Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Feb 1977

Vol. 296 No. 5

Holidays (Agricultural Workers) Regulations, 1977: Motion.

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

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Regulations in draft:—

Holidays (Agricultural Workers) Regulations, 1977,

a copy of which Regulations in draft was laid before Dáil Éireann on 26 January, 1977.

Deputies will recall that, under the Industrial Relations Act, 1976, a Joint Labour Committee has been set up under the aegis of the Labour Court to regulate the rates of pay and conditions of employment of agricultural workers, of whom there are 20,000 in full-time employment and 14,000 in part-time employment. The general purpose of these arrangements is to ensure that future agreements arrived at under the procedures of that Act will lead to the progressive elimination of the conditions differential that has been allowed to develop over the years, resulting in a growing gap between the working conditions of farm workers and those of other industrial employees.

As part of the arrangements established by the 1976 Act, the Agricultural Wages Board will be abolished in due course. The intention is that in that event the enforcement of holiday entitlements of agricultural workers would pass to my Department. For that purpose, I must have a set of regulations setting out the holiday entitlements of agricultural workers by reference to the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1973, under which I am responsible for holiday entitlements of workers generally. The draft regulations laid before the House for approval meet the objective of setting out rules to govern the holiday entitlements of agricultural workers.

The draft regulations preserve the current holidays entitlements as contained in several Agricultural Workers (Holidays) Acts, which fall to be repealed, but effect certain modifications in the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1973, to take account of their special circumstances. I expect that, at a later date when both sides of the agricultural industry have reviewed holiday entitlements in discussions at the Joint Labour Committee, proposals may be put forward in relation to the future pattern of holiday entitlements in that industry.

I recommend that the House should now approve these draft regulations.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

As far as I can see this Order merely brings the holiday regulations of agricultural workers under the 1973 Act and from the point of view of our party there is no objection to that. Basically, there is no improvement in the holiday entitlements of the agricultural workers and this order only brings them under the control of the Minister for Labour. I notice that, in regard to the public holiday entitlements, there is a difference between the Act and the order laid down by the Minister in relation to agricultural workers. Why does this difference exist? The Minister mentioned the need to bring agricultural workers and industrial workers in line. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to section 4 (2) (a) of the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1973 which states:

In the case of day to day and part-time employments, the employee must, for entitlement under this section, have worked for the employer for at least 120 hours (or 110 hours if under 18 years of age) during the five weeks ending on the day before the public holiday.

The Minister's order seems to make a change because it states that an agricultural worker must, for entitlement, have worked for the agricultural employer for at least 125 hours during the five weeks before the public holiday. There may be a good reason for this difference of five hours but I do not see any reason why the Minister did not bring agricultural workers in line with those of industry. If the Minister is sincere in his statement about agricultural workers he should see that the same conditions govern public holidays for them.

The Minister has told us that 20,000 people are engaged in full time employment and 14,000 in part-time employment in the agricultural industry. At a time of high unemployment we should do everything to continue that employment, and expand it if at all possible. In this regard I should like to ask if the Minister for Finance made a sensible move in removing the allowance payable to a farmer if he is availing of the notional system. In my view that is a disincentive to the agricultural sector.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is introducing new matter which is the responsibility of another Minister.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

The figures mentioned by the Minister are very important and I am questioning whether the Government are sincere in obtaining this level of employment in the agricultural sector. We supported the Act setting up the joint industrial council to cover agricultural workers and this order is a follow up to that. The order states that where board, lodging or board and lodging are part of remuneration, the agricultural worker may, subject to being given double pay elect not to take holidays and I find that slightly confusing. Does that put the agricultural worker who is availing of board or lodgings in a different category from the agricultural worker who is not? If it does not, what is the necessity for this provision? I notice that under the order the facility that has long been shared by agreement between employer and employee in the agricultural sector regarding the six sporting days during the year, other than church holidays or public holidays, such a day may be taken by the employee as part of his annual holidays. Basically, I support the order.

Mr. M. O'Leary

On the main entitlements of industrial and agricultural workers, the three weeks' annual leave and public holidays, the provisions are similar but, as the Deputy points out, there are some differences. He said that 125 hours per month were required to qualify in the case of agricultural workers and only 120 hours for industrial workers. This regulation ensures that holiday entitlements can be affected by any subsequent decision by the Joint Labour Committee which we have established. To do this, it is technically necessary to make it apply under the new Joint Labour Committee arrangement consequent on the Act that has been passed. But we must await the verdict of the Joint Labour Committee when they come, in their work, to tackle the question of holidays. They are at present involved on the wages side which is the more important question. No doubt, very shortly they will come to holidays.

The other point raised by the Deputy was the question of board and lodgings as part of the remuneration of an employee. If this is part of the remuneration of an employee, if given double pay he may elect not to take holidays. That is taken over from section 3 of the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1973 and is re-enacted here simply for ease of drafting and no other reason. The main point is that this motion is necessary in anticipation of any decision which the Joint Labour Committee may make in regard to removing any differentials that may continue to exist between agricultural and industrial workers. I have no doubt they will be tackling the holiday area very soon.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I did not understand the reason for the 125 hours as against the 120. We are introducing a completely new paragraph in that section. Even if the committee afterwards change it, would not one expect it would be more in line to have it 120 hours rather than 125?

Mr. M. O'Leary

I do not want to move ahead of the Joint Labour Committee, the body which will be responsible for any change in conditions. They are the people who will decide and they will be taking up this matter shortly. We have just taken over the position as it is now.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

The position at present is that the agricultural worker has to work 125 hours to qualify for his public holiday and you are retaining that rather than——

Mr. M. O'Leary

It is for the Joint Labour Committee to make the change.

Question put and agreed to.