Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Dec 1979

Vol. 317 No. 5

Private Members' Business. - Payment of Wages Bill, 1979: Committee Stage.

SECTION 1.

Amendments Nos. 1, 9, 13 and 15 are consequential on No. 3; Nos. 4, 5, 10, 13, 20, 24 and 24a are related. Therefore, amendments Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 13, 15, 20, 24 and 24a will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 2, subsection (1), to insert, between lines 18 and 19, the following new definition:

" `trade union' has the same meaning as in the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1975;".

The main amendment in this group is No. 3, that which substitutes almost entirely a new subsection (1) of section 3 for the one in the Bill as drafted at present. It will be seen that the remaining amendments are consequential on it.

As the proposed new section 3 (1) contains reference to a "trade union" and to "collective bargaining negotiations", these terms will now be defined in sections 1 (1) and 3 (5) respectively. The definitions are the same as those in the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act, 1977. Drafting amendments—to take account, in the main, of the additional provision about an employer-trade union agreement in the new section 3 (1)—are necessary to sections 3 (2), 4, 7 and 8. As the purpose behind these drafting amendments should be abundantly clear, I do not feel it necessary to deal with them further. I should, however, like to go into some detail on the background to, and the purpose of, the main amendment in this group.

The formula for the proposed new subsection (1) of section 3 was worked out in discussions with representatives of the Federated Union of Employers and of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions after completion of Second Stage of the Bill in this House last March.

The outcome of those discussions is that subsection (1) will now contain two options for employers and employees concerned: the document or the agreement.

The provision about the document was already in the Bill when it was circulated to Deputies. Two additions will now be made to this provision. First, if the document is to be signed by some other person on behalf of the employee, that person must have been authorised in writing by the employee to so act on his behalf. Secondly, in addition to the employee's being entitled to terminate unilaterally the use of the non-cash method of payment specified in the document, it will be possible for the authorised person to effect such termination instead, on the employee's behalf. In case the person authorised originally by the employee to act on his behalf might no longer be available, for whatever reason, death or otherwise, at the time when the employee wished him to use the procedure for unilateral termination, provision is being made to entitle the employee to nominate, in writing, some other person for that purpose.

In addition to the existing provision about the document, which has been revised in the way I have just outlined, a second option will be added—that of the employer-trade union agreement, whether made before or after the passing of this legislation. In simple terms, the essence of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section 3 is to permit the employer, or a group of employers of which the employer is a member, and any trade union or other body of persons recognised by the employer for the purpose of collective bargaining negotiations, of which the employer is a member, to have an agreement in writing about paying the wages of the employees involved by any non-cash method referred to in section 3.

Termination of the use of the specified non-cash method will be effected under and in accordance with the agreement, that is to say, either following a review of the position, if the agreement provides for a periodic review, or by one party giving notice to that effect in writing to the other party concerned, such notice being that which was specified in the agreement and being a period of not less than four weeks.

I might mention, for further clarification, that this second option will apply to a trade union or to a staff association, recognised for collective bargaining purposes. It would cover a contract of employment, if the terms of that contract relating to the method of payment of wages has been negotiated with the trade unions involved. Hence the need for the amendment to section 8 (2) and (3) of the Bill. Finally, it would bind prospective employees who were members of the trade union—or who became members of the trade union on joining the firm in question—which was party to an agreement of this kind with the employer.

That explains clearly the purpose of the main amendment in this group, No. 3. The others are consequential. That is the essential change which gives the option of the document or the agreement. I repeat, discussions were held with representatives of both sides of industry after the Second Stage of this Bill had been completed last March and this formula was the result of those discussions.

We are taking 11 amendments together, one or two of them are very substantial and go to the kernel of this Bill. I described this Bill as a bank robber's charter. Even if we accept the Minister's amendments, which undoubtedly are an improvement on his first proposals, it still remains a bank robber's charter. It facilitates the payment of wages by cash. I do not believe that would be necessary if my amendment were accepted. They provide for a cashing service within reasonable proximity to the place of employment. This would cover a situation such as we had in recent weeks when there was a bank strike. If such a cashing service was reasonably adjacent to the employment, and particularly in view of the prevailing security situation, there is no reason why we should pussyfoot about or tolerate payment of wages by cash. There are people who will opt for payment by cash so that payrolls can be robbed. It is big business in this country to rob payrolls. The Minister in his half-hearted proposal is facilitating the continuance of such robberies.

It is only common sense that we should do everything to minimise the handling and transit of cash. That is the intention of the amendments I put down. There is nobody more interested or more in support of the rights of workers than I am. It is not right for any workers to expect to be paid by cash when that right jeopardises his own life and that of his colleagues. There is no room for pussyfooting, messing or for "ifs" and "buts". We should do everything in our power to stop the payment of wages by cash where there is a reasonably adjacent cashing bank or cashing service. My amendments would enable the Minister to prescribe by regulation what "reasonably adjacent" is and so on. Neither in his Second Stage speech or in what he has said tonight has the Minister said anything about the problem of paying by cheque. What are the problems of paying workers by cheque?

Are we on the amendments or on the Bill?

The Minister came in with a Second Stage speech and we are to speak to 11 amendments. My amendments are designed to stop murder, personal injury and payroll robberies. Nothing the Minister has provided in the Bill or in his amendments suggests that he is determined to do everything he can, within reason, to stop murder, to protect the lives of workers, especially those involved in handling cash, in the transit of it in its distribution. If the omissions in the Bill are the cause of one death, it is one too many. I do not want to be a prophet of gloom or doom but the omissions are too much to be tolerated, especially in the prevailing security and crime situation in bank and payroll robberies. How many deaths and personal injuries have there been in the past two years? It is not good enough.

We will be vigorously opposing the Bill, as we did on Second Stage, and will continue to oppose most of the amendments the Minister put down. I should like the Minister—he will have an opportunity during this debate—to explain his lack of conviction and determination to protect life. Is it too much to ask workers to accept payment by cheque to protect themselves and their colleagues if the Bill provides for a reasonable banking service adjacent to the employment? I cannot understand the Minister's lack of determination or his lack of concern for the lives of workers and their families. Perhaps he will say why his determination to protect life, with money as a secondary consideration, is not expressed in the Bill or in the amendments.

When employees join a company where there is a written agreement between employers and employees in existence, we are giving them the right to opt out of that agreement. We are going backwards instead of forwards. They will have that right. The major amendment the Minister put down is amendment No. 3. It is some improvement on the situation which he says has arisen from discussions he had with FUE and I think with Congress.

I said both, but the Deputy was not listening.

It is very hard to grasp all the details that the Minister gives on Second Stage when one is not supplied with what the Minister said.

It depends on the ability of the Deputy.

Perhaps if the Minister paid attention to these details speculation about his future might not be as rife as it is.

That does not arise on these amendments.

This Bill is a major step backwards. It is a danger to life, limb and money because it gives workers a right which they did not have before to back out of a standing agreement between employers and employees.

The Deputy seems to be talking in general terms and making a Second Stage speech. Despite the fact that we are taking a lot of amendments together, they are all related.

I will go through the amendments one by one. Amendment No. 1 is a drafting amendment and I have no objection to it. I am not sure what the connection with amendment No. 3 is. It is a major amendment. It gives the right, where there is no agreement between an employer and a trade union but where the practice has built up of paying by cheque or standing order, to the worker to opt out of that agreement, although the Truck Acts say that workers are entitled to be paid in the coinage of the realm. This is now reinforcing, although it is not specifically stated as far as I know, the idea that a worker may opt out of an agreement that he has already made. It does not say that in the Truck Acts.

The practice has grown up and is now very widespread that such agreements have been made all over the country. Despite those agreements a person may now opt out and insist on being paid in cash. What are the implications of giving, asserting or establishing or underlining that right? First, every militant or maverick in society, indeed every criminal and everybody who supports subversive organisations engaging in these robberies will now have a vested interest in insisting on his rights. It will mean more cash in transit and being handled and more opportunities for robbing. It is not confined only to subversives or their supporters but it also suits mavericks within organisations, trouble makers. Why should we be giving or underlining that right?

The second part of the amendment, which I admit is a slight improvement, provides that where there is an employer-trade union agreement, the union may, with four weeks' notice, withdraw from that agreement even though the same people may already have been paid an increment of some sort in order to accept payment by cheque. They may have received an increase in basic pay to accept non cash payments. With that as an established part of their wages or salaries, they can withdraw from the agreement by giving four weeks' notice. You might say that no reasonable trade union would do that. Probably that is true and I do not mind the unions having that right, but the point is that our Constitution gives people the right to be members of trade unions or not. They may opt in and out at will. For the purposes of this Bill they can opt out of the trade union when they like and insist on their rights as established by this Bill. No matter what trouble the employer has gone to to establish a non-cash mode of payment for the entire staff, now, because one, two or more of the staff decide they want to be paid in cash, he may have to run two parallel systems or his non-cash system may be subverted altogether. He may have to have a complete cash system as it might not be economical to run two modes of payment in parallel.

What concerned person or Member of the House, what person concerned about life or limb or money—money is a very poor third in this context—can see any merit in this? I cannot. That is why we call this a bank robbers' charter and why we are so much opposed to it. We believe it would have been better to have a very simple Bill such as I think the FUE wanted, merely amending that part of the Truck Acts which provided that workers had the right to be paid in the coin of the realm. That legislation was passed many years ago in the reign of Victoria to protect workers who at that time were being exploited, who were being paid as employers thought fit. Ostensibly, they were entitled to say, £1 or £3 a week and the employers said they would give goods to the value of £1—goods produced by the firm. Sometimes employers put their own values on the goods. Of course the provision had great merit 100 years ago or more. It had merit well into this century but not any more. Certainly it does not have merit in the security situation now existing. The amount of money robbed in the past few years, the number of lives lost, people injured and families bereaved emphasise that. I am strongly opposed to it. A simple one-section Bill could have repealed that section of the Truck Acts.

We would have gone much further and had a Bill providing that payment of wages should, as far as possible, be made by a non-cash mode provided there was a cashing service for workers reasonably near. One could visualise problems in distant parts of the country where men are working out on roads and are paid by cheque miles away from any bank, or if they are paid when the banks closed or something like that. But if the regulations we like to see were in force workers would be paid only by cheque if there was a cashing service reasonably near, a bank, post office or something of that kind. So, we oppose amendment No. 3 in the name of the Minister.

With the permission of the Chair and the Deputy, may I correct something? When I was asked to move the group of amendments, I said: "I move." I should have qualified what I was saying by saying: "I move amendments Nos. 1, 3, 9, 13, 15——

Sorry, the Minister just moves one amendment and we discuss the others with it.

I want to clarify a point. Amendments 4, 5 and 10 are in the same group and are in the name of Deputy Mitchell. Of course, I am not moving those.

The Minister moves amendment No. 1 only, and we are discussing with it Nos. 9, 13 and 15, which are consequential, and Nos. 3, 4, 5, 10, 20, 24, 24a, which are all related. The Minister moves amendment No. 1 and all the others are discussed with it.

The section that amendment No. 3 seeks to amend is the kernel of the matter. The Minister's amendment really incorporates my amendment No. 4 in which I seek to add the words "provided the employee is also in attendance or has given such authority in writing". I think the Minister has accepted the phrase "in writing". In so far as his amendment incorporates mine, I welcome it but there are other parts of his amendment that are not acceptable to me. In amendment No. 5 I seek to delete paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of section 3 or effectively to delete part (ii) of that paragraph which is the subparagraph giving or emphasising the rights of workers to opt out of the non-cash mode of payment.

I am seeking to reword the paragraph to read "the document indicates that the specified mode of payment will cease to be used whenever both the employer and the employee so determine". I am prepared to accept that if there is agreement between the employer and the employee payment may be made in cash, but we should not give the right to either side to subvert an agreement already made or a practice already established. My amendment simply seeks to delete sub-paragraph 2 of paragraph (b) in section 3 (1). It is in any event deleted by the Minister's own amendment but it is incorporated in a different way.

Amendment No. 9 again is a drafting amendment and I have no objection to that. Amendment No. 10 is in my own name. It is consequent on amendment No. 5 being accepted. I have no objection to amendment No. 13. Amendment No. 16 is consequent on a previous amendment being accepted so what I said earlier refers to that. Amendment No. 20 is in relation to what I sought to incorporate in amendment No. 4 and that is acceptable. I have no objection to amendment No. 24. I do not appear to have amendment No. 24a. on this list of amendments.

It is on today's Order Paper.

Perhaps we should adjourn to give the Deputy an opportunity to study the brief. I hope I am not out of order in suggesting this.

The Deputy has finished.

First I want to say that I believe Deputy Mitchell has missed many of the points of this entire Bill. He is indicating that to the House now because it is evident that he is only studying the amendments at this late stage.

I studied the amendments many months ago, and I do not know what the delay was in bringing them before the House.

The Deputy is well aware that the cause of the delay was the difficulty in ordering the Business because of one party and the very obvious fillibustering here tonight. We were ready for that Bill a few weeks ago when there was a request to our Chief Whip's office to say that Deputy Mitchell was not ready to take it despite all his requests.

Is the Minister talking about the Bill that he put down 101 amendments to?

Deputy Mitchell said he would not be prepared to take this Bill some weeks ago.

It was deferred for two days and I could not take it on that particular day. I was waiting for it this week.

We will deal with the Bill before the House and nothing else.

The Minister is running this the way he ran the Cork by-election.

The Cork by-election has nothing at all to do with the Payment of Wages Bill.

I have explained already on Second Stage and again today the purpose of this Bill. It is obvious from Deputy Mitchell's opening remarks that he has missed the point. I know he has, as usual, used catch phrases to get screaming headlines. This is about payment of wages, and the one point that Deputy Mitchell ignored tonight in all the comments he made was that workers have right too in all of this scene. He seemed to feel that there was a need for a Bill whereby wages would be paid only by cheque. This was never my intention in introducing this Bill. This is not my intention now. Deputy Mitchell went on to say that the FUE wanted a Bill similar to what he was outlining and suggesting should be introduced. That may well be the case, but the Deputy must remember that there are two sides of industry to be taken into consideration. The worker has an entitlement that must be protected in legislation brought before this House.

In this group of amendments the main amendment is amendment No. 3. The others are all consequent on it. The Deputy said that this Bill facilitated bank robbers and other people of that nature. I want to reaffirm that this Bill maintains the rights of employees to payment in cash but it also provides, with the agreement of both parties, for payment on a non-cash basis. If an option of this nature is not given it could lead to discontent and industrial strife. Employers, employees, representative or negotiating groups and trade unions are entitled to that freedom within the terms of this Bill. The Deputy said this Bill was a step backwards, but that is not correct at all. Employees covered by the Truck Acts have always had the right since 1831 to refuse to accept payment by non-cash methods. The anomaly was created in 1927 by the introduction of the Currency Act. I am removing the anomaly. It is not a step backwards, it is restoring the position that existed prior to 1927.

That is a big step back, 52 years.

It is strange that it has taken until now to do this. The Deputy also appeared to be concerned about the position of the employers and the trade unions in regard to payment of wages other than in cash. Amendment No. 3 and the other consequential amendments are being proposed with the agreement to its terms of both sides of industry, the ICTU and FUE. This is fundamental to helping to have workable, sensible, practical, good legislation going through the House.

Deputy Mitchell has put down amendments 4, 5 and 10. I have met the second part of the Deputy's amendment No. 4 by moving amendment No. 3. I am referring to the authority in writing, as I outlined in my opening comments. The first part of the Deputy's amendment could create problems where large numbers of employees decide to avail themselves of their right to this suggested alternative. For example, if 100 employees who are members of a trade union authorise their shop steward to sign the document on their behalf, it would not be practicable to expect all of them to be in attendance at the signing. It would introduce a very difficult situation which possibly would be unworkable in many cases. Also, it is important from the viewpoint of the employer that he should not be in doubt as to the bona fides of the authorisation or if any doubt exists it should be capable of being cleared up without too much difficulty. In that connection confusion would be created by having more than one method of authorisation. Finally, bearing in mind that I have moved an amendment to the effect that the person's authorisation to sign a document on behalf of the employees must be in writing, I am not disposed to accept the Deputy's amendment on the grounds that I have outlined. That amendment is quite superfluous, and to provide for it in the Bill would not serve a useful purpose.

The effect of the Deputy's amendment No. 5 would deprive both the employer and the employee of the right to unilateral termination by the one or the other of a particular non-cash method of payment on the expiration of the previously agreed amount of notice. This proposition would be unfair to both parties. While the Bill provides for mutual termination, it was considered essential to include provision for unilateral termination as well. For example in the case of an agreement to be paid by cheque, such a method might no longer be suitable during a bank strike, as the Deputy has said. The conditions of payment at the time of the agreement might later cease to obtain. Perhaps facilities for cashing cheques may have existed where they might no longer exist, and with changing circumstances a different non-cash method of payment from that agreed previously might be more suitable to both parties. In the case of payment by cheque or credit transfer the employee might cease to have a bank account. Where the employee is organised his trade union would have to be free to negotiate other arrangements if so desired. Inflexibility in this area, which is inherent in the Deputy's amendment, again could be a recipe for industrial relations problems for the employer.

The minimum notice required for unilateral termination is four weeks from negotiating the terms of a document. In this regard the employer could insist on whatever longer period he wished before consenting to sign the document. The amendment would not accommodate the arrangements I propose to include in connection with agreements under the collective bargaining arrangements between employers and their representatives or employees and their representatives.

I refer to the bone of contention between Deputy Mitchell and the Minister, that is, amendment No. 3. When this Bill was introduced in the House some time last year I supported its provsions fully. I felt that in the light of present-day circumstances in our country there was need to protect the conveyance of cash and also the people involved in security in the conveyance of this cash. However, I emphasised at the time that it was intended to meet the needs of our modern society. Unfortunately, millions of pounds are being robbed yearly, people are being killed and are living in danger. However, I did want flexibility and the Minister has covered this in amendment No. 3. We must protect all people involved in the handling of cash but we must protect also the interests of the worker. That means that the worker must have freedom to decide how he wants his wages or salary paid. In the past couple of weeks in my area during the bank dispute there was serious concern and unease when cheques and cash were not available. The Minister has had consultation with both sides of industry. A man who possibly has endured hardship in disputes which created cash shortages has a right to opt out of a situation. On that issue I support this subsection, because it is in the interests of the worker. If the worker is copperfastened to a Bill which deprives him of the right in changing circumstances to opt out of a system unrest will be created. For that reason I support amendment No. 3.

It would be idle to pretend that the arguments that the Minister and Deputy Ryan have used are without weight. Of course workers have rights. As I have said at the outset on both Second Stage and Committee Stage of this Bill, nobody would support the rights of workers more strongly than I would, having come up from the ground floor myself as a shop steward. However, where there is a clash of rights it is the duty of this House to decide which rights in prevailing circumstnces should be given most weight. Workers, especially those who are handling cash—a situation in which I found myself for about two years—can be living in fear of a gun. Many workers and their families throughout the country are living in such fear. The right to seek the protection of the law against the threat to life and limb is greater and more urgent and telling in today's circumstances than the undoubtedly reasonable right in normal circumstances to seek payment in cash.

That really is the kernel of the debate on this Bill. One more death would be one too many should it be facilitated by omissions in this Bill. We might ask what this Bill is all about. What is the purpose and content of it? I was led to believe that the original motivation for it was an effort to reduce the level of payments by cash. There has developed a widespread practice whereby trade unions and employers have agreed on the payment of wages by cheque. In many cases of which I am aware workers are paid small amounts of money as an inducement to accepting their wages by cheque. In some cases there is a contribution towards banking charges. Any reasonable trade union would not opt out of such an agreement without very good causes.

But let us consider the case of the maverick, the criminal or the subversive sympathiser. Are we not giving such a person the right to opt out of agreements, the right to subvert the authority of the union in places of employment and the right to threaten lives? Therefore, have we not lost our way in regard to the primary motivation for this legislation? If the purpose of the Bill had been merely to regularise agreements that have been made between employers and trade unions but which are in breach of the Truck Acts a simple one-section Bill would have been sufficient. Such a Bill would have allowed the unions a free hand in negotiating at different work-places and would have been much more acceptable than is the Bill before us.

We cannot debate that at this stage. The Bill is before the House in Committee and at the moment we are debating amendments.

I am referring in particular to amendment No. 3 and I am querying the purpose of the Bill. I accept fully the Minister's wish to protect life consistent with maintaining the rights of workers in so far as possible but again I ask the Minister what is the main purpose of the Bill? Why should it be necessary to enshrine the right of individuals to opt out when the various unions may negotiate those rights, if they so wish? It is not good enough for anyone to insinuate here that the ICTU want this Bill. The proposals in amendment No. 3 will not strengthen the trade union situation, whereas they will strengthen the position of anyone who opts out of a trade union, who fails to pay his fees.

Surely we are strengthening also the rights of the genuine man who wishes to opt out. Every man is entitled to be paid as he wishes. They are not all afraid of the cowboys.

Deputy Mitchell on the Bill.

Of course there is substance in that argument but we must measure that consideration against the rights of those workers who are employed in carrying the cash boxes, in paying wages across the counter or in delivering wages to workers. I know the fears of such people. They are workers, too, and they and their families have the right to protection by way of legislation. Where there is a clash of rights, as so often there is, we must decide which right is more urgent, and in that regard I do not think there is any doubt about the answer. In later amendments there are proposals which, if accepted, would result in there not being any cost to workers as a result of their being paid by cheque or of their wages being paid into bank accounts. Obviously, if workers must open bank accounts they will incur bank charges but my amendments propose ways of covering those charges. In circumstances in which payments are made by cheque to workers there must be an adjacant cashing service. Therefore, unless my amendments are accepted it will not be possible to pay wages by cheque.

That may not be guaranteed.

We shall come to those amendments later.

The Deputy is rehashing the whole Bill. He should deal with the amendments. Perhaps he thought the Chair had fallen asleep. We must not continue to cover the same ground again.

The question is whether we are right in providing for opting out of an agreement where agreement has been reached between a trade union and an employer. I contend that we should not make such provision. We should provide, though, for the opting out by a trade union but not by an individual.

The Deputy referred to a clash of rights but the point is that the right referred to by the Deputy, that is, the protection of life and limb, is not the subject matter of this Bill.

But it should be.

I share the Deputy's concern in this regard and I condemn those people who engage in the type of activity referred to.

We are not dealing with a security Bill.

That has been the kernel of what the Deputy has been arguing.

I accept fully the Minister's concern in this regard.

We all condemn such activity.

There should not be a clash of rights here. The purpose of the Bill was set out on Second Stage last year. The Deputy has said he was led to believe it was some other type of Bill but I do not know who led him to believe that. In my speech on Second Stage I said "This Bill does not set out to repeal the Truck Acts. Its central purpose is to amend that legislation in order to legalise the payment of manual workers' wages by cheque and other payment instruments. Both employers and workers concerned are agreeable".

In the workplace the workers have a right that the Minister for Labour must take into account when introducing legislation of this nature. Both sides of industry have to be taken into consideration. In my opinion this is a major step forward because it is legalising the payment of wages by non-cash methods and it is facilitating both sides in order to encourage that. That is the best way forward. It is better to do this than to come down with a heavy axe that may help to protect in one area—not an area covered by this legislation—but which could cause serious problems on the other side with unrest and dissatisfaction caused as a result of such legislation.

Deputy Ryan, like myself, represents part of a rural constituency and he would be aware of the fact that there are practical problems in some parts of the country, where it may not be possible for workers to cash their cheques with ease. Deputy Mitchell must realise that many things have to be taken into consideration. I believe this Bill is a positive and tremendous step forward, in co-operation with both sides of industry and in facilitating both sides of industry. On Second Stage Deputy Ryan expressed himself in favour of the trade union involvement and he must be complimented on that. We have made a major step forward in amendment No. 3 and in the consequential amendments. I would ask Deputy Mitchell to accept those amendments and to withdraw the amendments he has moved. I have accommodated the Deputy in respect of part of those amendments as far as I could and I have tried to explain to him and to the House why it was impossible for me to accept the others.

The Minister and the Chair have said that this is not a security Bill. This is central to the momentum in recent years with regard to the payment of wages by cheque or non-cash methods. We are not talking here about ease for employers with regard to payment. We are talking about security.

The Chair must come in on that. It is not a security Bill. Security is a matter for another Minister and for other Bills. The Bill deals with the payment of wages and how it should be done. It deals with the rights of people with regard to payment of wages. Security is very important but so far as this Bill is concerned it does not enter into it.

It is a major step forward. It can be seen as a help towards aiding security matters but it is not a security Bill. It is not within my power or within my portfolio to introduce a security Bill. One has to see it as a positive contribution, with the aid and encouragement of both sides of industry, which helps to lessen the risks in a security situation. That is as far as I can go.

The differences are growing between myself and the Minister. I assert that it is a major step backwards. For the first time the Minister is claiming that this is a major step forward but there should be no mistake about my opinion or that of my party. We think it is a major step backwards. I shall have to ask the Chair to bear with me on the security aspect.

I must protest——

The Chair must insist at this stage that we remain with the amendments. It would be in order on Second Stage to bring in the question of security, the transporting of cash and so on but we are dealing now with amendments and the security aspect does not come into it.

I have every intention of staying with the amendments. I have to ask the question, what motivated this Bill? It was motivated by the fact that many enterprises have made agreements with the trade unions, or in some cases have just initiated a scheme of paying wages and salary by non-cash methods. Almost certainly it is illegal because it is clashing with the legal provisions of the Truck Acts. The question arises why has this practice grown of trade unions and employers, in breach of present legislation, making arrangements regarding the payment of wages by cheque. I will tell the House the reason and I know this from personal experience. The reason is to protect life and limb and also to protect money. That is the major reason for this Bill before the House.

The next question that arises from my line of argument is, does this Bill enhance the protection of life, limb and money? I submit it does not. In fact, it is a disimprovement and in that respect it is a major step backwards.

So far as the Chair is concerned the House is dealing now with a group of amendments. That is all we can discuss. We are having a further Second Stage debate and the Chair cannot allow that. The Chair has been very lenient up to now. If Deputy Mitchell has anything further to say on the amendments before the House he is entitled to say it but we must get away from a Second Stage debate.

Does amendment No. 3 improve the protection of life and limb, which is my main consideration? Money is a very important element but the protection of life and limb is of paramount importance. I am opposed to the Minister's amendment. I am concerned about the rights of workers to be protected. If the Minister says this Bill does not deal with security I say it should deal with security.

The Chair has ruled that we cannot follow that line of argument. Security is a matter for another Minister. This Bill deals with the payment of wages and the methods of doing that. I would ask the Deputy to come to the amendments before the House, the Minister's and his own.

We are dealing with about 11 amendments. This is the very heart of the Bill. It goes right to the core of the Bill.

The Deputy should not question the ruling of the Chair. He has been referring to security aspects and he should get away from that.

I am entitled to ask the Minister if it was part of his intention in bringing this Bill before the House to protect the rights of workers.

I answered that already. I quoted from what I said on the Second Stage of the Bill. I said it was not introduced to repeal the Truck Acts. I said its central purpose was to amend that legislation in order to legalise the payment of manual workers' wages by cheque or other payment instrument where both employers and workers concerned are agreeable. I believe it is a major step forward with that kind of agreement on both sides. Legalising the payment of wages by that method would be a major step forward in the field of security. I want to emphasise that it is not in my portfolio to introduce a security Bill. If I were to introduce the type of Bill suggested by the Deputy—and I am going off the subject now——

The Minister is no more in order than the Deputy was.

The Deputy charged me with ignoring the rights of one side of industry.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.

As amendments Nos. 2, 6, 11, 12, 14, 21, 22 and 25 are cognate and amendment No. 7 is related, all these amendments may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 2, subsection (1), to insert "or mode of payment" after "instrument" in line 38.

This section was based almost entirely on section 26 (6) of the Central Bank Act, 1971, where the word "instrument" is used. In a submission on this Bill the Irish Banks' Standing Committee wrote:

We have some doubts whether payment of wages into a bank account of an employee under a standing instruction from the employer to the employee's bank constitutes or involves an instrument. In such case the employee does not receive any instrument. We would suggest, therefore, that the introductory phrase to section 3 (3) should read: "This section applies to the following modes of payment...."

The matter was examined and I am advised that the point made was considered to be valid. As a result, unless the context clearly requires otherwise, where the words "mode of payment" are used on their own in the Bill, the term is to be construed as a generic one embracing any instrument and thereby rendering any change unnecessary. I do not think this is a serious problem. The submission was made originally by the Irish Banks' Standing Committee. It was considered and it was agreed that it was a desirable change. There is no major change in the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 3, subsection (1), lines 2 to 19, to delete all the words in the subsection after "applies" in line 2, and substitute the following:

"if either—

(a) (i) the employer, and—

(I) the employee, or

(II) some other person authorised in writing by the employee to sign on his behalf,

sign a document that specifies that mode as the mode of payment of wages to be used, and

(ii) the document indicates that the specified mode of payment will cease to be used—

(I) whenever both the employer and employee so determine, or

(II) at such time as may be specified in a notice in writing given by either of them to the other of them, or, in case the document is signed by a person authorised under this paragraph, given to or by the employer by or to that person or some other person nominated in writing for the purposes of this clause by the employee concerned, but not being less than four weeks after the day on which the notice is received,

or

(b) (i) there is between the employer or an employers' organisation or other body of persons representative of employers (of which the employer is a member) and any trade union or any other body of persons which is recognised for the purpose of collective bargaining negotiations by the employer (of which in either case the employee is a member), an agreement in writing (whether made before or after the passing of this Act) providing that that mode is to be used by the employer, or, in case the agreement is made on behalf of employers who are members of such an organisation or other body so representative, by each such employer, to pay wages to his employees who are members of either the trade union or the other body so recognised, as the case may be, and

(ii) unless there is therein provision for its periodic review, the agreement provides for its termination by either party thereto giving to the other party thereto notice in writing, and

(iii) the period of such notice is specified in the agreement and is a period of not less than four weeks,

and the mode of payment specified in a document under this subsection or in such an agreement may continue to be used until its employment is terminated either in accordance with subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of this subsection or under and in accordance with the agreement, as may be appropriate.".

The amendment is opposed.

Amendment put and declared carried.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 3, subsection (2), to insert "or mode of payment" before "to which" in line 21.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 3, subsection (2), lines 22 and 23, to delete "that mode to continue to be used to pay such wages" and substitute "the wages to continue to be so paid".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 3, subsection (2), line 28, to delete "shall" and insert "may".

This is a technical amendment. It was suggested to us by the Irish Banks' Standing Committee. The same point occurs in subsection (1) of the section and a similar change has been incorporated in the redrafting of that subsection. It is a technical change, an improvement basically to ensure that there are no technical difficulties in the modes of payment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 9 has already been discussed with amendment No. 1.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 3, subsection (2), line 30, to delete "subparagraph (i) or (ii) of subsection (1) (b)" and substitute "clause (I) or (II) of subsection (1) (a) (ii)".

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 10 not moved.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 3, subsection (3), to insert "and modes of payment" after "instruments" in line 32.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 4, subsection (3), to insert "or mode of payment" after "instrument" in line 1.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 4, subsection (5), between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following new definition:

" `collective bargaining negotiations' means negotiations between any employer, employers' organisation or other body of persons representative of employers on the one hand and any organisation or other body of persons representative of employees on the other hand, being negotiations which are concerned with the remuneration or other terms or conditions of employment, or the working conditions, of employees;".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 13a:

In page 4, subsection (5), line 15, to delete "1965" and substitute "1979".

This is a simple amendment. Since the Bill was introduced the Trustee Savings Bank Act, 1979, was before the House. The amendment provides for the deletion of "1965" and the substitution of "1979".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 4.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 4, subsection (1), to insert "or mode of payment" before "to which" in line 20.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 4, subsection (1), lines 21 to 23, to delete all the words in the subsection after "the fact that" in line 21 and substitute "a document has not been signed in compliance with section 3 (1) of this Act, or the fact that there is not in force for the time being an agreement referred to in the said section 3 (1) and relevant to the particular case, as may be appropriate.".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 4, subsection (2) (b) (ii), line 40, after "concerned" to insert:

",or

(iii) the employee returns to his usual place of employment.".

This is not a very important amendment. It provides for an employee to be paid in the normal mode on return to his usual place of employment.

According to the legal advice given to me, what the Deputy is proposing is superfluous and unnecessary. In other words, under section 4 the notice given by the employee to his employer becomes inoperative when the employee returns to his usual place of employment and remains inoperative until such time as he is absent again from that place in any of the circumstances specified in subsection (2). This legal advice was generally accepted by all concerned. The Deputy's amendment could pose practical difficulties. It could mean a weekly change of place of employment in relation to a commercial traveller who spends one day at his head office and the rest of the week travelling around the country. The same situation could apply to an employee who has to travel abroad at regular intervals. I am assured that the amendment is unnecessary and I believe that it would create practical difficulties. For these reasons I do not propose to accept the amendment.

I do not propose to press the amendment because it is not of great importance, but I do not accept all that the Minister has said. Subsection (2) reads:

An employee to whom this section applies may by giving notice in writing to his employer require the employer for so long as the employee is either—

(i) required to work at a place other than his usual place of employment, or

(ii) absent from work on leave or with the consent of his employer or by reason of illness,

to pay his wages, or cause them to be paid, to him in cash, and in case a notice under this subsection is for the time being in force, subsection (1) of this section shall not apply in relation to the employee.

I am proposing the insertion at subsection (b): "until the employee returns to his usual place of employment.".

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 5.

Amendment No. 17 is in the name of the Minister and amendment No. 18 is in the name of Deputy Mitchell. Amendment No. 18 is related to amendment No. 17 and they can be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 4, subsection (1), lines 43 to 45, to delete all the words from "to the employee" in line 43 to the end of the subsection and substitute ", or cause to be given, to the employee a statement in writing indicating the gross amount of the salary or wages payable and the nature and amount of the deduction, and in case such a statement is so given, the employer concerned shall take such reasonable steps as are necessary to ensure that both the matter to which the statement relates, and the statement before it is given to the employee, are treated confidentially.".

In moving this amendment I am meeting part of Deputy Mitchell's amendment. The employer will be required to take such reasonable steps as are necessary not only to ensure that the statement is treated as confidential until it becomes the property of the employee but also to ensure that the information contained in the statement is treated as confidential. When this section is brought into operation it will apply to all employees, not just those covered by the Truck Acts and related legislation, whether they are paid in cash or by any other non-cash method. I am not prepared to accept the first part of the Deputy's amendment on the basis that a deduction cannot be divided into components. Each so-called component would comprise a deduction and its nature and amount would have to be indicated in writing in the pay statement. The Deputy proposes that the statement should be so presented as to be detachable from any cheque or similar mode. As the Bill is drafted, the employer is not precluded from furnishing the statement as a document physically separate from the cheque. Other than that, the question of what form it might take is merely an administrative matter and provision is not made in that regard in the Bill. Where non-cash payment is concerned, if the employee had strong feelings in the matter he could put his feelings to the employer. If the employer refuses to accommodate him there is no obligation on the employee to sign a document agreeing to a method of non-cash payment of his wages.

I agree that the Minister has met part of my amendment. However, in many cases wages are computed by computer and pay slips are printed by computer.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 6 December 1979.
Top
Share