Section 9 states:
(1) A member of a trade union which passes or purports to pass a resolution approving an instrument of amalgamation or transfer may complain to the Registrar on one or more than one of the following grounds—
The section set out the grounds on which the member might complain to the registrar. In the discussions on this section we were told that members would be protected by the provisions in the section and it appeared this was so. However, the Schedule states:
1. On a complaint made under section 9 the Registrar may—
(a) require the attendance of the complainant or of any officer of the trade union and may, on the application of the complainant or any such officer, require the attendance of any person as a witness;
(b) require the production of any documents relating to the matters complained of;
(c) administer oaths and take affirmations and require the complainant, any officer of the trade union or any person attending as a witness to be examined on oath or affirmation;
(d) grant to the complainant or to any officer of the trade union such discovery as to documents and otherwise, or such inspection of documents, as might be granted by the High Court;
(e) order the whole or any part of the expenses of hearing the complaint, as certified by him, to be paid either out of the funds of the trade union or by the complainant; and
While it appears that a person has a right to complain, apparently he will pay dearly for that right. It is unreasonable for the Minister to insert penal clauses in this Bill which will victimise a member who has a legitimate right to complain as set out in section 9. Paragraph 1(f) of the Schedule states that the Registrar may:
order the trade union to pay to the complaintant 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 those costs.
We can clearly see that this will victimise a person who will be obliged to pay expenses. It is completely unreasonable that while we have a section that guarantees the right of a member to make a complaint to the registrar against the manner in which a vote has taken place, a member will have to pay the expenses incurred. What would happen if an ordinary member of a union lost a case and was thereby liable to pay the substantial costs involved? Would he be obliged to sell his home to pay the expenses incurred as a result of a complaint legitimately made?
Paragraph 2 states:
A person who, on the application of any person, is required to attend before the Registrar as a witness in proceedings on a complaint under Section 9 shall be entitled to be paid by the person on whose application he is so required—
(a) such sum in respect of time and travelling expenses as he would be entitled to on being served with a summons to attend as a witness in the High Court, and
(b) if he duly attends, a sum equal to any further allowances to which he would be entitled if attending as a witness in proceedings in the High Court.
These are clauses that penalise the member who makes a complaint. Under section 9 the member is given that right in relation to the ballot but if, in the pursuance of a legitimate complaint, he calls witnesses he must pay. This is absurd and the Minister will have to change his attitude so that these people will not be victimised.
Not alone does a member have to pay the union the expenses they incurred, he must also pay the expenses of the witnesses he has called on his behalf. The intention of this Bill is to ensure that mergers and amalgamations are made easier, with moneys forthcoming to the unions by way of grants towards exceptional expenses in relation to the amalgamations. However, the unfortunate union member, the smallest cog in the wheel, the person who considers he has a legitimate complaint which he makes to the registrar, will be burdened with this tremendous expense. These penal clauses have been inserted to ensure that members of unions will not make complaints because of the substantial expenses they might incur at some stage. Paragraph 3 (2) of the Schedule states:
A person shall not be convicted of an offence——
this refers to the person who does not turn up
——under this paragraph by reason of failure or refusal on his part to comply with a requisition to attend as a witness before the Registrar unless any sum to which he is entitled under paragraph 2 (a) of
this Schedule has been paid or tendered.
He has to pay prior to the attendance of the witness and I hold this is completely unreasonable. I suggest to the Minister that complaints will not be made to the registrar because people will be afraid of the expenses that will be incurred. The Minister should be empowered to make money available to unions who are contemplating amalgamation.
This Bill is defective when one considers the penal clauses set out in the Schedule. I would ask the Minister to explain the provisions in the Schedule and to give us an assurance that no one will be victimised and that we will not have penal clauses whereby people will be afraid to make legitimate complaints because of the possibility of having to pay compensation. While it may be said that a complainant may be successful in his claim, there is always the chance that he may be on the losing side. The enacting of this legislation would put us back in the dark ages and no one would avail of his rights under section 9.
I agree with Deputy Esmonde that this measure would probably prevent cranks from taking proceedings but we must not legislate on the basis that some cranks may pursue certain claims. The vast majority of trade unionists are responsible persons. Only a very small section would bring proceedings on the basis outlined by Deputy Esmonde. Therefore, the Bill is defective in this respect and I trust that the Minister will consider the situation further with a view to providing for the availability of moneys to meet the costs involved in bringing a case.
Earlier we discussed the question of an appeal going to the High Court on a point of law. Again, the person who would have to pay would be the complainant if the findings were not in his favour. In the pursuit of any claim there is the risk of not being successful. A complainant may be successful for 99.9 per cent of the way but the other 0.1 per cent might be the deciding factor in the case being lost. This part of the Bill is outrageous and I ask the Minister to withdraw it and to ensure that people wishing to pursue a legitimate claim can do so without the fear of, perhaps, losing their homes or a substantial amount of their savings.
