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.