The debate on this Bill has been marked by a great interest on the part of Deputies on the Government side and in Opposition. There has been a great interest in the content of the Bill and general support for the principles of it. A number of Deputies, Deputies Dowling, Colley and Moore, felt the Bill was not sufficiently comprehensive. Deputy Dowling asked why I did not deal with all aspects of discrimination against female employees in this Bill.
As I pointed out in my opening statement, this Bill only deals with the aspect of pay. Other aspects of discrimination against women in employment will be dealt with in further Bills to be brought before this House as soon as possible. This Bill has been brought about by reason of the interim report of the Commission on the Status of Women which was published as far back as 1971. Most of those proposals foreshadowed many of the major proposals which were later given substantively in the final report. I decided that it was opportune in this Bill to proceed with legislation in this area. Deputies Cunningham, Andrews, Dowling and Colley expressed some anxiety regarding the use of the term "anti-discrimination" in the Bill. The Bill sets out to deal with discrimination in the area of wages and salaries of women workers. Therefore the title reflects accurately the Bill's purpose.
I think it was Deputy Esmonde who suggested that the definition of "employed" in section 1 did not provide for persons employed under a contract for services. The Deputy made the point that the definition might provide a loophole for unscrupulous employers. The definition covers all people employed under contract of service—that is, all employees—and is in line with the British and Northern Ireland Acts which define a person employed under contract for services as being a contractor and who to that extent sets his or her own charge for services. It would not be appropriate to cover such persons in the Bill. However, although on first examination there would not seem to be any need for a change, I shall look at it again.
Deputies Moore, Cunningham and Briscoe commented on subsection (2) of section 2. That is the provision that:
Nothing in this Act shall prevent an employer from paying to his employees who are employed on like work in the same place of employment different rates of remuneration on grounds other than sex.
The intention of that subsection is to allow for the payment of different rates in certain circumstances—for example, in respect of long service. It is important that provision be made whereby one worker could be on a rate of pay different from another. These differences would not be discriminatory but would be based on seniority and service. It would not be the function of this Bill to attempt to alter that situation.
Deputy Colley regarded section 2 as being limited because it referred to equal pay for men and women in the same employment and in the same place. Of course in the area of men's employment there are different rates of pay, according to region. I do not see how the Deputy's point can be sustained.
Deputies Lemass and Dowling were concerned about the possible difficulty of recruiting sufficient technical staff for the posts of equal pay officers. On entry to these posts high technical qualifications would not be needed although persons recruited would need to understand the techniques of job evaluation. During a period of time they would build up a sufficient amount of experience. I would emphasise that the appointments would be made in the ordinary way through the Civil Service Commission. Obviously therefore there would be no ministerial control regarding the type of people to be appointed.
Some Deputies expressed the view that there may possibly be adverse effects for women as a result of this legislation. What they mean is that it is never possible to improve anybody's lot without endangering the present status of the people whose lot one wishes to improve.
Deputy Dowling, too, referred to the long lapse between the enactment and the implementation of this legislation and suggested that employers might downgrade women's employment in the interim period. In this context he referred to the experience in the EEC countries. It is intended to introduce legislation later dealing with broader aspects of discrimination but in the interim period there is provision in this present legislation covering dismissals resulting from applications for equal pay. The trade union movement is well aware of these provisions. However the full implementation of this proposed legislation is envisaged by December of 1975. Therefore there is a relatively short period between the time of the introduction of this Bill and its full scale implementation.
There was reference to the reinstatement of women after childbirth. This brings up the whole question of married women in employment and of the possibility of their employment being endangered because of the responsibilities of motherhood. That is a real problem. It is not one that is being dealt with in this Bill but is a matter that will be appropriate for some of the measures to be proposed later.
Deputy Mrs. Desmond raised the question of the reinstatement of a dismissed woman employee. The Bill provides for payments of any arrears due to a person who has been dismissed on the grounds of having sought equal pay and provides also for the imposition of penalties on employers who are guilty of such action. The question of reinstatement is not covered in this measure on the grounds of the possibility of any former employee not wishing to return to the employment from which she had been dismissed. However this question will be treated more extensively in an unfair dismissals Bill which I hope to introduce later in this year and in which it is intended to include a provision to prohibit the dismissal of any employee because of his or her marital status.
The question of who decides on claims for equal pay was raised by Deputy Lemass. The Deputy seemed to think that I was the one to make the decision in this area. This is not so. In the first instance the equal pay officer makes a recommendation. If that recommendation is appealed to the Labour Court they make a determination and there is provision for appeal to the High Court on a point of law. Regarding hearings in the Labour Court there was a suggestion that these be held in private. I undertake to consider this suggestion. At first glance I expect that the parties involved would prefer the hearings to be in private, but I assure Deputies that I will look into the question of permitting also that there should be public hearings if the parties should so wish.
There was reference to the legal costs of pursuing equal pay claims. It should be made clear that a woman would normally not have to incur any legal expenses and that there will be easy access to the equal pay officers and to the Labour Court. If the employer does not comply with a determination of the Labour Court he will be guilty of an offence, and prosecutions in the case of such offences will be on my instructions. It is only in the case of appeals on a point of law to the High Court that a woman or her union representative will be liable for legal costs. I would say that would be a rather rare occasion. However I will have the matter examined and if it is seen to be a sufficiently realistic problem we will have it covered in this legislation.
Deputy Cunningham raised the question of equal pay and women's employment generally. He asked whether this piece of legislation would affect adversely the employment opportunities of women. Paragraph 164 of the report of the Commission on the Status of Women raises this very point:
A rise in women's pay would not bring about a substantial reduction in the level of female employment in industry.
That is my opinion, too.
