sex wherever possible and so help to change the prejudiced attitudes which give rise to it. The Bill now before the House is a significant statutory step along the road leading towards uplifting the role of women in our society.
It is our objective as an administration to allow women to play a full part in the life of the State and to eliminate those barriers which prevent them from doing so. Whilst it is true that the majority of women may not wish to see their family role basically altered, it must not be forgotten that women are going out to work in far greater numbers or are returning to work at an earlier age after their children have gone to school. The proportion of women in the work force has been on the increase for a considerable time and now amounts to 26 per cent of the working population. It is, therefore, unacceptable from the point of view of women and our community that they have tended to be concentrated in less skilled and, therefore, lowly paid jobs and that they are poorly represented in management and most of the professions.
This major piece of legislation follows on a number of other measures which have been introduced by this Government. In this connection, I would mention the removal of the marriage bar to employment in the Public Service, the improvement of facilities for deserted wives and the introduction of benefits and allowances for unmarried mothers.
I must emphasise that this is a Bill to deal with equal pay. It is a necessary and important step along the road to eliminating discrimination but it covers only a limited though significant area of discrimination and does not in itself ensure equality of opportunity for women. In the preparation of later legislation, I propose to consider making unlawful practices in employment which impede the progress of women and tend to restrict them to the less skilled and more poorly paid jobs. Such legislation should also provide a means of redress for individual women who feel they have suffered unfair discrimination in employment. This present legislation does not provide the complete answer to the subordinate position of women in employment. More fundamental problems, such as the nature of their work in industry, the availability of training facilities and of access to these facilities, all these are matters which will require consideration and which may require legislative treatment.
From the experience of other countries, I think I may say now that further legislation will be necessary to deal with questions of discrimination on grounds of sex in the selection of workers for industry, their advancement and promotion and structural changes required by the needs of married women in industry. I have set in train consideration of all these matters in my Department. This Bill is, therefore, the first of a series of anti-discrimination measures which I propose to bring before the Oireachtas as soon as possible so as to give the individual citizen, whether man or woman, a fair contract of employment with statutory backing.
The Bill provides that a woman will have the right to the same pay as a man who is employed by the same employer in the same place of employment if both are employed on "like work". The definitions of "like work" follow broadly the definitions set out in the report of the Commission of Inquiry on the Status of Women—an excellent report—and used in successive national wages agreements.
These criteria are a good deal wider in scope than those contained in the equivalent British legislation of 1970 and should ensure that the fairest possible comparisons are drawn between jobs being done by men and women.
It is the intention of the Bill that both sides of industry should work together and secure by their joint efforts the transition to equal pay. I visualise the vast majority of equal pay claims being settled through direct negotiations between employers and trade unions.
Where, however, settlement of an equal pay claim cannot be reached by direct negotiation, the Bill provides that a party to a dispute can refer it to an equal pay officer of the Labour Court who will investigate it and issue a recommendation. The equal pay officers will be trained in the techniques necessary to enable them to give informed and authoritative guidance to the parties involved. If a party to a dispute is dissatisfied with the recommendation of an equal pay officer, there is provision in the Bill for appeal to the Labour Court who will then issue a binding determination—enforceable by law. Appeal may be made to the High Court on a point of law arising from any such recommendation.
I have deliberately selected the Labour Court as the body to be the final arbiter of equal pay cases rather than setting up a separate tribunal as has been done in a number of countries. In our situation the Labour Court enjoys a high reputation at the centre of our industrial relations system as a body trusted by both employers and unions. I would hope that this would contribute towards the acceptability of decisions in this area.
Where it appears to me that a particular employer has failed to comply with the provisions of the Bill and where for one reason or another it is not reasonable to expect an employee to refer her case to an equal pay officer, I will have power to refer cases to the equal pay officers for investigation.
In the course of my consideration of the most effective kind of dispute-settling machinery my concern has been to ensure, as far as possible, that claims can be settled quickly and without the necessity of those involved going through complex procedures in order to secure their rights.
It could, perhaps, happen that some woman might be deterred from seeking equal pay to which she might feel she is entitled through fear of retaliatory action by an employer— such as dismissal. I have, therefore, included a provision in the Bill making it an offence for an employer to dismiss a woman on the grounds that she sought equal pay. In a prosecution for an offence of this kind the onus will be on the employer to satisfy the courts that the dismissal did not arise solely from the making of the claim for equal pay. A woman who has been dismissed in the circumstances I have referred to should not be placed in the position of having to incur legal expenses in order to assert her rights. The Bill, therefore, provides that she can lodge a complaint with the Labour Court that she has been dismissed from her employment because she sought equal pay whereupon the Labour Court will consider the complaint. If the court is satisfied that the complaint is well-founded it can, by order, direct the employer concerned to compensate the woman for loss of earnings. An employer who fails to comply with a Labour Court order will be guilty of an offence.
I may add—for any male chauvinist Deputies there may be in the House— that the Bill will apply equally to a man who seeks equal pay with that of a woman who is doing like work in the same place of employment.