Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 16 Dec 1976

Vol. 295 No. 6

Protection of Employment Bill, 1976: Second Stage.

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

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

This Bill will apply to all persons in employment in firms normally employing more than 20 persons. The main purpose of the Bill is to ensure that employees faced with job loss as a result of impending redundancies receive prior notification as well as being consulted by their employer. The employer contemplating collective redundancies must enter into prior consultation with the representatives of the employees concerned. These consultations must be commenced at the earliest opportunity but at least 30 days before the first dismissal. It is envisaged that the consultation which must take place would be on the basis of information which the employer will supply in regard to

(1) the reasons for the proposed redundancies,

(2) the number of employees proposed to be made redundant,

(3) the number of employees normally employed, and

(4) the period during which it is proposed to effect the proposed redundancies.

A further obligation devolves on the employer to notify me so that opportunity is given to arrive at solutions with assistance of existing agencies like the National Manpower Service either to find alternative jobs or, indeed, redeployment within the undertaking.

I would like to say at this point that the requirements specified in the Bill will assure the employee of forward information and consultation in circumstances of impending redundancies which are no more than most good employers accept voluntarily now.

Employers with good relations with their employees accept that a structural change in their enterprise which may lead to job loss for certain categories should be the subject of prior consultation with representatives of employees. Regrettably there have been exceptions to this majority practice of employers. Employees with many years of service in a particular firm have found themselves at the receiving end of a 48 hour notice that their jobs were gone. Admittedly, in these circumstances individual employees may have legal redress under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973 which we passed here in 1973 and which provides that an employee is entitled after 13 weeks of employment to a week's notice of impending dismissal. His entitlement to notice rises progressively to eight weeks after 15 years of employment. The point remains that as a body employees were in a minority of instances admittedly treated in the harsh manner I have mentioned. By means of this Bill I hope to see consultative practices which exist in most employments extended throughout our industry.

Redundancies will continue to occur in periods when unemployment is a less acute social problem than it is now in all EEC countries. Collective redundancies occur for many reasons and will happen in times of prosperity as well as recession. In some cases, firms which have to reduce or discontinue their activities because of reduced demand for their products are compelled to make a corresponding reduction in their work force. In other cases, dismissals may arise from technical progress in techniques of production or following mergers or concentrations of businesses. The point is that our industry must evolve procedures for dealing with redundancies which are humane, which respect the employee and which minimise hardship to him.

The best redundancy procedures involve a fully articulated scheme, worked out long before the event, between management and the unions concerned. Such procedures would oblige management to give early warning of forthcoming redundancy based on an adequate company manpower planning programme and to enter at the same time into consultation with the employees' representatives concerning details.

I believe that the proposals of this Bill by laying down compulsory guidelines for management, will contribute towards the spread of good practices. Essentially the current proposals aim at reconciling the employers' freedom of management and the employees' stability of employment by respecting the interests of both parties, and introducing into the management's right of dismissal in the work situation where redundancy is inevitable the concept of prior notification and consultation. Hopefully this will reduce the adverse social consequences for the employees and their families. The legislation will in no way hamper the ability of an enterprise to adapt speedily to economic, structural, technical and market changes. If this were otherwise, the very existence of the enterprise and the continued employment of all who remain in it would be endangered. I have already provided in previous legislation protection for legal rights of the individual employee in the Redundancy Payments Acts and the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act. These individual rights of the employee will be further buttressed when the Anti-Discrimination (Unfair Dismissals) Bill, which is at Committee Stage in the House, becomes law.

I have already referred to the entitlements under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act. Under the Redundancy Payments Acts, an employee is entitled to two weeks' notice in writing before being made redundant. These Acts, however, apply only to employees between the ages of 16 and 70 who have been in continuous employment for two years with the same employer and who are insured for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts. However, under the Protection of Employment Bill all employees, irrespective of length of service or of age are included in the proposed consultation procedures.

The Redundancy Payments Acts already referred to do not provide for consultation prior to redundancy. Neither do they decide who shall be selected for redundancy or when they shall be dismissed or how the redundancies shall be phased.

As I indicated earlier, sections 8 and 9 provide that in future an employer who is contemplating collective redundancies must consult beforehand with the representatives of the employees concerned with a view to reaching agreement. These prior consultations should be based on prescribed information supplied by the employer and must cover the possibilities of avoiding redundancies proposed.

So far I have concentrated on consultations between employers and employees. I have also provided in sections 11 and 12 that an employer must give me advance notice in writing of the proposed collective redundancies. I am taking power to prescribe by regulation the particulars to be included in this notification of the employer. Within 21 days of the first notification to my Department, I will require a written report stating whether or not agreement has been reached in the consultations with employee representatives.

Collective redundancies shall not take effect earlier than 30 days after notification to my Department. During that time, the employer will be expected to co-operate as far as possible with officials of the Department in trying to alleviate the adverse effects of the proposed collective redundancies.

I should clarify what is meant by a collective redundancy. For the purposes of the Act a collective redundancy would be taken as occurring where during any period of 30 consecutive days, the number of proposed redundancies is:

(a) at least five in establishments normally employing more than 20 but less than 50 persons,

(b) at least ten in establishments normally employing between 50 and 100 persons,

(c) at least 10 per cent of the number of employees in establishments normally employing between 100 and 300 persons, and

(d) at least 30 in establishments normally employing 300 or more persons.

Under the enforcement provisions of the Act, it will be an offence for an employer not to advise employee representatives and my Department of impending collective redundancies, not to supply all relevant information or not to hold the necessary consultations. It will also be an offence to effect the collective redundancies within the prescribed delay period of 30 days. Substantial fines can be imposed on conviction by the courts for any of these offences. The employer will also be obliged to keep for at least three years records showing that the provisions of the Act are being complied with in relation to his employees. Authorised officers of my Department will have powers of inspection and investigation for the purposes of enforcement of the Act.

The Bill conforms to views put forward on behalf of the Irish delegation at the Council of Ministers meeting in December, 1974, which adopted the EEC directive on harmonisation of the legislation of member states relating to collective redundancies.

I expressed the view on that occasion to my colleagues of the other EEC countries that the directive to be adopted should apply to five dismissals in firms employing between 20 and 50 employees. I did not succeed on that occasion in obtaining a majority agreement for that proposal and, therefore, the final agreed EEC directive applied only where there are ten dismissals. I consider that a minimum of five dismissals in a firm with between 20 and 50 employees relates more to our conditions in contrast to the terms of the directive.

The provisions of the Bill, when enacted, will be brought into operation by ministerial order. It is my wish that the Bill should pass through the House as quickly as possible and become law very soon. I believe that this legislation will be welcomed by all Deputies and I accordingly commend it to the House.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Once again we are here on our weekly sprint. In recent weeks we have been getting for one hour or one and a half hours part of one of the many Bills before the House. I will not criticise that operation again this morning but I believe it would be better for the Minister, his Department and the House if these Bills were taken in ordered procedure where one's thoughts could be directed to each Bill in turn and see it through to a proper conclusion.

The word "redundancy" has unfortunately become a household word in recent years. It causes fear, concern and apprehension to many workers at a vulnerable time of their lives. We have all experienced among our friends and relations the body blow which mass redundancies can deal to a community. The smaller the community the bigger the blow and that applies to redundancies in cities, towns or villages. In my constituency I have seen many redundancies under this Government. Why has it taken so long for this Bill to be introduced? In my opinion the Department of Labour are becoming a fire brigade service, they introduce these measures in the nick of time. They have still not introduced the most important measure, the extension of the premium employment programme which will provide more jobs after 8th January. We were told this morning by the Taoiseach that the Dáil will not resume until 25th January.

It is very hard to understand why it has taken 22 months for this Bill to reach Second Stage. A directive on which this Bill is based was signed in February, 1975. May I say how proud we are as a party that it was Commissioner Hillery who initiated this programme? It is to his credit that at last the benefits to be derived from that directive are being introduced. Why has it taken so long to introduce this Bill implementing that directive which was signed by the Minister for Finance in his capacity as President of the council? It was to have been circulated before last weekend and to have been taken on Tuesday. However, it has taken 22 months since the issuing of the directive to bring it to the House and it has to be passed by both Houses before some date in February.

We on this side will co-operate in the passage of the Bill, but we regard it as unfair and blooming bad management on the part of the Government that it has come before us so late. Look at the serious consequences of the long delay. In December 1974 the unemployment figure stood at 81,000. Today the figure is more than 110,000—30,000 fewer jobs. I submit that even under this dreadful Coalition Government there has not been a worse situation in any two-year period, and if there were to have been benefits gained from this measure they could have been given to workers during that two-year period if this Bill had been enacted when it should have been.

Now, in typical Coalition style, it has been brought before us on the last day before the Christmas recess in order to provide the Government with propaganda, just as Aire na Gaeltachta, in introducing two Bills this morning, provided himself with a talking point over the Christmas. Now we have the Minister for Labour introducing legislation to protect workers' rights. It is part of the Government method of bringing legislation before us. We were supposed to have this Bill yesterday but it comes before us this morning. The Government have been bringing legislation to the House in bits and pieces instead of producing an organised ordered procedure by which we could sit down and take these measures one by one and tease them through to finality. But of course there would not be any publicity in that.

This directive was introduced by Commissioner Hillery and the draft was signed in February, 1975. This Bill is mainly in line with the terms of the directive but it has some questionable sections in regard to which one would have fears, particularly in the hands of a Government who have proved themselves to be the nearest approach to fascists since the Government of the 1930s. We have seen them recall the Dáil for emergency legislation, we have seen Bills jackbooted through the House——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is straying from the Bill.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

It may be hurtful, but I will point to the section which will provide the Minister with the jackboot. It will come down harder and harder on the decent people of the country. Already, the Government have exasperated and hurt the workers and the self-employed of the country by over-taxation. Of course the provision here in regard to collective redundancies is a step forward in that it refers to firms employing more than 20 people but I will try here to persuade a reluctant Minister of what is necessary in this as in other legislation. He refused to take my amendments on the Unfair Dismissals Bill. My main concern is that the small people are not covered by the Bill. This Government seem to be interested only in creating big employment. I submit that two, four or six jobs in a small country crossroads village or town are equally important, to be maintained and extended. In that section we are talking about what is meant numerically by collective redundancies. Then we refer to what is covered when an employer intends to cease to carry on business.

I am concerned about the bankruptcy situation as it is spelt out here. Our bankruptcy laws must be reexamined. Most of our redundancies came as a result of a business drop and financial shortcomings. This problem must be overcome and it can be overcome with the assistance of this Bill, linked up with Fóir Teoranta as an agency. Early warning of redundancies is necessary. We should use that early warning for more than one thing. In this Bill we are using the early warning system for negotiations between the negotiating bodies and the employers, with the Department keeping a watchful eye on things. We are using it as a means to try to avoid redundancies if possible. This is welcome but we must go a stage further. Neither the Department of Labour, the negotiating body, nor the employer, if he is experiencing financial difficulty, or is trying to avoid future bankruptcy, has the necessary resources to hold those jobs. That is why we must have a link with the Departments of Finance or Industry and Commerce, or possibly both, and that an agency such as Fóir Teoranta, or the IDA or the ICC must have the opportunity to assist both technically and financially if the need is there.

I was confused by the Minister's Second Reading speech in relation to the 30 days. Am I right in assuming that the 30 days is prior to notice of dismissal being served on any employee? In other words, from the end of the 30 day period the minimum terms and conditions of employment take over. Would the Minister clear that point, so that we can establish that that is the case? In relation to the 30 day period there is an omission of one change from the directive. I would like the Minister to explain why this change was not included, as I think it would be of benefit. The Minister could have taken power to extend the initial period of 30 days, which could in many instances be too short, and it might be desirable to have a period of 60 days instead. The early notice of mass redundancies is very important if it is used fruitfully. As the Minister knows, if there is a financial void or a financial need in a company and discussions take place and one of the finance houses are approached, these people will go into a lot of detail and time will elapse before an answer is given, so that the 30 day period could be devoured all too quickly. The Minister holds a lot of power under this Bill. It will be introduced by ministerial order. I would like the Minister to explain what is meant by that. The Minister can also limit the powers of this Bill. It says in section 7 (3) (a)

The Minister may by order declare that this Act shall not apply to a class of employees specified in the order and from the commencement of the order this Act shall not apply to that class.

I reserve the right to query this on Committee Stage. Why is it necessary to include a clause of this nature? The powers of the Bill are already limited. There are certain exclusions and I do not see why the Minister must include such a section to give himself powers that are not necessary under the terms of this Bill. There are quite a number of exclusions under the Bill, the civil service—it looks as if the Ministers are getting power in this House to hire and fire and do what they like—the officers of a local authority and people employed under the Merchant Shipping Act.

In the future the Minister for Labour will have a duty to try to have the bankruptcy and winding up proceedings tidied up. Legislation will be necessary. There have been redundancy situations in the past but they were in the minority. Employers, mainly suffering from the bad management of this Government, saw the situation deteriorating, and tried every means to continue their operation, some of them sensible, others far from sensible, even to the extent that social welfare stamps and PAYE contributions were being delayed in order to keep the firm going, and finally there was a crash and neither were the cards stamped nor were the PAYE contributions paid and employees became redundant in substantial numbers. Because of that the men and women concerned experienced considerable difficulties in getting their entitlements under the social welfare Acts and their pay-related benefits. This is why I say the 30-day period must be used beneficially. There must be a more efficient approach adopted with regard to our bankruptcy laws and windingup procedures to assist employers. Most of the employers who have been involved in such matters were honest hard-working people who did not deliberately set out to deprive anyone but because of economic circumstances they were forced into such a situation. In very many instances it was not a case of deliberate intent on the part of the employers. Most of the redundancies that have occurred have been caused by a financial shortfall, the economic situation generally and a scarcity of funds to enable firms to remain operational.

There are some interesting sections in the Bill and I should like to bring them to the notice of the House. I think the Minister is going mad or, alternatively, he is deliberately carrying on the tough tactics adopted by this Government where there is a network of tax inspectors pursuing people throughout the country, bleeding every penny from them in a last-minute effort to collect a few pounds to keep the Government going. Now the Minister is adding another group of people who will have considerable power.

Under sections 17 and 21 new powers may be given to authorised officers to do almost anything. They may go into an employer's home on production of a warrant issued by the Minister or by an officer on his behalf if any suspicion exists that the employer is concealing something. That in itself is fine but, assuming that an officer for some reason decides that he has such a suspicion, he can do something that is completely against our Constitution and against the accepted practice of law and justice here. If these sections are to remain, some safeguards must be written in whereby the District Court may be used to obtain such warrants. There is no point in the Minister saying that such powers will not be abused, that they will only be used in certain circumstances. That is not enough. Section 17 (2) states:

The powers conferred on an authorised officer by subsection (1) (a) shall not be exercisable in respect of a private dwelling-house unless the Minister (or an officer of the Minister appointed by the Minister for the purpose) certifies that he has reasonable grounds for believing that an offence under this section in relation to an employee employed in the house has been committed by the employers, and the authorised officer in applying for admission to the house produces the certificate.

The provision contained in that subsection is very far-reaching. I shall deal later with section 21 which also refers to this matter.

The Bill is welcome. At the moment we have a considerable number of measures before the House. I have said that they were introduced for political reasons but that is not the most important thing now. The important thing is that all those Bills which contain many different sections —some of them with provisions similar to those contained in section 17 or section 21 of this Bill—will instil fear in prospective employers because of the sheer volume of all the sections together. I accept that the legislation is necessary but I am pointing out the grave concern small employers may experience. These people are probably more afraid of legislation than the larger companies who have the necessary experience to study legislation and to examine how it may affect them. The smaller companies do not have that facility.

It is deplorable that the Minister should allow section 17 to be included in the Bill. It hits at the fundamental rights of a person, at the privacy of the home, and it can be abused to a dangerous extent. On Committee Stage I intend to oppose such powers being given. There must be safeguards.

When in Opposition the Minister gave the impression that he regarded every employer, big and small, as his enemy and now in Government he continues to give that impression. It could be contended that he is going to attack people even in the privacy of their homes if this section is allowed to remain as it is. We will have a lot more to say on this matter unless the Minister sees the light. Quite often I am not complimentary to the Minister but I think we have made some ground on this Bill and I am egotist enough to claim that it is because of my constant pressure from these benches. The terminology used in this Bill is far simpler and will be understood more easily by the group of people covered by this legislation. If, as a result of my promptings here, we achieve something in this direction I shall be very happy. I believe this Bill will be more readily understood by the ordinary person. The others I regard as a reaping ground for lawyers and others who will clean up at the expense of the ordinary worker.

Section 21 (3) contains the same type of attack on people in companies:

Where an offence under this Act committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the body corporate or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

In other words, if a young clerk in an office, perhaps because of a late night, perhaps for some other reason, makes some slight mistake then he or she can be charged with an offence. This outright attack on persons must be resisted, and I will continue to resist it and so will my colleagues in addition to the other sections to which we take objection, but sections 17 and 21 in their present form will be strongly opposed by us unless they are amended on Committee Stage. This is an interference with fundamental rights and entitlements.

We are anxious to assist the Minister in trying to control a massive redundancy situation. Redundancy is a hated word. It has disrupted homes, towns and townlands. Anything we can do to prevent it will be work well done. If the commitment were really there I believe we could achieve this. This Bill can fill a void. It can be a worth-while step in the right direction. Involvement and expertise will be vital, and if we extend the period for a further 30 days that might result in the prevention of redundancies.

When we legislate here we legislate for the most part for the vast majority of employers, employers who are decent, hard-working honest people, but there is always the employer who may seek a way out. There is always the employer who will try to drive a coach and four through legislation if he thinks he can get away with it. By mass redundancy we mean five persons in a 30 consecutive day period. Is there a danger that the employer to whom I referred could find a way out? If he takes three at the end of one month he can take three again 31 days later and, as far as I can see, he can continue that process ad infinitum. Perhaps there is some provision which will prevent him doing that and, if there is, I shall be happy to be advised of it. If there is not, then I would ask the Minister to close the loophole on Committee Stage.

Mr. Moore

Would I be in order if I asked the Minister if he has any information about the CIE bus situation or can he tell us how negotiations are progressing?

Mr. M. O'Leary

I am awaiting word from both sides. Both sides will communicate with me at 12 noon their acceptance, or otherwise, of the proposals I put to them last night. That is the position in Dublin. In Limerick normal working has been resumed. In Waterford conciliation is in progress.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

If the Minister wants to make a statement we will facilitate him.

Mr. Moore

As Deputy Fitzgerald pointed out, we have had a number of Bills here dealing with employment. The impression created is one of patchwork legislation. This is unfortunate, and I think the Minister is doing his Department and himself an injustice. There should be codification of industrial legislation. Over 40 years ago the late Seán Lemass introduced the Conditions of Employment Act, 1935, and that became the charter for workers. It is still regarded by many as such. However, we have come a long way since then. The Department of Labour has been established. There is more sophistication in the Civil Service, and I am confident that the officials of the Minister's Department with the proper legal assistance could codify all the laws relating to industrial employment, thereby providing us with one instrument to which to refer.

There are some good things in this Bill and some that are not so good. The Minister has asked us to give the Bill a speedy passage, and he will find us co-operative, but there are two sections that I could not support in their present form and I would ask the Minister to have a look at these. The Bill has a heavy European influence, coming as it does from the Commission, but in excluding the very small firms means we are doing an injustice. We are not like Germany, France, Italy or these other European countries. They have huge companies employing thousands upon thousands of workers. We have many companies that employ only three to five workers, and we should not deprive these people of the protection of the Bill.

One good point is that there is no age limit under the Bill. People are living longer now and living more useful lives. We have enough work for them to do in order to build the economy further. I am not one to suggest that people should be thrown out of employment even at 70 years of age. However, while this Bill covers a person over 70. I think he still will not be covered by the Social Welfare Acts.

Redundancy has become, if not a dirty word, at least a suspect one. Is it because of the policy of the Government in imposing heavy taxation that we are inducing redundancy? A worker may find he is so heavily taxed that there is no incentive for him to go on working, or an employer, equally heavily taxed, may well decide it is best for him to opt out. I would rather see in the legislation a different attitude, that is, one for creating employment rather than merely preventing redundancy. We must, of course, maintain our present job content, but we should have an outward look, and should be trying hard—I know some efforts are being made—to create more job opportunities. I agree with the Minister that there will probably always be redundancies and therefore we must cater for them.

However, there are omissions from the Bill. The public sector is not covered, nor are people who work on ships. A more recent development is that women are being employed on the ferry service. These workers will not be covered by the Bill. Our mercantile fleet is not all that big but it is growing; there may be some technical reason for the exclusions, but we should look more broadly.

The sections which will give us the most cause for worry are, as Deputy Fitzgerald points out, sections 17 and 21. I read at an early age George Orwell's book "1984", which is very frightening. He tells about Big Brother coming and watching all of us. Big Brother appears in section 17 (1) in a very formidable form indeed. The provision reads:

An authorised officer may—

(a) enter at all reasonable times any premises or place where he has reasonable grounds for supposing that any employee is employed.

It gives a picture of an inspector slipping through the back window or getting in by snooping round. The provision goes even further than that. This kind of thing breeds suspicion. We should be trying to create a spirit of co-operation between the State, the employers, the unions and individuals. These sections here will destroy any attempt at goodwill. The Minister may well find that this will create unity which is not planned in the Bill, where workers and employers come together to oppose this, because if the bell of Big Brother tolls today for the employer, the man on the factory floor knows it will toll for him tomorrow by having an inspector calling to his house to see if he has been doing anything wrong as regards redundancy.

As Deputy Fitzgerald points out we shall have a lot more to say on this matter on the next stage of the Bill. While we certainly will co-operate fully on this side of the House in not delaying this Bill, we have a duty to offer criticism and suggestions so that this Bill may be an instrument for the betterment of people who are so unfortunate as to be affected by redundancy.

There is provision in the Bill whereby the Minister must be notified of possible redundancy. It is a very good thing that we cannot have a big redundancy threat that the Minister would not know about, and I am sure employers will co-operate with the Minister in notifying him in time. However, I do not think the Minister should go ahead to act "the heavy" on the employers then after they have fulfilled their obligations under the legislation when it is enacted. I believe that, even allowing for the good parts in the Bill, it will not be conducive to better human relations in industry.

This Bill suffers from the same defect as other legislation here, in that we always seem to be stopping gaps, always papering over the cracks in the social and industrial structure. We never touch the structure to make sure it is sufficiently strong to carry all the new legislation which is proposed and adopted. The Minister has the opportunity now of looking at the whole scene, starting with the 1935 Act, giving us a new industrial charter in conditions of employment legislation, and providing, in simple terms, protection for people in industry. I believe the employers' organisations and the trade union congress will be only too willing to join with the Minister's Department in forging this new weapon for industrial peace. We suffer a great deal from industrial disruption, and anything we can do to reduce the irritants which exist in industry and which bring about a certain amount of upheaval must be removed in the best possible way, that is, by creating the proper conditions of employment.

A man who is suffering any form of disability in a job should have the proper channels to go through and if, eventually, redundancy is threatened we should have the best means of communication so that everything possible is done to help the individual involved. Like an illness everything possible must be done to prevent it occurring, but if it occurs we must have the cure ready so that the person involved would suffer as little as possible. I appeal to the Minister to look again at sections 17 and 21 before next Stage.

Mr. Dowling

This Bill is important in many respects. We have had a substantial number of Bills before the House from this Department and their quality is in doubt. There is little use producing Bills if they are not required and if they have not the effectiveness necessary. It is necessary to update our legislation in relation to worker problems, conditions of employment and the protection of workers. It is not possible to legislate industrial peace into industry today. There must be a climate of common sense and understanding between employer and employee. It is important that rights and opportunities are clearly understood. Not alone have employers responsibility but employees and trade unions also have responsibilities. They cannot be one sided; we must have an across the board understanding between workers, trade unions and employers. We cannot legislate on a lopsided basis; there must be a degree of understanding of all the problems.

The essential services of our country must be maintained in a climate of understanding between trade unions, workers and employers, but that does not prevail at present. We must have collective responsibility in that area. We all know of the disruption in industry at present because of the lack of understanding. I hope there will be a development of this understanding in order to ensure that we can maintain the essential services, whether they are bus services, water supply or other essential services. It appears that there are some sections in trade unions, employers and workers who are not responding to the cries of the Minister and the Department of Labour and, indeed, common sense, in relation to the maintenance of essential services. Essential services must be treated as separate from the general stream of employment. I hope common sense and understanding will be injected into this area in time to come so that we can look forward to a period of calm.

I welcome all legislation that assists any section of the community, but it cannot be lopsided in any respect. We have a duty to ensure that our legislation is in line with that existing in other countries. It appears from the legislation that has been enacted here that workers were the victims of vicious employers. While some employers take every loophole in legislation and utilise every system to deprive their workers of their due rights, the great bulk of employers are responsible and yield and respond to the suggestions for the benefit of their employees. They know that the contentment of their employees is a big factor in the development of their industry. I believe common sense prevails with the employer who believes that with a contented work force he can get a much better response in the line of production. I am all in favour of any legislation that is necessary to ensure more protection against the vicious employer, but we have had a number of ineffective measures debated here. Many of them are whitewashing a dreadful situation.

The Minister has told us that redundancies will continue to occur in periods when employment is high, but that is not so here. The reverse situation exists. We have large-scale unemployment and continuing redundancies. This is a sad situation. On occasions industrialists are forced into creating redundancies, and no amount of whitewashing will alter the situation. We want the creation of confidence so that industrialists can expand and take people into employment rather than putting them on the redundancy market. We are all aware of the upward spiral in unemployment figures and that employers are forced to create redundancies in order to maintain viability. The Government should take effective steps to ensure that jobs will be available. The Government stand condemned for not creating the necessary opportunities. This Bill, like others that have been discussed here, is introduced to divert the minds of employers and workers from the crucial situation that exists, the lack of opportunities in jobs. There is no employment or opportunities at present and people can only look forward to more redundancies. We have in the Bill the battering-ram mentality of the Minister. I hope we will no longer have the battering-ram mentality injected into our legislation. Consideration of the problems of workers and employers and a commonsense approach to those problems would help the situation. Industrialists are people of common sense and understanding who ensure that workers are kept in employment as long as possible, as long as there is viability. But the responsibility must rest on the Government. The Minister is doing a good job of camouflaging and covering up the defects of the Government by diverting attention with the legislation he introduces. In some cases it has worked but in other cases it is sadly lacking.

To go back to the Equal Pay Bill, we find it has defects as a result of which people can be dismissed while seeking to have rights which are enshrined in legislation implemented, and they cannot get back their employment because we are told by the Minister that the Constitution gives the employer certain rights. There is no use in having legislation that does not fully protect the rights of workers for whom we are told it is introduced. This is what has happened. Camouflage is no use. We want something constructive and positive, something that will seal the loopholes and ensure that workers' problems in seeking their rights will be fully resolved. That is not the case.

The Minister has given certain assurances that defects in some Bills will be rectified by other Bills. That represents a sorry state of affairs. Legislation should be comprehensive, and it should fully protect workers if it is a workers' protection measure. Bills will not be effective unless we develop a greater understanding between the industrial partners and create a climate in which both sides can factually assess their own situations and the overall situation as to what is best for the common good. The Minister may get satisfaction in bringing Bills to the House, but in some cases this can be a greater disservice than it is a protection to the worker. If this Bill gives an iota of protection it deserves some support, but the Minister should not mislead workers by presenting a great volume of legislation which purports to give workers greater protection unless this is in fact the case. How effective is the large amount of legislation we have seen in recent times? What contribution has it made to the benefit of the workers? It is very limited.

The Minister should introduce a comprehensive Bill to protect workers if that is what he wants to do. Why waste the time of the House introducing Bill after Bill and yet leaving loophole after loophole for the employers to crawl through? In an atmosphere of declining employment I believe workers and employers will wish to co-operate in their common interest, and I think we are moving in this direction. There are areas where they want to come together and where the Minister should tell the unions to put their house in order so that there would be industrial peace, which is what is needed for the general good. The unions cannot do their work effectively if the Minister has to bring in Bill after Bill in order to do somebody else's work. We must ensure that the employers and the unions get together, thrash out their problems and reach an understanding that they will work for the common good and that essential services will be fully protected. We should take the battering ram out of legislation whether it is aimed at the worker's door or the employer's door. We want to see that type of legislation replaced by common sense so that there will be a general understanding of all the problems. The real problem at present is that the Government have failed in their responsibility and in their promises to produce the jobs necessary to avoid redundancies so that if redundancies did occur they would be absorbed in alternative employment.

Workers' rights must be protected and they must have work opportunities, but there are other factors creating confusion in the minds of the workers—and sometimes in the Minister's mind. I hope the sentiments that the Minister has expressed in the Bill in relation to dismissals and unscrupulous employers who disregard workers' rights and take unfair advantage of them are sincerely held and provision will be made to deal with them. Otherwise, the time will come when workers will refuse to work for employers who do not fully meet their obligations.

I hope that when the Minister again comes to the House he will have something comprehensive to offer of which it can be said: "This is a comprehensive Bill that takes account of all aspects of workers' protection, and is not a piecemeal or patchwork effort such as that which is now being pushed in on every occasion when the Government seem to be sagging or running into difficulties." Efforts are made to divert the workers' attention to something that has really nothing to offer. We shall not tolerate that kind of situation in which the Minister tries to create an atmosphere in which he may fool workers into believing that something expensive and comprehensive is being done.

Debate adjourned.