We felt the original amendment was much better and we thought the Minister would accept it. The Minister said that his legal advisers had told him it would be unconstitutional to press for compulsory reinstatement. We had the matter examined and this does not seem to arise to the degree indicated by the Minister. At any rate, why not let the employer test it in court? Surely the woman has a basic right to be employed, and in this amendment there is provision for compensation for unlawful dismissal. We know there is provision for compensation in the Bill but the 104 weeks may have elapsed before her case comes up and by then the job she occupied may have been filled or it may have been rendered redundant by modernisation or machinery.
Therefore, we ask the Minister to consider this amendment seriously. A woman must be given protection against dismissal but as the Bill stands a woman will be reluctant to seek equal pay in certain circumstances because it might put her position at risk, there being no provision in the Bill which would indicate that she must be re-employed. The legislation is directed generally against a small number of unscrupulous employers who will avail of every opportunity to misuse these provisions. If the Minister feels he will have power under another Bill, why not embody it in this one and make sure that this Bill will stand on its own merits? Piecemeal legislation is of no value whatsoever to this House. The Bill must be a comprehensive measure able to stand on its own merits. If we introduce legislation which cannot stand on its own merits unless buttressed up by a variety of additional Acts, then we are weak in Parliament. I believe the Bill must have enshrined in it some indication that a woman can apply freely for equal pay without the risk of losing her job or being adequately compensated.
We framed this amendment when we felt that the Minister would resist, on constitutional grounds, the previous type of phraseology. We phrased it in such a way that a woman would be compensated if wrongfully dismissed and if reinstatement in her former position was not considered possible; only if reinstatement is not considered possible must she be compensated. That implies that reinstatement in her former position is the factor about which we are concerned. It is unreasonable to ask us to accept this piece of legislation, to so deprive women of an opportunity of applying for their rights. Many women will feel —if there is no covering clause to ensure continuity of employment— they may well allow the situation pass and no claim will be made for equal pay. The whole basis of the Bill is that women would receive that to which they are justly entitled. In this Bill there is no cover whatsoever and an unfortunate woman making a claim will be at the mercy of her employer. If he is a reasonable employer, probably he will concede the claim. If he is unreasonable, probably he will dismiss her and that will be the end of it. He will pay the compensation to which she is rightly entitled under the Bill — that is, equal pay for the period in question but that is a poor substitute for one's job.
We can foresee many ways in which employers can and will change the situation as they see equal pay claims being implemented. It may well happen, although I hope it will not, that when the application for equal pay is made some employers will say: "It is a new ball game, we require a new agreement for women" and make this agreement so objectionable that the claim itself would not be of any great comfort to the women concerned. As we have seen, on the Continent and elsewhere, every type of gimmick and argument has been used by employers in the drawing up of new agreements when the equal pay claims were made. We want to protect the disorganised workers in the same way as those who are organised. Whatever chance organised workers have of forcing the issue, because of the availability of union backing and the possibility of other militant action, unfortunates who are disorganised— and there are many such people in this country—will be at the mercy of their employers. I was reading only today that a new agreement was drawn up on the Continent which precluded women from carrying out a variety of functions they had prior to the equal pay claim. They wrote all sorts of nonsense into the new agreements, particularly in relation to women's clothing. They could not wear mini skirts, hot pants. They could not have the bra-less look as if these things affected a woman's ability to carry out her job correctly. If we are going to leave it to employers to impose these irritations on women in agreements, apart altogether from reinstatement in their positions, then the Bill will be doing a grave disservice to them and will open the way for employers to treat women as they think fit.
I would ask the Minister to consider this amendment seriously. It is not good enough to say it will be enshrined in future legislation. We do not accept that because from what the Minister told us on the previous occasion it was unconstitutional to insist on reinstatement. I would call it "continuity" of employment rather than reinstatement because that is what it is. There would have to be some safeguard built into the Bill to ensure that those who make a claim will not be discriminated against. If this amendment is not carried, then it will certainly be a Discrimination Pay Bill and will discriminate against women who endeavour to claim their rights under it.
