Trade Union (Amalgamations) Bill, 1974: Second Stage.

Minister for Labour (Mr. M. O'Leary)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

There are something over 400,000 workers organised in almost 100 unions in Ireland. In comparison, the West German Trade Union Federation, the DGB, represents 6,400,000 workers organised in 16 industrial unions. In Denmark, 56 trade unions cater for nearly one million workers, while in Holland 64 unions represent 1½ million workers. The multiplicity of trade unions in this country has created problems in industrial relations both for employers and trade unions. First, where so many individual unions cater for workers, there is the likelihood that the service available to the ordinary member will not be up to the standard which he requires in today's conditions. Certainly, it is difficult to see how the range of services to be provided on the basis of a number of smaller unions can be up to the sophisticated level provided for union members elsewhere workers are organised in larger units.

Secondly, there is the general problem met with in a negotiation or dispute situation that the communication gap between the negotiating representatives and union members is increased in the multi-union bargaining situation. Also, where a number of unions are catering for the same category of workers, there is fertile ground for dissention between unions, what is often referred to as inter-union disputes. The 1973 Report of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions shows that their disputes committee had to deal with 23 inter-union disputes and this only relates to those which finally came before the congress dispute committee. It is obvious also that in the actual disputes situation the ground for misinterpretation of the motives of the negotiating representatives becomes more marked.

Thirdly, the shortcomings of our trade union structure have been brought into sharper focus consequent on our entry to the European Economic Community. Many of the smaller trade unions now find themselves at a disadvantage in endeavouring to keep abreast of the rather complex issues of interest to workers arising from our accession to the EEC.

The incidence of inter-union disputes is hardly surprising when one considers the large number of unions catering for workers in many of our national companies, for example, there are 21 unions representing 11,000 workers in the ESB, 33 representing 21,000 in CIE, 18 representing 2,200 in Guinness and 12 representing 700 in Gouldings. In this kind of situation, negotiations involving a number of different trade unions often prove difficult and complex and, indeed, may inhibit desirable initiatives in industrial relations because of the almost impossible negotiations which would be involved. A situation in which there is a large number of trade unions, with in many cases two or more in competition for the recruitment of the same categories of workers, must inevitably lead to a wasteful use of limited resources by both trade unions and employers.

Undoubtedly, a factor in the prolongation of the recent Dublin Corporation craftmen's dispute in which 12 unions represented 800 craft workers was due in no small measure to the number of unions negotiating with the one employer.

The trade unions themselves are aware of the need for a rationalisation of the present structure. During the 1960s, the congress committee on trade union organisation did a lot of very useful work in this field. However, disappointingly, progress towards rationalisation has been slow.

The function of Government in this matter of rationalisation of trade union structure is to provide the legislation that will facilitate amalgamation where the will to come together between unions is evident. I believe that the trade union movement is, itself, the best arbiter of its own re-organisation but that the need for such re-organisation exists, no one doubts. Today, trade union members are demanding a range of service which the small isolated union is unable to give. Of course, let it be said that the Irish trade unionist still wants his membership on the cheap as the average trade union contribution per week in Ireland is little more than the price of a packet of cigarettes. However much re-organisation takes place, the Irish trade union movement will not be capable of providing the services and expertise required unless the trade unionist in Ireland is prepared to pay a realistic contribution to his union.

I must emphasise that the provisions of the Bill will not in any way force amalgamation on any trade union which wishes to retain its separate identity. It is my hope, however, that this measure will stimulate a movement towards amalgamations which otherwise might not take place. The achievement of unity by coercive legislation requiring the goodwill of all concerned is as invalid in this area as in any other instance.

The Trade Union Act, 1971, in providing certain requirements for the issue of new negotiation licences, aimed at preventing undesirable fragmentation of the trade union movement. However, the Act did not provide the facilities which induce rationalisation of the existing trade union structure.

The purpose of the Bill now before the House is, briefly, to facilitate amalgamations in cases where trade unions feel that the interests of their members and of the movement would best be served by joining with one or more other trade unions. The Bill will do this by providing clear-cut procedures for amalgamations and for the transfer of engagements. It also provides for financial assistance from public funds towards the expenses involved.

The existing legislation on the procedures for amalgamation is contained in a number of pre-1920 Acts. As might be expected, these procedures are inappropriate to the circumstances of today. The absence of any clear-cut procedures has undoubtedly been a factor in the legal difficulties which have been experienced by some unions in their efforts towards amalgamation. The Bill before the House by providing for less onerous voting requirements for amalgamation purposes and by setting out clear-cut procedures designed to clarify areas of former doubt should be of considerable assistance in stimulating movement towards rationalisation through amalgamation. The long legal battle which delayed the creation of the NEETU from an amalgamation of the NEU and IEI and ETU might well have been avoided had this legislation existed in 1968.

The Bill provides, first of all, that an instrument of amalgamation must be prepared which will be examined and approved by the Registrar of Friendly Societies if he is satisfied that it contains adequate information on the terms of amalgamation. A written ballot on the instrument of amalgamation, as approved by the registrar, must also be arranged and every member of the union will be entitled to vote at this ballot. At least seven days before the ballot is held the members of the trade union must receive notice in writing of the ballot and this notice must, again, be in a form approved by the registrar. If the instrument of amalgamation is approved as a result of the ballot, the next step is to have the instrument registered by the Registrar of Friendly Societies, before the amalgamation can take effect.

At present there is no legislation in this country governing the procedure for the transfer of engagements. While the absence of a statutory provision does not make transfers impossible, it does make them more difficult to carry through and the effect is to discourage this form of rationalisation. This Bill provides that, in the case of a transfer of engagements, a procedure somewhat similar to that provided for amalgamations shall be followed.

The new procedures, supervised by the Registrar of Friendly Societies, are aimed at eliminating grounds for dispute in regard to the validity of amalgamations or transfers. In this way, the procedures will be more effective, less time consuming and will encourage those who see the need to proceed with rationalisation. An added advantage is that the interests of trade union members will be protected through the intervention of the Registrar of Friendly Societies.

Under existing legislation if two or more trade unions wish to amalgamate, at least 50 per cent of the members of each of the unions involved must vote on the proposal to amalgamate and the votes of those in favour must exceed those against by 20 per cent or more. What I am proposing in the Bill is to replace this rather difficult requirement by providing that a simple majority of those voting in favour of amalgamation or transfer of engagements will be sufficient to allow an amalgamation or transfer to take place. At the same time, the provisions in the Bill regarding the notice of the ballot and so on will ensure that an amalgamation or transfer of engagements cannot be rushed through without adequate advance information being given to all members.

In order to simplify matters still further, the Bill contains a provision whereby a committee of management or governing body of a transferee union, that is the union accepting the engagements, will be given power to alter the rules of the union to enable a transfer of engagements to be negotiated. However, this power to alter the rules would not apply where a union adopts a rule specifically to exclude the operation of this provision.

Under existing trade union legislation, no time limit is specified within which a complaint against an amalgamation or transfer of engagements may be lodged by members of the trade unions involved. This omission is rectified in the Bill. It provides that the registrar will have power to deal with complaints in regard to amalgamations or transfers based on certain specified grounds and any such complaints will have to be lodged with him within six weeks of the application for the registration of the instrument of amalgamation or transfer. If the complaint is substantiated, the registrar must make an order stating what must be done before he will consider an application to register the instrument. The registrar must furnish a statement of the reasons for any decision which he gives on a complaint under this heading.

The Schedule to the Bill sets out, in some detail, the powers proposed for the Registrar of Friendly Societies in connection with the hearing of complaints. For instance, the registrar may require the attendance of the complainant, or of any trade union officer concerned or of witnesses; he may require the production of any documents and he may administer oaths and take affirmations.

The registrar will also have power to award or withhold costs. Witnesses will, of course, be entitled to sums in respect of loss of time, travelling expenses and so on. The registrar may, in the course of proceedings, if he thinks fit, at the request of the complainant or of the trade union, state a case for the opinion of the High Court on any question of law arising in the proceedings. An appeal shall lie to the High Court, on a point of law, against a decision of the registrar on a complaint.

Under existing arrangements, legal difficulties can arise in regard to the transfer of property held by amalgamating unions. I have, therefore, made provision in this Bill whereby the property of amalgamating unions will pass without any conveyance or assignment to the new union. The property would vest in the appropriate trustees.

The procedure for changing the name of a trade union is contained in the Trade Union Act, 1876. Under this Act, a union must obtain the consent of not less than two-thirds of its total membership before it may lawfully change its name. For various reasons, a change of name may be desirable, for example, a small trade union negotiating a transfer of its engagements to a larger union might like the larger union to change its name so as to reflect its new augmented membership. I propose that, in future, a union will be allowed to change its name in accordance with its rules. Where a union's rules do not provide for a change of name, the union will be able to do so by adopting an alteration of the provisions in the rules which gave the union its name. The change of name will not take effect until after it has been registered by the Registrar of Friendly Societies.

The Bill makes provision whereby the Minister for Industry and Commerce may, with the consent of the Minister for Labour, make regulations for carrying the Act into effect—these regulations will cover such matters as applications to the registrar, registration of documents, and so on.

I have had discussions with a number of trade unions who are at present contemplating amalgamations and some of these have taken steps in that direction. I have, therefore, made provision in the Bill that, where steps have already been taken by trade unions with a view to amalgamation before the Bill becomes law, they may proceed as if the Act had not become law or alternatively, may be completed under the provisions of the new Act.

Finally, there is the question of grants. It is my intention that no trade union should be discouraged or prevented from considering amalgamation or transfer of engagements because of the costs involved which could be considerable and the Bill, therefore, includes a provision which will enable me, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to make grants available towards exceptional expenditure necessarily incurred by trade unions. These would include, for instance, the cost of engaging appropriate consultancy services.

I am hopeful that the procedures provided for in this Bill in relation to amalgamations, transfers of engagements and changes of name will encourage the trade unions to give the most serious consideration to the advantages, in greater efficiency and better service to members which would flow from a more compact, cohesive trade union movement. I commend this Bill to the House.

Mr. Dowling

I should like to support this Bill and, in doing so, to say that there are quite a number of gaps in it which I hope will be sealed off during the course of its passage through the House. I was a member of the union mentioned in relation to the merger, the Irish Engineering Industrial and Electrical Trade Union, and I am well aware of the difficulties which existed at that time and the problems created as a result of the ineffective measures available to the unions at the time the merger was taking place.

I am also aware of the problems that arose among trade unionists themselves as a result of the ineffectiveness of the situation at that time, the expense involved, the waste of members' money, the uncertainty created, the division among trade unionists and the lasting differences which resulted and which will be carried on for quite a considerable time. I am glad there is now legislation before the House which will endeavour to solve the problems which existed and created uncertainty and confusion in the past. I wish the Minister well with the Bill.

However, in dealing with the Bill there are quite a number of comments I want to make and quite a number of suggestions I propose to make to the Minister. I suppose it is important to go off the deep end first. When mergers take place institutional freedom is very important to our trade union movement and in a merger a major union should have a decision-making executive here in Ireland. With the broad base that now exists it is important that we should retain here this element of authority. We should not be dictated to and we should not be in a position where any outside group, whether it is in France or Germany or Britain or elsewhere, could dictate to our workers here. I know this is a thorny problem and one on which one could be misinterpreted. Possibly the Minister may not like to reply on this aspect if he feels it would create an erroneous impression in the minds of some members. Nevertheless, it is important that it should be mentioned.

In many cases we have foreign-based unions with decision-making executives abroad who may accept one rate while the workers here are seeking another rate. In many ways and at many times this can put the Irish workers at a great disadvantage. The attitude of the trade unions on the Continent and elsewhere, following our entry into the EEC, if mergers take place with unions with decision-making executives outside Ireland, can cause quite a considerable problem because what is acceptable to Continental workers and others might not be acceptable to Irish workers.

Therefore, it is necessary and desirable to have some attention paid to this problem. Moneys are being voted in this House and we must ensure that, in the event of a merger, our trade union officials will not become redundant while officials will be planted in superior positions in Paris or in London or elsewhere. It is most important that when we vote money for mergers or amalgamations some consideration should be given to this aspect.

The Minister dealt with the number of trade unionists on the Continent and he dealt with the situation in our own country and with the number of trade unions representing workers in various firms such as CIE, Guinness, and others. When we examine the position here as against the German system or the systems in the other Continental countries we find a marked difference. It is desirable that the trade union movement as a whole should take a good hard look at this legislation. Those who felt in the past that they had reason to give thought to the question of mergers should now give comprehensive thought to this matter and take into consideration the various matters the Minister has outlined to ensure that a more effective organisation is obtained, the utilisation of skilled negotiators whom some of the major unions have at their disposal and participation in some of the progressive educational schemes and the various other schemes operated by the larger unions which are not available to members of the smaller unions. In the smaller unions we have many Irish workers who may wish to avail of the opportunities that are available in the larger unions. On that basis it is certainly to their advantage to consider the Minister's comments.

More effective bargaining power is another factor and I am quite positive it will weigh the balance from time to time in negotiations on amalgamations or mergers to ensure that they will have a say and that there will be continuity and a better service. Since we have entered the EEC we will be operating on a much wider base than previously. For that reason it is necessary and desirable to give thought to change at this time in a world in which there are changes in attitudes in relation to materials, trades, higher degrees of efficiency and specialisation. The electronic and engineering fields particularly require highly skilled negotiators and a pooling of resources we have not had in the past. That is not in any way degrading the various councils and groups who have come together to negotiate. Some of them have negotiated in a very effective and sound way. Nevertheless, something more is required. I think this Bill will meet, in some way, the many problems existing and make way for a new and improved trade union organisation.

We are well aware also that changes in motivations and materials mean that there are diminishing numbers in some of the smaller unions. They are now giving consideration to an improved situation for their workers. They have the problems of the worker and his future at heart. They are considering burying their identity and moving into an area where they will have available to them facilities that some of the larger trade unions can offer.

The position of the emigrant workers has not been mentioned here, how they will fit into the new set-up, whether or not their unions will be acceptable in any way to those of continental countries, what way they can operate and if they can merge with those foreign unions. Perhaps the Minister could clarify this situation. It may not be completely applicable to this Bill. Nevertheless, from some discussions I have had with trade unionists recently, people believe that some clarification is necessary.

The Minister has already said that under the previous Bill 50 per cent must vote and that there must be a 20 per cent majority. I am not entirely satisfied with some sections of the present Bill. In relation to section 3 of the Bill, I feel that the voting procedure should be supervised by an independent body or an officer from the registrar's department. As we know, officers of unions can influence votes to a large extent. We know from experience what has happened throughout the country from time to time in relation to voting procedures and important decisions made when one officer could influence voting. It is the feeling of trade unionists that possibly a postal vote, with an outside auditor or official supervising, might improve the situation. In addition to the requirements set out in relation to voting, I would suggest that, where an amalgamation or merger is about to take place, a notice should appear in the Press to improve on the vague references in the Bill, such as "shall be afforded a fair opportunity of voting". It might well happen that members travelling on maintenance could be a considerable distance away from base and correspondence sent out by the union might not reach them for some time. For that reason I feel an additional safeguard would be the insertion of a notice in the Press and it would improve the conduct of a ballot on a secret basis.

The Minister has dealt at some length in his brief with the question of voting procedure which is referred to in section 5 of the Bill. I feel this section is far too lax. Section 5 reads:

Where a vote is taken by a trade union on a resolution to approve an instrument of amalgamation or transfer, a simple majority of the votes recorded shall be sufficient to pass the resolution notwithstanding anything in the rules of the union.

"A simple majority" can mean that three out of five people can vote and carry an issue. I feel this particular rule is far too lax. Were I to make a decision between that and the previous rule, I would be in favour of the previous one. I have felt though that the rule governing the voting procedure in the past was far too rigid and tied the unions to a great extent. Somewhere along the line they should be able to handle the situation in which there would be a simple majority of votes recorded. We know meetings can be called from time to time for voting purposes which will not be convenient to members. The simple majority can be a very dangerous situation if there is no other requirement. This is another point the Minister should investigate and see whether or not it can be changed and made into something realistic. I am quite certain that, when the Minister re-examines it, he will see the defect which needs rectification.

In relation to amalgamation or transfer, I think in the future there should be some insistence that every union have a rule one way or the other. The registrars should insist that there be a rule of some kind in the rule book in relation to amalgamation to ensure that, prior to any discussion that might take place, members would be fully aware of the situation within their own union. Some unions have rules dealing with amalgamation. Others have not. Some have them in great detail. Were that provision made, members, if they read their rule books, would be fully aware of the problems and demands involved when an amalgamation takes place. Sometimes it might well happen that a merger or amalgamation would be sprung on members in particular circumstances which would cause people to panic or cause a group of people to accept what is said by one or two individuals. If it is possible to make a provision in the Bill for amalgamation it will help the situation considerably. If it is not possible to do it in this Bill, then perhaps it could be done somewhere else; perhaps word can be passed along to the appropriate authority.

In section 8 certain clarification is necessary. This is the one mentioned by the Minister in his brief. In section 8 it says: "...the committee of management or other governing body of the transferee union shall, notwithstanding anything in the rules, ..." I feel the committee of management should not have absolute power to change the rules. The Minister will have to give his interpretation of "other governing body" in order that we may consider this section more fully. I am not sure what is meant by "other governing body" or, indeed, to what body it refers. I am not sure whether it is a special body set up to deal with the matter or one in existence already. It is very vague and the Minister might clarify the situation so that we can examine this particular section in greater depth and detail. I feel the alteration of the rules should be the subject of a delegate conference. Otherwise, a few members can decide on a rule change and this, in itself, is a weakness. The Minister must take a second look at this matter before Committee Stage.

Section 9 deals with complaints to the registrar regarding resolutions. An appeal will lie to the High Court under this section. Who will pay the costs of such an appeal? Will it be the person who appeals against the decision, if the appeal goes against him, or will money be made available from some departmental fund?

In clause (f) of the Schedule it is provided that, on a complaint made under section 9, the registrar may:

order the trade union to pay to the complainant out of the funds of the union, or the complainant to pay to the union, either a specified sum in respect of the costs incurred by the complainant or the union (as the case may be) or the taxed amount of these costs.

Does this mean that the complainant will be called upon to pay the costs? Suppose the complainant is unable to pay, how will the matter be treated by the law?

In section 12 there is a reference to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, with the consent of the Minister for Labour, making regulations. I should have thought we had at last reached the stage at which the Minister for Industry and Commerce should have no function in a matter like this. Instead of involving the Registrar of Friendly Societies in this —he is, after all, a very busy man— a separate organisation should be set up, possibly under the aegis of the Labour Court, to deal with matters appertaining to this legislation. Such a body as I suggest would make the situation much more flexible for the Minister. It would be a very desirable departure in my opinion.

I would ask the Minister to have another look at this to see if it is possible to set up a specific body, a body which could assist in many ways in expediting mergers and assisting trade unions in a general way, particularly from the point of view of obtaining legal advice, and so on. Competent personnel to advise would be of paramount importance, personnel to whom trade unions would have free access. Such personnel would deal with trade union affairs in a general way in relation to the European Communities and allied matters. I do not think section 12 as it stands deals adequately with the situation.

Section 14 deals with grants towards exceptional expenses of amalgamation or transfer. Some clarification is needed here. What is meant by "exceptional expenses"? Would these be legal expenses, expenses to delegate conferences, travelling expenses, expenses incurred in seeking senior counsel's advice? Would not "reasonable expenses" be more appropriate phrasing? Where mergers are taking place it should surely be "reasonable expenses". That would be less rigid and one would not have to make a case to substantiate "exceptional expenses". There is nothing exceptional in the procedure leading up to the amalgamation of trade unions. "Exceptional" would connote to me court costs in long drawn-out legal battles. On the other hand, "reasonable expenses" would ensure every possible assistance would be there to help mergers to take place. I would again ask the Minister to consider the wording here. Is there any reason why it should not be "reasonable expenses" instead of "exceptional expenses"?

Where mergers take place guarantees should be written into the Bill to safeguard officials. In the event of a merger officials would be prepared to sink their years of membership of another union on the understanding that they would be safeguarded in any merger. These officials must be fully protected. There is, too, nothing in the Bill to safeguard officials who may become redundant or lose their employment as a result of amalgamation. This is a very important factor to which the Minister must give consideration. Officials who have given outstanding service in smaller unions, in difficult circumstances and in difficult times and with small resources, must be fully safeguarded and fully compensated. I can visualise a situation in which an official would be tolerated for a while and then find himself pushed aside into a job to which he did not feel suited or in which he would not be happy. Safeguarding these officials is of paramount importance.

I come now to a very important aspect, namely, the merger of two groups or the amalgamation of two or more unions. In that event if the smaller union entered into the larger body that union, if they have not a political fund, should be regarded as having opted out. If they decide to opt in as individuals it is an individual choice. In many cases over the years unions without a political fund have found themselves submerged and in a situation where they would become part and parcel of a larger union with a political fund. The members of the smaller union should not have to expose themselves when they enter a union by having individually to opt out.

Smaller unions about to amalgamate should be afforded this opportunity. It may be a problem with some unions; it may mean that some of them might not give the consideration desirable and necessary for the greater effectiveness of the members on the basis that political funds and alignments exist. If this particular aspect was one of the points to entice some smaller unions to amalgamate a good day's work would have been done. This matter should be considered seriously by the Minister. It is a disturbing factor from the point of view of some trade unionists and it may be one of the matters that would impede amalgamation.

I do not intend to deal with the particular unions or groups of workers that may amalgamate but we have small unions in the city who would be willing, but for small impediments such as I have outlined, to amalgamate. The opinion has been expressed to me that this is a factor in some cases. I hope that the rationalisation which the Minister has spoken of will take place as a result of this Bill, which has been delayed for some time. I hope this Bill will bring about the desired result and that our trade unionists and our work force will be the better of such amalgamations and mergers. I hope they will have at their disposal highly skilled negotiators and the facilities which are available to the greater power blocs in the trade union movement. In that way I feel sure we can arrive at a situation where the worker will have carved for himself a desirable situation within the trade union structure on a more extensive basis.

It should be remembered that what is acceptable to German, British or French trade unionists may not be acceptable to their Irish counterparts. The Minister should safeguard Irish trade union officials where mergers take place and where money is voted by this House. He should do so to ensure that the moneys made available will go to the unions concerned, thereby ensuring that foreign trade unionists would not be able to avail of moneys voted in this House for the purpose of maintaining themselves in superior positions and dictating to our trade unions and industrialists through a back door. I do not intend this to mean that there should be any division within our trade union organisations. It is desirable that they work together and proceed together as they have always done. On this particular aspect the Minister should give some consideration if he sees there is a valid point or a loophole here.

If the Minister does not wish to comment on this aspect now I will not force him to do so. I would not like to see a Minister being embarrassed by people outside of this House who would try to interpret, or misinterpret, in their own way statements made by a Minister. I have no doubt that the statements I have made may be misinterpreted but my contribution is an honest endeavour to ensure that Irish trade unionists will have a reliable institution, an institution of understanding for Irish workers, officials and of the problems that exist. I am not necessarily referring to British trade unions. In fact, I have dealt with trade unions on the much wider field now that we have entered the EEC. There are many factors in relation to the position of our trade unions in the EEC which have not been cleared up. It may be that foreign unions will come in and that some of our unions will align themselves with such groups. In that way an undue influence can be forced by certain approaches in order to get a foothold.

Our trade union officials and workers are to be congratulated on their behaviour and their ability to perform under very difficult circumstances over the years. They have helped in the development of this nation which has taken place since the early thirties. The massive progress which has taken place is a credit to our trade unionists. I trust that when this Bill is passed we will see, with the availability of the services provided by the Minister and the financial assistance provided, that unions will be encouraged to amalgamate. I agree that there is no desire to pressure groups into amalgamation and that this should be a free choice. I hope this Bill will meet the wishes of Irish trade unionists.

Mr. O'Brien

I wish to support this Bill which is a long time overdue. When we look at the position we see that 400,000 are represented by 100 unions. Great credit is due to our unions that we have not had more problems when we have this kind of fragmentation. It is obvious that this Bill is to streamline the trade unions and to ensure that the workers get the maximum benefit from their trade unions. With this type of fragmentation at present this is not possible. In the business world we have amalgamation and streamlining so as to obtain the best from the resources. When that is done the best is also obtained from the workers' resources without necessarily the worker receiving his just reward. This is possible because the worker is not as well represented as he might be in this highly competitive world.

With the amalgamation of unions there is no doubt that they will be able to afford the expertise, training and professional services in negotiations on behalf of their workers. Anything less than that today and the trade unionist is suffering. It would also result in having more workers' democracy. At the moment the trade unions may be a little nervous about it and think the time is not ripe. Possibly the reason the time is not ripe is because of the multiplicity of unions who might be vieing for their own positions on boards. A smaller number would take care of that. The introduction of workers' democracy is important and we should continue to do all we can to achieve it. With greater numbers in unions I can visualise a trade union movement training and educating workers to meet the challenge on the boards. Possibly the fear might exist that workers on boards might not fulfil their role but proper training would help in this matter.

Now that we are in the Common Market it is important for a person holding an Irish trade union card that the card should have validity throughout the Community. There might be greater respect for the card if Continental unions and employers saw a more cohesive unit here. As years go by there will be greater inter-changeability of workers in the Community and it is important that our trade unionists do not suffer in any way. Amalgamation would help in this area.

In many cases there are disputes on the basis of lines of demarcation, with one union claiming something to be their right against another union. In the present highly competitive market we cannot afford this kind of luxury. We must examine our attitudes and ensure there are no impediments so far as production is concerned. If there were a greater degree of amalgamation in the craft unions it might be a solution, and it would give us a better attitude towards crafts.

The Minister has spoken about the low rate of contribution paid by the worker for his trade union subscription and I agree with this. If one pays a very small subscription one cannot hope to get the kind of service needed today. In the larger firms who have computerised payments they have contributions stopped at source—in fact, some unions are doing this and it is a considerable help in the collection of funds. If this were done shop stewards would not be involved in trying to collect contributions and could be more gainfully employed in discussing with management what is happening in firms and ensuring they are kept up-to-date with the affairs of the firms.

We must have more participation in workers' councils which will play an increasingly greater part in our industries. If there were fewer unions this could be done with greater efficiency. It is important to have closer liaison between management and workers and this is best done on the shop floor. The trade unionist must be trained sufficiently to ensure that he is au fait with management and with the economic situation, and that he is able to discuss matters with his employer. By having this kind of dialogue the trade union movement can play a greater role in wage agreements and in ensuring that the wage agreements are not necessarily based on the cost of living but on productivity agreements. Managements amalgamate and streamline their operations to ensure greater productivity. If trade unions amalgamate they can come to terms with employers on the basis of productivity deals, ensuring real wage increases for their members. This is the basis of a real wage increase and it can be done with the sophisticated, modern and forward-looking trade union movement I see in this country in the future.

Deputy Dowling expressed some fears regarding outside influences in the unions and this point of view is valid. However, when we consider our trade union movement it is very national and personally I have no fears on that score. The movement is able to look after itself; it is a question of getting legislation so that the necessary streamlining can be carried out.

An important point is the incentive that can be offered to the unions and I agree with Deputy Dowling that the charges should be reasonable. We should give every financial assistance to unions if they want to amalgamate and it should be given in a magnanimous rather than in a tight-fisted way. We are trying to achieve good industrial relations which are even more important now that we are in Europe. They will be vital for our economic development. We should be concerned not only with the development of a specific industry or with self-interest but with the interests of the nation and the entire trade union movement.

We have spoken about 400,000 workers and the fact that 100 trade unions represent them. It is a great tribute to the trade union movement that there have been so few trade disputes when one considers all the negotiations involved. Amalgamation would mean a reduction in the amount of time spent in negotiations by the various unions. They could come to the table and hammer out good agreements which could be kept easily. The national wage agreements have been adhered to very effectively by the trade union movement and great credit is due to the trade union movement but it is important that in future negotiations are carried out at a very high level, that the trade unionist is represented at the table by the best possible people, thereby ensuring that he will get the best possible deal. Anything less is unworthy of him and would not be doing him justice. This would cut out much suspicion. The trade union member would participate more in the trade union movement. As in most other organisations the few tend to carry the majority. The provision of training officers, education, the encouraging of members to participate in workers' councils with a view to putting people on boards would make the trade union movement a very lively unit of our society. It has played a very important role. It has gone a long way towards ensuring that the industrial arm of our country has come up pretty quickly.

However, times are changing rapidly and we must move with them. What was good ten years ago is not good any longer. The trade union movement now must look to its laurels. There must be a proper organisations and the delegation of authority down to the shop floor. The trade union movement is a little slow in doing this. They tend to want to hold the authority at the top. I suppose this is a natural and human thing but it is a cumbersome thing. They must learn to delegate right down. By doing this the people at the top will be able to devote much more time to ensuring that the trade union movement becomes progressive. It tends to be a little on the conservative side at the moment. It is important that it should break out into a progressive body. I see this Bill as a first step. Trade union legislation will obviously require up-dating from time to time to meet the needs of members and of the community.

I commend the Bill. I wish to thank the Minister for introducing it. To date he has proved very efficient and effective, concerned about the Department in which he operates and about the trade union movement, a movement to which we all owe a debt of gratitude. I wish the Minister every success in the future.

Mr. Moore

I welcome the Bill. The Minister in his brief and in the Bill has given a good basis for an examination in a small way of the trade union movement in so far as this House should do so. It is essentially a matter for the trade union members themselves to perfect their organisation so that they can become a more effective part of our society. There are many people alive in this country who remember when there had to be a six months strike for people to establish their right to join a trade union. After that there was a period of agitation and then, perhaps, a period of consolidation. The trade unions are now on the threshold of a new era. The Minister in this Bill, small as it is, gives some opportunity for the trade union movement to set itself up as a greater instrument for the benefit of their own members, for the economy and for society generally.

Sixty years after 1913 we still have in some sections of the trade union movement a spirit of protest. While it is good that it should protest against inequalities, the movement must become much more sophisticated now to play its part in the European concept of trade unionism. I know the Minister will not suggest that this is a Bill of Rights which Tom Paine, Keir Hardie, James Connolly or Jim Larkin would regard as a major work. It is, however, a most important link between the Government of today and the trade union movement.

I am a bit perturbed about trade unions whose bases are not in this country. I am not being insular. We cannot afford to be insular now that we are part of the nine nation European Community. We should try to rationalise our trade union movement so that any union operating here would at least have its headquarters here. When we go abroad to speak with the Germans, the French or the British, we should be able to speak as a purely Irish organisation but a branch of the greater European trade union movement. This would lead to a greater strength for the unions here. If they were in Brussels or in Strasbourg they would not have to say: "We cannot give an answer here because we must go back to our headquarters in London to check on what the next step will be." I am aware that when one joins a community such as the EEC one surrenders some slight part of one's sovereignty. The same applies to trade union movements. Because of our membership of the EEC we must look afresh at our whole approach. I know this is not a Bill of rationalisation but one of amalgamation. The Minister, in the major piece of legislation we are promised, should examine this matter very carefully to see to the home bases of the trade union movement and how that can be perfected in the interests of the Irish workers and the people in general.

The Minister is quite right when he says that the trade union movement is aware that the fact that there are so many unions is a fault in the organisation. If one wants an object lesson one has only to go back to last week and the corporation strike and put oneself in the position of a housewife in Ballymun with no heat and no cleansing service. I will not take sides and say whose fault that was but the woman there, trying to rear a family, sees that there are nine trade unions involved. Six unions agree and then another two unions agree but that woman still has not got heat or a-cleansing service. Eventually all the unions agree. We could get around something like this by saying: "We have got differences in the unions but let us sort those things out and make sure we do not inflict suffering on people who are in no way involved." Employers must also perfect their organisations so that they will not be found wanting, as they often have been, when they have caused the public suffering.

The trade unions have made marvellous progress in recent years. I should like to refer particularly to two of them. The Transport & General Workers' Union are a magnificent organisation doing work apart from trade unionism. They are making great efforts to introduce greater expertise into every facet of their organisation. The Workers' Union, a smaller union, in the spirit of their founder Jim Larkin, have succeeded in making themselves into a competent organisation of workers.

Trade unions will have to be the instrument for ensuring that employers, employers' organisations, industrial and commercial management are efficient. If we want to ensure that the standard of living of all our people is raised the trade unions have a great role to play. We must ensure that we have not inefficient management holding back national progress. People are becoming more trade union minded today and they will join trade unions to obtain protection. I have the greatest respect for the trade union leaders. I support the Minister wholeheartedly in any efforts he makes to ensure that the trade unions have the necessary wherewithal, whether by Government goodwill or grants, to ensure that their organisation is not split up into a hundred unions. We should have fewer unions. I am well aware that the Minister cannot force any of the unions to amalgamate. It would not be wise to try that. The Minister has shown the goodwill of the Government by this Bill. Deputy Dowling has shown that the Fianna Fáil Party are behind it, although we may have criticism later in relation to certain aspects of it.

Every week we see what can happen when there are too many unions. We had a recent example where some members wanted to leave the particular union they were in and join another one which was not agreed to. The matter was referred to the Congress of Trade Unions but before they could act on it somebody caused an unofficial strike. The public would have suffered because a big organisation was on strike. However, the strike did not last too long. We will find a more efficient trade union organisation if there is a lesser number of unions. The onus is on the unions to come together and say that they believe in one big union. It would be ideal if we had one big union divided into various sectors of craftsmen, semi-skilled, but all members of the one union and holding on to the principles of Larkin and Connolly. Trade unions today are as much a part of the establishment as our political parties. The era of the trade unions having to fight every inch of the way in order to make any progress has long since gone. They need no longer have any inferiority complex in regard to their powers or efficiency.

Sometimes we find unions acting against the common good but one must be careful not to castigate any union before one has all the facts. The Minister might also look at what happens on the amalgamation of unions. After they have amalgamated we should set other targets and say: "Three or four have amalgamated, why not 20 or 30?" Let us strive towards amalgamation all the time. Attempts have been made over the years to rationalise the trade union movement. The Oireachtas can only help by passing certain laws to attract the trade union movement to follow those paths. The trade unions must be the vanguard of the march towards a greater trade union organisation. We want to show to Europe that the Irish trade union movement is as strong and efficient as it is on the Continent.

I believe there is a greater spirit of humanity among the trade unions here than one finds elsewhere. It may be that the background of the people on the Continent is different to ours. Trade unions here strive to protect their workers but on the Continent they may have had more political upheavals. We had to fight here for the right to organise trade unions. Many days have passed since then and the trade union organisation in this country is a fine organisation with the right ideals.

The Minister should seek the backing of the trade unions in relation to the scheme of amalgamation and rationalisation. Before the Bill passes from this House he might have another look at it to see where he could enlarge it. I do not know what the grants will be to the unions for amalgamation purposes. I hope the Minister will be generous with them and will examine the possibility of ensuring that any trade union which shows the least sign of wanting to amalgamate will be encouraged to do so. The Minister will recall that the union of which he was a member, and the one of which I am a member, thought of amalgamating some years ago but nothing happened. It takes a long time to do something like this. Today the trade unions are aware of the part they played in our history and of the part they have yet to play. They are also conscious of the part that the European concept will call upon them to play. I feel they will not be found wanting.

Deputy Dowling mentioned section 5 which says:

This could be a safeguard to ensure having a more orderly scheme of things in trade union negotiations and decisions. I recall that very often at a trade union meeting when I was a young man—trade unions were more radical in those days—there were several ways of defeating something the majority wanted but I feel that at heart every trade unionist wants democracy safeguarded and that is done by the secret ballot on any issue. We must insist that any trade union ballot is a secret one as in the case of our elections. This is the bulwark of democracy and I think every trade unionist will agree with this.

In the new scheme of things the trade unions are no longer the rebels that they were. They have gone beyond that and have emerged with a magnificent organisation and are able to cope with any problems which may arise. I hope that in the 1970's the trade unions will assume the role of watchdog ensuring by their activities and their criticism that management and captains of industry are efficient and that concerns are run as a medium of sharing the national wealth and distributing it more equitably than at present. Those who work in offices and factories may well have to assume that role to ensure that management is efficient; otherwise there may be no jobs left in these concerns.

Broadly speaking, I assure the Minister that the Bill has my support and I welcome it.

Minister for Labour (Mr. M. O'Leary)

I thank Deputies for their support of this measure and assure them that any constructive and useful amendments will be seriously considered by me. Consultations are still continuing with some of the interests involved. One of the anticipated results of legislation of this kind is that it will at least remove legal impediments in the way of unions which organise similar categories of workers coming together. It will be for the amalgamating unions to provide the structure that will protect the freedom of the individual within the larger unit. While the larger unit may give greater efficiency the fear has been expressed that individual freedom might suffer, this freedom which it is said individuals have where a large number of unions cater for a specific category of workers, freedom to move from one union to another. I think that is a specious form of freedom and that the real interests of union members are better served when proper structures are installed in the larger unit.

The figures are given of the number of members covered by one union in CIE and the other companies, Gouldings and so on, where you have 21,000 workers in 33 unions in CIE and 11,000 workers in 21 unions in the ESB. The illustration is far more telling on the craft side because if you take the ESB the majority of general workers are organised in one or two unions but the craftworkers are in a great variety of unions. The same applies to Gouldings and CIE and all the larger companies and you have the problem of a large number of unions organising a small number of workers in a similar category. This is particularly marked in the craft area.

Deputy Dowling mentioned the question of cross-Channel unions and spoke of the possible embarrassment that could be caused by observations in this area. As he knows, this is an area of great controversy and represents a great deal of difficulty for the trade union movement in this country. In common with the Canadian trade union movement and a few other territories abroad, we have the problem of our workers being organised in head offices situated abroad. It is fair to say that a great deal of authority remains with the Irish members of a union which has its national executive authority in Britain, but any changes of the kind mentioned by Deputy Dowling in this area would involve great difficulty for the trade union organisation in this country, organised as it now is on a 32-county basis. If a great number of union members in Northern Ireland are in unions with head offices in Britain there are obvious difficulties in the way of changing that state of affairs by any legislation on this side of the Border. This and any other legislation, if it is to be helpful to trade unionists, must be on a free and voluntary basis without being imposed. Any thought on the matter will show the difficulties that lie in the way of any legal changes that are not sought by the trade union movement.

Deputy Dowling also spoke about reasonable expenses and mentioned that section 14 referred to exceptional expenses. The reference to "exceptional" here relates to expenses arising out of amalgamation of unions and reasonable expenses are what is intended by "exceptional" in this case. That is the legal description of the kind of work involved in amalgamation.

I think it was also Deputy Dowling who spoke of the Department of Industry and Commerce being involved with the registrar but, fortunately or otherwise, the registrar in a creature of the Department of Industry and Commerce and he is the person who works with friendly societies and that is how the connection with Industry and Commerce arises in this legislation.

The Deputy also mentioned wrong result arising in trade union ballots and spoke of the necessity for supervision by the Registrar of Friendly Societies or his office in the actual ballot. But there is a clearly set out complaints procedure in this legislation whereby anybody can raise questions relating to the propriety of the ballot with the Registrar of Friendly Societies and to me this would seem to be ample to ensure that any injustice that could possibly occur could be avoided. We could look into the matter but, as drafted, it seems to me the procedure is there to avoid the kind of situation the Deputy fears might arise.

As regards the political levy on amalgamation, I often feel this matter is exaggerated, understandingly enough. Some Deputies might feel that it is an area which should have nothing to do with union activities. In defence, one must record that the amounts of money spent by trade unions on political affairs are published. The most worrying aspect about this political expenditure is the secret funds which are available to people fighting elections. One of the greatest tragedies in terms of running elections in the 1960s was the lifting of the ceiling of expenses. This is by way of an aside because Deputy Dowling raised the question of political levies paid for by trade unions. In some cases these levies do not amount to a great deal, certainly nothing, one suspects, by contrast with what is available from private business to candidates representing their particular business viewpoints.

Deputy O'Brien raised the question of education and training. It is very much in the interests of the members concerned that there be adequate education and training programmes. This is not possible where a union is too small. These services cannot be available because the union is not wealthy enough and does not have the staff to give the appropriate education services to its members. I am anxious to help the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in any way I can by financing an adequate education programme for their members. I should like to see a comprehensive programme devised for the entire trade union movement rather than have it given out in bits and pieces to this limited programme or that limited programme. Size is one of the necessary elements in running any decent service for trade union members in today's conditions.

The Bill does not refer to the question of members of European unions. To my knowledge, there is not any great agreement between unions whose countries are members of the EEC on this matter. There is a growing tendency for unions to gather into trade federations. They have not yet reached the point of development whereby there is membership transfer in different countries. That is one of the advantages of membership of a union which has the majority of its members in Britain. There is transferability in certain trades between here and Britain. This does not apply between other member countries of the EEC.

Deputy Dowling referred to the cost of appeals to the High Court under section 9 (12). It is not envisaged that there will be many complaints to the registrar under this section because the Bill, as I said previously in relation to complaints about fears of voting procedures, lays down clearly defined procedures. There would be very few occasions when there would be an appeal on a point of law to the High Court arising from a decision of the registrar. The provisions in this Bill relating to the appeal to the High Court are more or less similar to the provisions in other legislation of this kind.

The reference to "simple majority" in section 5 was regarded as too loose. The purpose of the Bill is to simplify what were formerly very cumbersome procedures. If these procedures did not take away the will to amalgamate on the part of the unions interested in this step, they at least made it very difficult. Our intention was to make this more simple and the expression "simple majority" appears to fulfil that purpose. It is up to the trade unions concerned to see that there is no laxity in the implementation of section 5.

On Committee Stage we will be able to see what could be done to improve this Bill. This legislation relates to industrial relations. It does not attract great interest and yet it is this type of legislation which represents the most important things we can do to improve industrial relations today. It is based on the idea that unless there is a will on the part of the unions to come together, little progress can be made. The law should encourage those who are willing to amalgamate to do so. The State should provide any funds necessary to take steps towards this end. We have a great many unions covering too few workers in particular areas. This requires on their part a coming together to ensure that there is full communication which is very important in any case of dispute. Every union member should know what is going on. The basis of any union amalgamation is this: whatever about difficulties in the craft or skilled area, which is the area of most acute difficulty, it could be said that little advance will be made until the unions come together. We cannot claim there are any problems from abroad. Our problems are at home and they are historic and traditional. It is very important that the unions should be able to come together. The number of the unions involved is relatively large. The problems of lack of communication are not as acute in the smaller unions catering for fewer workers in the craft area. Nevertheless, this legislation has been considered necessary and will, I trust, help those who are thinking of amalagamation.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 7th May, 1974.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 24 Apr 1974