Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Mar 1977

Vol. 297 No. 5

Anti-Discrimination (Unfair Dismissals) Bill, 1976: Report Stage.

The Chair would wish to draw the attention of Deputies to the fact that the amendments in the name of Deputy Gene Fitzgerald were received only at 11 o'clock this morning. After much hesitation the Chair has allowed the amendments to be moved at short notice, but Members must be warned however that the action of the Chair cannot be taken as a precedent and if they do not give due notice of amendments they must expect them to be disallowed. On this occasion they are being allowed at short notice.

I should like to thank the Chair for the ruling on this and apologise for the fact that they were submitted late. In fact, my expectation was, from the indications around the House, that the Bill would not be taken until the afternoon session today.

As this is Report Stage Deputies must understand that the proposer of an amendment speaks to it and has the right of reply. Any other Member may only speak once.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, line 26, after "employment" to insert "and, in relation to redress for a dismissal under this Act, includes, in the case of the death of the employee concerned at any time following the dismissal, his personal representative".

I undertook during the debate on Committee Stage to include provision in this section which would preserve for the personal representative of a deceased employee any claim which he may have had to redress under the Bill arising from his dismissal. This is the point met in this amendment.

I have no objection to the amendment. The Minister undertook to look at this. The amendment is an improvement on the original definition of "employment" as it appears in section 1. The change is very important. I submitted that this point had to be taken into consideration. The next of kin in the case of a person who had been the subject of such an unfair dismissal and died before any claim was made should have been included. It is important that the next of kin are taken into consideration.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move amendment No. 1 (a):

In page 4, subsection (1) (a), lines 4 to 6, to delete "who, at the date of his dismissal, had less than one year's continuous service with the employer who dismissed him" and substitute "whose contract of employment commenced less than one year prior to the date of his dismissal".

This amendment is similar to one I moved on Committee Stage and the reason for it is to protect the employees' interests. The Minister undertook to look at the matter and he may have had good reason for not bringing in an amendment but I suspect there is a weakness here. The necessity is there to insert the words in the amendment. There may be a weakness in subsection (1) (a) where business change hands. A man who takes over a business after six or nine months may try to carry out an unfair dismissal. I believe there is a weakness in this section which would enable him to get away with this through the courts or by proving that the wording of the section did not apply to him because it could be said that the employee had less than one year's continuous service with the employer who dismissed him, that the employee had been with that man for only six months or nine months.

I know the Minister will say that there are sections in other Acts to protect the employee but I submit that there is a glaring weakness here. The Minister undertook to have a look at the amendment on similar lines which I submitted on Committee Stage. I believe this is essential to close a possible gap. There is no point in passing legislation through which legal people can drive the proverbial coach and four. This is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation we have discussed in the House. It is very important for the employee in the event of an unfair dismissal. There should be no such thing as an unfair dismissal but, human nature being what it is, we have them.

The Minister has many times referred to the ruthless employer. I am glad to say that we have very few of those. The vast majority of employers are people with social consciences and with the interests of their employees at at heart. I fear there is a loophole in this section that I cannot see closed anywhere else in the Bill. I will be satisfied if the Minister can point out specifically to me in the Bill where it has been closed. We are talking about unfair dismissals and about people who take over businesses, whether it be an employer who employs a few people or a multi-national company. If an employee is unfairly dismissed six or nine months after that person has taken over that business that employee should be safeguarded. At the moment this Bill applies to all employees. I believe the employer can read into this section that the employee he is dismissing has not had one year's continuous service with the employer who dismisses him. Admittedly he has had 12 months' or maybe 20 years' service in the business or the company where he is working. As the section reads, however, it does not refer to that; it refers to the employer who dismisses him. I believe my amendment is a far better safeguard.

I fully understand what the Minister wants to do. This Bill must be able to stand on its own. We hear people say that it is a bad time for the introduction of such legislation, that it may deter employment or may encourage people to dismiss employees before the 12 months have expired. I referred to this earlier as a conacre system. I do not want to see such a system being introduced into employment. I am sure everybody in the House knows what an 11-month conacre letting means. If the Minister accepts this amendment the section would then read:

An employee (other than a person referred to in section 4 of this Act) who is dismissed whose contract of employment commenced less than one year prior to the date of his dismissal.

It does not matter then if it is the new owner of the company, the new multi-national who has moved in or whoever it is, if the employee's contract of employment has been with that company or business for 12 months he cannot be dismissed. I appeal to the Minister to accept what I believe to be a very necessary amendment.

Deputy Fitzgerald and I are both concerned about the same thing. We want to ensure that in the event of takeovers and mergers the employee's rights to fair procedures should not be threatened. I would point out to the Deputy that the change he suggests might disimprove the employee's situation considerably. This section is based on continuity of service as contained in the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act. If we substitute for "service" this question of "contract", which has a very specific meaning in our law, it could be maintained that in the case of change of employer the employment contract has ceased in those circumstances. The Deputy might appreciate that in his amendment the employee's position might be very seriously endangered.

We have looked at this matter very carefully and we have borne in mind what Deputy Fitzgerald on Committee Stage had to say about this matter. We have had other representations from other interests on the same topic. We have borne all those points in mind and have looked very closely at a suggested weakness in the section. The factual position is that the subsection as drafted is based on the concept of continuous service with the employer. Section 2 (4), to support the concept of continuous service, stipulates that the rules of continuity of service contained in the First Schedule to the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, which we passed in 1973, shall apply. Rule 7 of that Schedule provides that where there is a transfer of business of the kind mentioned in the House, then the continuity of service of the employee cannot be broken by that transfer and his previous period of service will count. We have looked at this matter very closely. As we see it, the provisions of section 2 (1) (a) should be quite adequate to meet the situation and the danger of mergers, takeovers and so on, whereas we think that substitution to the contract formula would be far less advantageous to the employee. We share the same concern but we believe that as drafted the section gives greater security to the employee in those situations.

I accept the Minister's assurance. We are both concerned to make sure that there is no loophole through which an employee could be exploited. I believe the number of people who would even contemplate exploiting their employees are few and far between, and may they even get more scarce.

I accept the Minister's point about the First Schedule to the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973, which is referred to in subsection (4). I have been constantly making the point on Bills pertaining to workers that there is a very big problem here. On many occasions since I came into this House, and even before I became spokesman for my party, I said that I found it very difficult to understand legislation as it is prepared. There is a legal interpretation involved and many different interpretations could be put on many sections of any Bill.

Legislation dealing with working conditions and persons in employment generally should be very clear and concise. As I said previously, recent legislation coming from the Department of Labour is moving in that direction. Despite that, however, I am not satisfied with the Minister's reply. I take his point about the dangers of a contract and how the interpretation of a contract might be construed by legal people. Obviously the Minister has looked at this and I thank him. We had a very worthwhile discussion on Committee Stage which obviously informed the Minister's amendments on this Stage. Because he has obviously looked very seriously at our amendments I do not wish to divide the House on this issue.

We are both concerned about closing the same door. I ask him to encourage his officials between now and when this Bill goes through the Seanad, where it will be seriously considered by genuinely concerned people on both sides of the industrial scene, to ensure that each section and each amendment discussed here will be thoroughly researched and looked at. The draftsman might look at this subsection with a view to ensuring that it achieves what I believe it should achieve. It is very distracting for a Member when reading a Bill to discover he has to get another Bill to check references. Basically that is no problem for the Members because the other Bills referred to are easily available. But for anybody else—a trade union official, a worker, a member of that person's family or a small employer—who wants to look at a Bill, such as the Anti-Discrimination (Unfair Dismissals) Bill, he will be happy if all the regulations are contained in that Bill.

As I said, I am not entirely happy with that subsection. It needs to be spelled out clearly that under this Bill the present employer cannot do something that may appear to be possible, but possibly may not be possible, under that subsection.

I withdraw my amendment and ask the Minister to have another look at it between now and when it comes to the Seanad.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 1b:

In page 4, subsection (1), lines 15 to 31, to delete paragraph (c) and insert the following new paragraph:—

"(c) An employee in employment which employs less than five persons".

This amendment is identical to that submitted on Committee Stage. Since then, we have had the Protection of Employment Bill, which governs redundancies. In that Bill a minimum number of employees is mentioned. Section 6 of that Bill does not apply until the first group of employees who come under it is at least five in an establishment normally employing more than 20 and fewer than 50 employees. We have yet to come to the Committee Stage of that Bill, although we may be coming to it after this. I assume that if there are fewer than 20 employees in a firm they are not covered by that Bill. For that reason I believe there must be a threshold level in this Bill too.

Let us take the case of a small town, city or rural business where there are one or two employees. If it is established that there has been an unfair dismissal this can cause a very difficult problem both from the employer's and the employee's points of view. Of course there are two options open— first, reinstatement and, second, compensation. In the case of an employer with two employees reinstatement could lead to a very difficult working life for both employer and employee, because if a personality clash had led to the unfair dismissal then that would continue. Then there is the alternative of compensation, but the small em-employer might not be in a position financially to meet the compensation recommended in this legislation. Therefore the employee and the employer have Hobson's choice. In those circumstances, I am sure the employee would prefer to get compensation and not be compelled to spend his working life in the personality clash situation I referred to. The employer would probably prefer the same.

In small firms, small employments, where there are one, two or three employees, whether it be on a farm, in a shop or perhaps in a blacksmith's forge, employees and employers constitute a combined effort, there is friendship and good relations between them and they are probably friends socially as well. The effect of this legislation might well be to discourage an employer from taking on one or more workers. All this deserves serious consideration in the interests particularly of employments in rural villages and small towns.

There is disagreement between us on this matter. Deputy Fitzgerald is anxious to see that the legislation will not apply in the context of small firms in which the relations are generally good. There is nothing in the Bill to disrupt friendly relations. Indeed I hope the provisions of the Bill will enhance good relations as well as guaranteeing fair treatment for employees in the minority of cases. The Protection of Employment Bill concerns collective employment; this Bill deals with rights of the individual. The rights of one individual are as important as the collective rights of five or 20. It would be inconsistent of us to have a law which would lay down certain procedures and that these procedures would not apply in a firm where an individual who may need the law's protection happens to have the ill-luck to be in a small firm of three or fewer workers. Surely such an employee should be able to invoke the law equally with the employee in a larger firm.

I agree that this law will not be invoked except in few employments, but in the minority of employments where it may be invoked the accident of the size of a worker's firm should not prevent that worker from invoking it. I have looked at the matter closely but I cannot see that if relations are good in the smaller firms, and the general opinion is that they are, this Bill will not disimprove that already good relationship.

I agree with the Minister that this Bill will not disimprove the relationship. There is no danger there. But in my opinion the Bill may cause the employer to be less inclined or to be more reluctant to employ. I have believed for a long time that there is an over-emphasis in this country on big employment. State agencies should always encourage the little country furniture factory or the small welding shop which may formerly have been the blacksmith's shop. Such enterprises should be encouraged and helped to give employment to some of the local people. I am concerned about the small workshops or sweetshops in Dublin, Cork or in any of our cities and towns.

I believe that self-employed people form one of the weakest and least protected groups in our society. They are subject to changes of fortune to a greater extent than many others and they have no organised people to fight for them. The self-employed person who shows some initiative and enterprise will make progress and take on one or two employees. This is the ideal situation. I am fearful that this Bill, while it will not disimprove the relationships that exist, may possibly discourage that self-employed person from employing even one other person. Many of our big companies started as one-man outfits. As the enterprise grew, more and more people were employed. Some of the major Irish companies started in that way, and this is something to be encouraged. Let us ensure that anything we do here by way of legislation for individual rights will not deter the employer from offering two, three or four jobs which could mean so much to several homes. This is why I am concerned.

The Minister and I are obviously in disagreement on this. I see and understand his point, but I am not sure that he is right. We are making good progress on this necessary legislation. We will have to see how it operates. I believe we will never see a case such as we are talking about here arising in the type of employment I am concerned with in this amendment. This is the type of employment where there is loyalty and interest on both sides, an interest in the welfare of the employee and an interest in bringing him or her along as the business grows. I am worried that this Bill would discourage the entrepreneur from expanding his business. These people can do much to cure our unemployment ills. I think there is a very good case to be made for the exemption of two or three people.

Is the Deputy withdrawing his amendment?

Is there any possibility that the Minister would consider the case of the employer who employs two or three people?

I am afraid there is not. I have had discussions with the social partners and it would be a very strong point on the trade unions' side that this should apply to all firms irrespective of size. I may add that this is my own view. This Bill is really about individual rights and I do not think that any amount of restudy would alter my opinion.

I have made the point. I do not intend to put it to a vote. I am somewhat concerned about the person who may be anxious to employ one or two people.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 4, to delete lines 35 to 39, and to substitute:

"(h) a person employed by or under the State other than persons standing designated for the time being under section 17 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969."

This is to clarify a point which was not clear in the Bill. Those known as industrial civil servants should have access to the benefits of this legislation and this amendment makes it clear that they are included.

I have no objection to this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 5, line 30, to delete "2 years" and to substitute "1 year".

We had lengthy discussion on Committee Stage on the question of secondary school teachers particularly in relation to the length of the probationary periods that could obtain. I have had consultations with the representative interests concerned and this amendment reduces from two years to one year the duration of probation during which the Bill will not apply. This represents an equitable compromise which, in the circumstances of the consultations I have had, I would ask the House to accept.

Despite what the Minister might say about consultations with anybody, our discussion on Committee Stage contributed largely to another improvement. In fact our attitude on Committee Stage was one of complete opposition to this section. The changing of the two years to one year is, in my opinion, a very desirable improvement. One could say that it may not solve the problem for some of the people who have been pressing for shorter periods in certain situations, but I think that the Minister is right. There has to be consistency about this Bill, and the point I made on Committee Stage was that the one-year base should run throughout this Bill as the period of service for everybody. In this particular case the one year is certainly an improvement but there is unfortunately as yet no positive indication of stipulating one year throughout the entire Bill. However the improvements so far are welcome, being in line with what we suggested on this side of the House.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 5, line 34, to delete "2 years" and to substitute "1 year".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 4a:

In page 5, line 35, to delete "not" and in line 41 to add "if the dismissal takes place within 12 months of the commencement of such employment or training or within 6 months of the completion of such training".

Here I appeal to the Minister to continue the improvement. We are totally opposed to section 3 (2) of the Bill. Subsection (1) has been improved by the amendments we have just passed—the section is headed: "Dismissal during probation or training"—but I simply cannot understand the Minister's attitude on subsection (2) which provides:

This Act shall not apply in relation to the dismissal of an employee during a period starting with the commencement of the employment when he is undergoing training for the purpose of becoming qualified or registered, as the case may be, as a nurse, pharmacist, health inspector, medical laboratory technician, occupational therapist, physiotherapist, speech therapist, radiographer or social worker.

The next section deals with apprenticeship and in that section there appears exactly what I am looking for in this amendment. I do not believe subsection (2) in its present form should constitute any part of this Bill. The Minister must accept this amendment. The wording is taken from section 4 which deals, as I have said, with apprentices. These people are just as entitled to safeguards as are other apprentices. In a later section the Minister has specific power to extend the list if necessary.

Now the nursing profession is a noble and dedicated profession. We have all had experience either personally or through relatives and friends of the dedication of this profession. That is why I single out the profession, but the other professions listed are equally important and equally entitled to safeguards. There is a three-year course for nurses with a possible further year in maternity and psychiatry before becoming qualified. The people listed—nurses, pharmacists, health inspectors, medical laboratory technicians, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, speech therapists, radiographer and social worker—are becoming more and more important in our society because of the extension of our health services. In the case of nurses I fully appreciate a problem arises at the end of training, because 80 nurses may be trained and there may be vacancies for only 30. I am seeking to have the position of all those listed safeguarded by bringing them within the provision dealing with 12 months' continuous service and within six months of the completion of such training. In other words, once they have completed 12 months of their training they cannot be unfairly dismissed and when they are trained and taken on in hospital employment they cannot be dismissed unfairly after six months. The reason I am suggesting six months is that perhaps a hospital may have a temporary post for a nurse while she is seeking alternative employment and they may give that nurse the position for three, four or five months while she is seeking work elsewhere.

I strongly urge the Minister to accept this amendment. If we are to have fair play in this Bill it must be included. When the Minister spoke against another amendment I put down he referred to the fact that the rights of the individual must be maintained. That remains the case whether the individual is in training or is trained. We must be consistent in this. Subsection (1) has been amended already and we are morally bound to accept this amendment.

We need to look at this subsection closely. As I explained on Committee Stage, it relates to the responsibility of another Department, the Department of Health. We are not talking so much about the normal employment; we are talking about the training of personnel. The Department of Health are basing their opinion on that of the relevant hospital training authorities.

In this case I understand that the training of the personnel involved requires specific examinations and tests which must be passed if they are to progress further. These examinations are set to standards set by professional bodies and an element in the training of these people includes standards of professional conduct in the course of their training and their performance throughout their entire working hours in the training centres of the hospitals. Therefore bringing these trainees within the Bill would be to substitute the judgement of an industrial tribunal in relation to what are considered to be necessary professional standards.

In this matter I must accept the advice of bodies specifically charged with these responsibilities and for this reason the section is drafted as it is. The authorities and the people concerned with training are not prepared to change their requirements in the training of paramedical personnel and, quite honestly, that is why we cannot extend the section as suggested by the Deputy. He will appreciate that here we are dealing with training in a particularly delicate area and we must have regard to what the professional bodies consider necessary.

I think the Minister is a little confused about the Bill. It is an unfair dismissals Bill; in other words, if there are grounds for a fair dismissal the terms of the Bill will not apply. The Minister referred to the examinations of nurses and other paramedical people. Assuming that the individual concerned fails to reach the required standard in the examination, there is no way he or she can come under the terms of this Bill. The Minister also referred to a code of conduct. Again, if there is something wrong there it does not come under this Bill.

We have a later section which specifies what may be regarded as a fair dismissal, and the conduct of the employee is included. If there is a serious misdemeanour on the part of an employee or serious misconduct, the Bill will not apply. However, it is absolutely unfair to say that people in training cannot come under the terms of a Bill dealing with unfair dismissal, particularly in view of the fact that an apprentice after six months is covered by the Bill, and this is quite right.

This amendment is a vital one. The section as drafted originally excluded and discriminated against the teaching profession and probationary teachers. At least we have improved that position substantially and in all fairness we must do the same with regard to this subsection.

Let us look at the reality of the situation. Take the case of a nurse. She can be the subject of an unfair dismissal after two years and ten months of her training and she has no redress under this Bill. There is a glaring omission in this measure if we exclude these people. I am not talking about studies or courses. In the Bill there is reference to the dismissal of an employee during a period starting with the commencement of employment when the person concerned is undergoing training. We are talking about training on the job, whether in the nursing profession, in the laboratory or elsewhere.

This amendment must be accepted and I urge the Minister to do so. The section will be greatly improved as a result. We had a very good debate on Committee Stage, and we see the result of that debate in many of the amendments introduced by the Minister. I congratulate him on that because it is important that we have cooperation in this House. It will be unpardonable of him not to accept the amendment. A period of 12 months must be inserted for the nurse, the laboratory technician and the other paramedical personnel. I appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment.

As I have indicated, this is a matter on which I must have regard to the advice from the relevant Department, which is the Department of Health. That is why I am not in a position to accept the amendment.

May I ask the Minister a question?

We are departing from the normal procedure on Report Stage.

Perhaps the Chair could overcome it by saying that the mover of the amendment has the right to reply?

The Deputy did reply unless he is adding something to his reply.

Is the Minister's point sufficient? Have the submissions made by all those concerned with the Bill been observed? If I may answer for the Minister, they have not been observed. Why should the opinion of the Department of Health be taken into consideration? Were any discussions held with the other organisations representing these people?

It is a delicate area. The training that the authorities consider necessary is of significance to the patients involved. That is the final opinion of the Department of Health. I assure the Deputy that between now and the Seanad I shall continue my contacts with all the groups to see whether further improvements can be made. The problem in this area is that it deals specifically with the advice of another Department who have grave responsibilities to discharge in relation to the people concerned.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 65; Níl, 59.

  • Barry, Peter.
  • Barry, Richard.
  • Begley, Michael.
  • Belton, Luke.
  • Belton, Paddy.
  • Bermingham, Joseph.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Burke, Joan T.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Clinton, Mark A.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Collins, Edward.
  • Conlan, John F.
  • Coogan, Fintan.
  • Cooney, Patrick M.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Costello, Declan.
  • Coughlan, Stephen.
  • Creed, Donal.
  • Crotty, Kieran.
  • Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Desmond, Eileen.
  • Dockrell, Henry P.
  • Dockrell, Maurice.
  • Donegan, Patrick S.
  • Dunne, Thomas.
  • Enright, Thomas.
  • Esmonde, John G.
  • Finn, Martin.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Gilhawley, Eugene.
  • Governey, Desmond.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Halligan, Brendan.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hegarty, Patrick.
  • Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
  • Jones, Denis F.
  • Keating, Justin.
  • Kelly, John.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • L'Estrange, Gerald.
  • Lynch, Gerard.
  • McLaughlin, Joseph.
  • McMahon, Larry.
  • Malone, Patrick.
  • Murphy, Michael P.
  • O'Brien, Fergus.
  • O'Connell, John.
  • O'Donnell, Tom.
  • O'Leary, Michael.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Reynolds, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, John J.
  • Spring, Dan.
  • Staunton, Myles.
  • Taylor, Frank.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Toal, Brendan.
  • Tully, James.
  • White, James.

Níl

  • Allen, Lorcan.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Barrett, Sylvester.
  • Brady, Philip A.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Brosnan, Seán.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Brugha, Ruairí.
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Callanan, John.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Carter, Frank.
  • Colley, George.
  • Connolly, Gerard.
  • Heary, Augustine A.
  • Herbert, Michael.
  • Hussey, Thomas.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Lalor, Patrick J.
  • Leonard, James.
  • Lynch, Celia.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacSharry, Ray.
  • Meaney, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Moore, Seán.
  • Murphy, Ciarán.
  • Cronin, Jerry.
  • Crowley, Flor.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Dowling, Joe.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Farrell, Joseph.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Fitzgerald, Gene.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
  • Gallagher, Denis.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Gibbons, James.
  • Gogan, Richard P.
  • Haughey, Charles.
  • Nolan, Thomas.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • O'Connor, Timothy.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Malley, Desmond.
  • Power, Patrick.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Timmons, Eugene.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Walsh, Seán.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond: Níl, Deputies Lalor and Browne.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 4b:

In page 5, line 45, to delete "1 month" and substitute "6 months".

This is a matter that I hoped the Minister might look at from a humane point of view since Committee Stage. This amendment to section 4 proposes that the period for apprenticeship after the completion of training should be six months instead of one month. When I was making my case on the last section I referred to section 4 and to the necessity for there being a specific time or period before an apprentice, during or after training, came within the jurisdiction of the Bill.

The reason for the amendment is a very good, humane one, that is, not to harm the apprentice in any way. I do not think it will apply in the major companies, unfortunately, where there are more impersonal relations. In a major State or public company what normally happens is that once an apprentice completes his final year's apprenticeship he is a number in the book or on the card and that ends his training. If there is a vacancy for him in the company he is kept on but if not his employment is terminated.

This is not the case in smaller industry or business, and happily so. Let us in this legislation encourage that situation. Take the case of John Murphy who has an engineering works and takes on two apprentices. When they have finished their time and qualified he has a job for one but not for the other. Being a humane employer and having a good relationship with his staff and apprentices, John Murphy calls the second apprentice and says "Unfortunately I have no employment for you. Now that you are qualified you will have to seek a job elsewhere." However, having a social conscience, John Murphy could suggest to that apprentice that he continue in employment for three or four months while he is seeking employment, but he will not do it because if the apprentice is kept longer than one month then he comes within the terms of the Unfair Dismissals Bill. A longer period should be provided in the Bill. This would give humane employers like John Murphy—and thank God we have quite a number of them —the opportunity of being fair and helpful to an apprentice who has given the company good service.

Debate adjourned.
Business suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Top
Share