Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 6 Mar 1990

Vol. 396 No. 6

Private Members' Business. - Industrial Relations Bill, 1989: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Gilmore

I would like to deal with Part II, sections 20, 21 and 22, which amend the Trade Union Acts, and deal with trade union amalgamations. The general thrust of these sections appear to be to make it easier for trade unions to amalgamate and to make it harder for new unions to be formed, especially small unions. We need to think this through. There has been an assumption that reducing the number of trade unions is automatically a good thing. For years we have been told that we have too many unions. We never hear that we have too many building societies, too many banks or too many companies of one kind or another, even though the same kind of arguments about wasteful competition, size, etc. could be made about them as has been frequently made about trade unions. I sometimes think that people outside the trade union movement who complain about too many unions are really saying that they do not like trade unions at all: what they are saying is not that we have too many trade unions but that we have too many trade unionists.

The approach taken within the trade union movement is somewhat different. Those of us within the trade union movement favour a reduction in the number of unions because we recognise that workers get better protection and better service within a larger union. The Workers' Party have welcomed the merger between the ITGWU and the FWUI and the formation of SIPTU, healing a split and pooling resources to benefit the ordinary member. Similarly, we welcome the announcement of the merger between the UPTCS and the LGPSU and the talk to amalgamate teacher unions. These are good developments and they should be encouraged. Big is not always better. In a big organisation the centre inevitably becomes more remote from the members and there is a danger that the ordinary members may have less access to decision making and to those who make the decisions.

The Bill we are debating lays emphasis on democratic procedures in relation to strikes and industrial action. I feel that the democratic rights of ordinary trade union members is not something that should be confined to industrial action. There is a need to ensure that in the big unions the structures are open and democratic and that members can easily participate in the decision making process in the union. Too often we see procedures adopted which restrict the rights of members to participation and to freedom of expression. The women's committees of many unions have repeatedly drawn attention to matters such as the timing of meetings and the way in which meetings are conducted as inhibiting factors to increased participation by women workers in the running of their own union.

The bigger a union gets the more impersonal it can become and the more the individual member can become just a cog in a big machine. There is a need to ensure that there is freedom of expression within trade unions and that those who express points of view which differ from those of the union leadership are not in any way regarded as less loyal to the union or a lesser member of the union. This principle applies also to political expression. The great strength of the Irish trade union movement is that it has not been divided along party political lines, as has been the case in trade unions on the continental mainland. It is probably no accident that this has contributed to Ireland having one of the biggest penetrations of trade union organisations in Europe.

The Irish trade unions have traditionally embraced members of all political parties. Some of the best shop stewards and branch committee members, with whom I have worked as a trade union official, have been members of Fianna Fáil. This political plurality must be respected, especially in the new large unions.

It is particularly important that the rights of individual members should be protected in the context of unions amalgamating. I share with many members of SIPTU a concern that while the historic merger itself was a very good thing there was a price to be paid in terms of the democratic rights of the ordinary members, including their rights of access to and participation in the decision making process.

In an era when people the world over are demanding and getting their rights to democratically elect their leaders and to freedom of expression, it is not acceptable that the leadership of merging unions can decide to suspend the democratic process within their own union for an arbitrary period of years and to deny to the ordinary members of the merged union the right to elect their new leadership. On Committee Stage The Workers' Party will be introducing an amendment to ensure that the rights of ordinary trade union members are protected within their union, especially in the context of amalgamation. The amendment will be aimed at ensuring that ordinary members of an amalgamating union will not be denied the right to elect their leadership and will prevent the playing of musical chairs with leadership positions which are properly the property of ordinary members.

As trade unions get bigger we must ensure that there is no drift towards American style trade unionism with its lack of democratic participation, its slot machine approach to membership service, its highly centralised bureaucratic structures and its overpaid out of touch leadership. American style trade unionism has left the United States a predominantly non-union economy. The main lesson to be learned from Eastern Europe is that no individual or group of individuals, no matter how powerful, had a right to believe they own the State and no trade union leader has the right to believe he or she owns the union. I do not believe that the making available of money alone will facilitate the amalgamation or merger of trade unions. Ordinary trade union members must feel that they will remain in control of the new amalgamated unions and that there is leadership accountability in every area from salaries and business matters to industrial negotiation and political expression. Again, these are areas to which we will return with amendments and examples on Committee Stage.

As I said at the beginning, good industrial relations are active industrial relations and by the same token good trade unionism is active trade unionism, a form of trade unionism in which the ordinary member feels in control. The kind of industrial relations and industrial and trade union legislation we need as we approach the turn of the century in a new world, in changing times, is legislation which facilities democratic trade union rights and enables disputes to be settled early and fairly. We need legislation which ensures that workers can exercise their constitutional right to belong to a trade union, that their trade union will not be denied the right to negotiate by some employer, and that differences are settled by discussion and negotiation so that there is no need for workers to take industrial action in the first place.

I have been a trade union official for the past 12 years. I have never met a worker who wanted to go on strike but I met very many who were forced into a corner where they were left with only two options; to take industrial action or to abandon the claim. They key to good industrial relations is participation, democracy and mutual respect. These are qualities which must apply both to the trade union movement itself and to the conduct of industrial relations. From what I have heard in the course of this debate I believe there is a commitment to those principles in this House and I look forward to Committee Stage when we can seek to strengthen and improve the Bill which is before us. I may not agree with everything in the Bill but I congratulate the Minister on bringing it forward. It is good to have comprehensive industrial relations legislation before us at this time.

Mr. O'Shea

The Labour Party are happy with much of the Bill and are glad that it has been brought before the House. However, we have serious reservations about the provisions restricting secondary picketing. I want to give a hypothetical example of what might happen in a plant where a dispute is taking place. The employer could be in collusion with another party who could import the item manufactured in his plant and he could give a list to some other party of the people to whom he sells his product. In this way the strike could be undermined to a certain extent. We are worried that putting a curtailment on secondary picketing could allow employers to enter into collusion with one another in order to break a strike. As our spokesman, Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan, indicated we will be putting down amendments to this section on Committee Stage.

The Labour Party welcome the setting up of the labour relations commission. However, we have some reservations about the removal of the conciliation service from the Labour Court. Because this service is now being given to a new body, possibly the commission, the processing of certain industrial disputes could remain with the commission for too long a period and in that way delay the settling of a strike. We would prefer to see more direct liaison between the industrial relations commission and the Labour Court. As our spokesman has suggested, if the chairman of the Labour Court is also chairman of the commission there would be more liaison between the two bodies and this could lead to the more effective and speedy resolution of trade disputes.

I want to refer to worker participation in industry. Sufficient progress has not been made in this area. In industrial relations, contradictory information can come from a company at stages which are not too far apart. If this happens the trust the workers have in the management is undermined. It is important that workers are in a position to receive accurate and continuing hard information from management. Proper industrial relations in a firm depend on a team effort where everybody is pulling in the same direction. If this is to happen there must be trust on both sides. The Minister should address this issue in order to ensure that the Bill will work more effectively. With regard to worker participation and trade union membership, there is a phenomenon at present that industries which set up here with foreign capital have no contract finalised with a trade union. In other words companies which do not have trade union membership are being State funded. We believe this is totally contradictory and totally at variance with the spirit of this Bill which, as I have said, we welcome in very many ways.

I want to refer to the Labour Court, the employment appeals tribunal and related representation of workers. I have noticed that employers are availing more and more of the services of lawyers and solicitors at hearings. Employees are usually very ably represented by their trade union official. When the Labour Party motion was being discussed during Private Members' Business last week it was indicated that free legal aid should and could be applied to representation at these tribunals. Indeed the Minister for Justice indicated that it would be useful if this area was examined by his colleague the Minister for Labour. I ask the Minister to look at this possibility in the context of this Bill. If workers are being disadvantaged in the sense that employers can provide legal representation at a tribunal it is only just that an employee who cannot provide the same legal representation should receive free legal aid from the State. The Minister should work at plugging this hole.

Most of the speakers who have contributed to this debate alluded to the rationalisation of trade unions. I want to add my voice to those who welcomed the amalgamation of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union and the Federated Workers' Union of Ireland into one big union. As a trade union member my experience has related to teacher unions. There are moves afoot all the time to amalgamate the three teacher unions. Members of the Irish National Teachers Organisation can now qualify for university degrees and this is bringing the qualifications of teachers at the various levels closer together. Indeed a parliamentary question was put down to the Minister for Education today asking her if she intended to allow St. Patrick's teacher training college in Drumcondra to provide BAs and other degrees. Rationalisation of the teacher unions would enable central education issues to be dealt with in a more global and general sense to the benefit of everybody involved in teaching. The amalgamation of unions in any area is to be welcomed.

I would like to refer to the European Social Charter and the introduction of a minimum wage which I believe is fundamental to all industrial relations. One of the major difficulties facing many people — I am talking about people on social welfare with families of four, five and six children — is that it is more beneficial for them to be on social welfare than working in many of the lower paid jobs available at present. The whole ethos of employment is being undermined and seriously damaged by this. This Bill needs to address many of the major problems in the workplace which give rise to industrial disputes. The wage levels in some areas, particularly in the part-time and seasonal areas in the building trade in some instances, need to be tackled. A minimum wage needs to be brought in because at present when employment is sadly curtailed it is an employer's time, and unscrupulous employers are making very good use of this to drop wage levels and disimprove the conditions of employees in various employments.

We worry about the fact that this Bill does not provide an inalienable right to strike. This is the one real weapon the employee has at the end of the day. In regard to the machinery we have here for conducting secret ballots — and I know from my experience in trade unions that there are occasions when secret ballots are important and useful—one questions the advisability and the viability of having secret ballots on forms of industrial action other than strikes. It would seem cumbersome. Another major worry concerns the conducting of secret ballots. What, at the end of the day, are the real safeguards here? How can the Minister, the Labour Court or the commission ensure that secret ballots are carried out in a fair and objective way so that no element of intimidation or otherwise can be attached to them?

We welcome the fact that employers are being limited in their ability to have recourse to ex parte injunctions where injunctions are sought for frivolous or mischievous reasons during trade disputes. This is an area that should have been tackled long since and we compliment the Minister on now doing so.

The new commission will bring in codes of practice and procedures and can set up joint labour committees, but it can also abolish them. This is an area that gives us some cause for concern because where joint labour committees exist in firms they have, by and large, been successful. If the commission decided that it wanted to take extra powers to itself, to broaden its base and to become more influential in the whole area of industrial relations, it could seek to eliminate these other tiers. This is something that would concern us as well.

In conclusion we welcome the Bill, but we have a number of reservations about it which the Labour Party spokesman on Labour enunciated. To summarise, one of the areas I would be most concerned about is the curtailment of secondary picketing. One remembers a strike in Britain not so long ago when they were faced with flying pickets becoming part of the scene. None of us welcomes this phenomenon. We see it as being negative and counterproductive in terms of industrial relations. Nevertheless, if employers can enter into a conspiracy to undermine the position of their employees while those employees are on strike, then the Bill would seriously weaken the workers' strengths and protections. I will be asking the Minister to have a look at this again. We certainly would not welcome wildcat strikes or flying pickets but where there is justifiable cause, where employers are in collusion to prolong a strike in their own interests and solely in their own interests, thereby destroying the position of employees, then this Bill does no service and could do an enormous disservice to employees. The setting up of the commission however and the rationalisation and introduction of the Bill in general is to be welcomed.

Mr. Garland

While in general I welcome the Bill, I feel that it does not address in any meaningful way the whole concept of employment as the main provider of paid work. In our frantic search for jobs it is very easy to lose sight of the fundamental defects in the whole concept of one person employing another. I suppose, in practice, this method will continue for some time but I think this would be the moment to stand back a little and consider the fundamental disadvantages under which workers operate.

I would like to quote a paragraph from Human Scale by Kirkpatrick Sale when he sets out the reality behind industrial employment, particularly as it relates to large scale private enterprise:

We do not vote on nor have any say whatsoever in what our company will do or make, how it will raise money or invest its profits, or for the most part how it will operate the offices and plants in which we work; we normally cannot modify or challenge the decisions that are made for us by a handful of distant people whom we do not elect to, and cannot remove from office. We have no representation in the financial processes (excepting only as a union may intervene) and normally must accept the salaries, cuts and raises offered by those over whom we have no control.

The trade unions are, within the ambit of the existing law, unable to have any input into these matters. In any event the whole raison d'être of the trade union movement is to protect workers from rapacious employers but the trade union movement as a whole does not challenge the concept or nature of the fundamental employer/ employee relationship but we in the Green Party — Comhaontas Glas — would like to see businesses which comprise one person businesses, small family businesses, workers' co-operatives, or enterprises controlled by the community or in exceptional cases, the State.

It is said that workers' co-operatives are just a Utopian ideal and that they do not work. I accept that there have been problems with the viability of certain workers' co-operatives, but there are many successful ones, including Crannagh Furniture Co-operative and Westport Shoes, just to mention two. The main reason for the failure of many of the co-operatives is that they lack marketing and financial skills. Outside Ireland the co-operative movement is much stronger. I will give just two examples of this. The first is the Mondragon Co-operative in the Basque region of Spain which was founded in 1943 and now has 14,000 copartners. They operate on a totally commercial basis. The other example is the John Lewis partnership in Great Britain which has a similar number of copartners. It should be realised that for businesses growing beyond small family businesses that the workers' co-operative, far from being Utopian is the logical structure for medium and large sized industries in that there is none of the normal divisiveness which one gets in private enterprise.

It has to be said that the present set up in industry, of workers on the one side and the management cum owners on the other, is inherently one which is built on conflict. The employers' aim is to employ as few people as possible, pay them as little as possible and work them as hard as possible whereas the employees seek to work as little as possible for as much as possible. This may sound like stating the obvious but is nevertheless the basis for our entire industrial system. In other words, industry is basically a battlefield. I accept that this is not usually so in practice but the industrial peace which we have today is a very uneasy peace based on a balance of terror whereas the logic of co-operatives was recognised by Mill — the 19th century economist.

The workers' co-operatives have two intrinsic advantages over conventionally structured businesses. Firstly, workers require no formal supervision, simply direction. These people are under constant supervision from their colleagues. Secondly, in the event of a downturn in trade or any other financial vicissitudes, they will accept pay cuts on the basis that it is their own business and they will benefit at the end of the day when trade improves, whereas in the normal company, while wage cuts are possible, they are very difficult to negotiate. I accept that we are not yet ready to seriously consider the entire restructuring of industry which would be necessary to convert medium and large scale business to workers co-operatives. In the meanwhile much can be done. We need a programme for work-place democracy. This programme will have to go much further than having worker directors which they are by law required to have in Sweden, West Germany and other countries. This does not go far enough. Many years ago the Liberal Party in Great Britain had a policy of co-ownership and profit sharing. That kind of policy would go some way down the road we should be travelling. This would involve the gradual transfer of ownership from the shareholders to the workers. At the same time businesses would be compelled by law to share their profits with the workers. This latter idea may sound radical but at the moment businesses share profits with the Revenue Commissioners so it should not be too difficult a problem.

It is fair to say, and I agree with the Minister, that we have had quite a long period of relative industrial peace which is very much to be welcomed but there is, of course, no guarantee that this will continue. It is interesting to note that Sweden, which has been held up as a model of ideal industrial relations, has recently been involved in very damaging strikes in banking and other businesses. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the present favourable climate will continue indefinitely.

To turn to the Bill itself, as I have said, it has many good features and I accept that the ideas behind it are laudible.

In the context of the present system of ownership of business the right to strike should, of course, be maintained but is should be borne in mind that, unfortunately, the effect of strikes, in so far as they concern members of the public, can cause great hardship to the poor, the elderly and women with families, particularly in areas providing essential services.

I welcome the secret ballot requirements and secondary picketing.

All in all, this is a useful Bill which we hope will ensure that our present period of industrial peace, however fragile, will continue, at least for a time.

Mr. Carey

I commend the Minister for bringing in the Industrial Relations Bill, 1989, in that it contains many ideals which have been sought by the trade union movement. Industrial relations play a very important part in the life of this country and have from time to time held up the economy. In recent times good industrial relations have assisted the economy, so the Minister is to be congratulated on the way peace has broken out since he came to this Ministry. I am sure he played no small part in seeing that good relations exist between the trade union movement and employers.

However, the main difficulty I see with industrial relations is that the Bill does not provide for enough in the way of employer participation. I am concerned more about manufacturing industry and service industry than about the public service side in terms of good industrial relations. The history of this country has varied from place to place and, indeed, there have been areas where industrial relations have broken down continuously particularly in cities of the south. The difficulties there arose probably from traditions that were inherited from other times and maybe because we are adjacent to that little island across the water, called the United Kingdom. I would like to see greater expansion of manufacturing industry so that at least emigration might be halted. This requires confidence in the workers, confidence in the employers, mutual co-operation instead of what I heard Deputy Garland speaking about, total confrontation, all-out war, and some other quaint words he used to describe what is going on. I do not know whether he used the word "revolution" but he was getting fairly near it.

Mr. Ferris

The Green revolution.

Mr. Carey

I wish him and the Green Party well. He will do well if he continues to espouse that doctrine. By and large I got up to speak because I am concerned at the variations in industrial relations. In supporting the amalgamation of trade unions the Minister is moving in the right direction. The model for success in industry has to be West Germany. Look at the industrial relations there and you will find that employer organisations are very compact and strong as are the trade union organisations, although I admit, as Deputy Gilmore pointed out, that worker participation in trade unions in West Germany is not all that high; it is probably less than 50 per cent, but that is more or less because a great many workers, indeed the vast majority in West Germany, are white collar rather than blue collar workers. That explains in part anyway this low participation I have referred to. However, West Germany has enjoyed major industrial success because of the relations there between the employers, the trade unions and the Government.

There is even stronger legislation in place in the West German Republic to deal with all aspects of industrial relations than the Minister is providing in this Bill. The Minister has gone three-quarters of the way, but in West Germany which I am taking as the ideal industrial base the employers and unions have organised themselves in the legal framework which provides for systems of collective bargaining, effective means of controlling disputes, a court system whereby disputes can be examined and a waiting period during which strikes cannot take place. In order to justify all of this they have in their constitution a provision for the right to strike. We do not have any such provision in our Constitution. All the industrial relations experience there is probably based on the sad difficulties that followed the take-over by the Nazis in the thirties when they formed a corporate state. By and large the West Germans themselves sought to prevent this from ever happening again. They are prepared to involve themselves in the legislation and obey it. The State also assists in catering for employer associations and unions who co-operate with each other in several spheres of public life.

Would it not be revoluntary if there was major participation by the employers, employees and the State in determining social security payments? They have managed to do that to their advantage in West Germany. The boards of management consist of equal numbers of employers and employee representatives so that basic social services such as health, insurance, old age pensions, industrial injuries and unemployment benefits, employment services, industrial training and rehabilitation are entirely in their hands. That is a model the Irish economy might well strive towards. While the amalgamation of unions is taking place we risk bringing along the old habits. I hope that when most of the unions have been rationalised we will have four or five major unions instead of the present proliferation of unions and that they would not employ sharp practices. Legislation to prevent the growth of these practices has to be agreed. The employers, the Minister and the unions have to sit down and agree these matters.

One aspect of the trade unions I want to refer to is the remoteness of the major centres of advice. I had a sad experience on the industrial estate in Shannon. A major textile company's employees were being advised by one of the major unions on a trade dispute where people were seeking higher payments for batch work. The employer made a final offer but the advice coming from the research officer in Dublin was that the workers should continue with the dispute as the employer would cave in. The employer came over from the head office in the UK and told the workers they had 24 hours to decide on his final offer and settle the matter. The employees were still guided by the head office in Dublin and continued with the dispute with the result that 500 or 600 jobs were lost in the industrial estate because the employer took his equipment out of the industrial estate and moved it to the United Kingdom. I believe the members of that trade union should have received better advice from the intelligence unit of the union. I had the feeling that because the dispute was in County Clare, which is a bit remote from Dublin, the attitude was that the local boys would settle it somehow. I have to say that the local official was very diligent, honest and upright but he took his instructions from union headquarters. The president of the union made a dramatic effort when it was all too late and the bird had flown. The Minister should emphasise the need for standards in advice being given to the lads in the country, that it should be good advice and should not allow a total breakdown in the dispute. This dispute was in the textile industry in the mid-west and at least four other companies have closed down in this area where there had been a great tradition of textile manufacturing.

Irrespective of the good work that the IDA or SFADCo do, I do not think disputes about productivity, demarcation lines or industrial relations should be the reason that major employment opportunities of this nature are lost. This Bill should go that little bit further in getting all the partners in industry involved. In the long run, if we are to arrest the flow of emigration we will have to concentrate more and more on manufacturing industries. In the current rush the emphasis seems to be on the services industry. While there are problems of industrial relations in the service industry, I believe we must start at the major area which is manufacturing. As I have said, the Federal Republic of Germany is the greatest success since the 1950s in the industrial relations field. They have managed to quadruple production. They have low inflation and a very high standard of living and at present the West German economy is taking steps to absorb the difficulties in East Germany which are very deep indeed.

I welcome the Bill. Indeed, I have already praised the Minister for his successful work but I think more attention should be paid to the system that operates in the Federal Republic of Germany and I hope that could be incorporated in Irish law.

Mr. McGrath

I am happy to welcome the Industrial Relations Bill and I compliment the Minister on bringing it before the House. The Bill will have an impact on Irish industry and will improve industrial relations in the country. Many aspects of the Bill will be welcomed both by employees and employers. It will serve to improve employer-labour relations. It will provide a mechanism for discussion and consultation on disputes and it will provide help to facilitate union amalgamations. Let us take those in turn.

First, the Bill provides a framework for unions and employers to draw up and formalise mutually suitable arrangements and agreements. Too often we come across wild-cat strikes, which could have been born out of a hasty decision either on the part of a worker or an employer. In the past these disputes have too often assumed proportions that were enormous. How often have strikes developed from something trivial to such proportions that neither side could take the initiative to resolve them? How often has our national image been tarnished because of the high rate of unofficial strikes? How often have companies lost valuable orders because of such strikes? I think the Bill will give a format not only to help to prevent strikes and provide a consultative process, but to help the Irish drive for new industry and the creation of new jobs. I also welcome the appointment of a commission which will have a very important consultative role. Consultation should be the key word in legislation. If we have a consultative process in place we can avoid many strikes. This Bill will provide for that process by making provision for organising the workers, their arrangements and agreements with the employers. This can only be welcomed.

An aspect of the Bill which particularly pleases me is that there will be help for unions to amalgamate. It is disturbing that we have about 85 unions with their own small interest groups. It would be much more pleasing and satisfying to see the unions amalgamated and working together in larger units.

As a teacher I should like to refer briefly to the amalgamation of the teachers' unions. On a lighter note, I note that teachers are not defined as workers. They are excluded from the class of workers. Time spent in a classroom — and I have spent perhaps 20 years there — might change one's opinion. The amalgamation of the INTO, the ASTI and the TUI will be very welcome. Their total membership will be in the region of 44,000. One single union will be very strong and will provide a huge amount of teacher power. This will have advantages for teachers. They will have a central bargaining position in relation to pay and conditions. This is to be welcomed. It is also very important that the three teacher unions should join together in striving to improve facilities for our children. Too often a particular sector of the teaching profession have sought only to improve their own sector of the profession, leaving the others out in the cold. One union will make a difference and will bring teachers together for the betterment of our educational system. One main union will also have the effect of bringing about improvements in conditions. In some cases, the condition of schools is absolutely deplorable. Some of our primary schools are in a lamentable condition. The joining together of the unions and the exercising of one voice will have an effect in putting pressure on the Government to improve facilities.

The amalgamation of the teachers' unions will encourage co-operation and a greater flow of opinion from one sector to another. Very often the primary teachers' union are operating in a vacuum and the secondary teachers are operating likewise. There is no co-operation between the two groups, no pooling of ideas or resources to give a better education to our children, which must be our main objective.

From the employers' point of view the amalgamation of these unions will also be a great help. In future, the Government will have just one union to deal with. This will help in bargaining and negotiating and will improve the general educational system. It will also eliminate a certain amount of friction between the various unions. This was very obvious in the recent debate and vote concerning the Programme for National Recovery. One union was going one way and the other was going in the opposite direction. It can only be a help when they are joined together. The “one-up-manship” which has been a feature of unions in the past may be phased out.

I am delighted to welcome the Bill and I look forward to the next Stage.

Minister for Labour (Mr. B. Ahern)

I assure my colleague, Deputy McGrath, that the exclusion of the teachers is only in relation to going to the Labour Court, not in relation to work.

Mr. McGrath

On a lighter note.

Mr. J. Higgins

It would be remiss of me as a politician and as a member of a teaching union to let this opportunity pass without welcoming this Bill. Like Members from all sides, I commend the Minister on bringing legislation before the House because in doing so he has bitten the bullet which was set aside by a number of his predecessors.

Revamping the trade disputes Act is a major undertaking. It has been there since 1906 and to an extent it has stood the nation, the trade union movement and employers in good stead, but unfortunately it is outdated and outmoded and it does not do the job required by the demands put on industrial relations as we face into the 21st century. I again welcome the Bill and commend the Minister on his determination and foresight in bringing before us something which is badly needed.

The 1906 Act was good in the context of what it was required to do in the atmosphere that prevailed in the early 1900s but unfortunately it is legislation which is based essentially on a system of immunities. It confers no right to strike and provides only partial and uncertain protection. We all accept as a principle of human rights and industrial relations that the right to withdraw labour is fundamental and any law enacted must give legal expression to this right. Unfortunately, it is a right which, in the past, has been abused and, as Deputy McGrath and others said, it has over the years tarnished, by virtue of the number of man days lost and in some cases of the methods employed, the image of industrial relations and the image of the country as a whole. In this regard, I am not in any way trying to compromise workers' rights to strike. We are merely saying that for some reason or other we have built up over the years — thankfully not laterally — the unenviable reputation of having a considerable number of job losses, man hours and man days lost and consequently a reputation which does not befit a country like this in terms of size or responsibility.

We know that the vast majority of workers are fair-minded, just, equitable, honest people who would never participate in strikes except for this malaise that has set in in certain unions over a period of time and the persistence of certain unions in going too far too often which has led to this rather tarnished image which has been built up. In later years there has been a growing sense of responsibility, and even in relation to unions which have contributed to giving us this unenviable reputation, there has been a growing understanding that people must face responsibility, that they cannot willy nilly go on strike and that by going on strike they are betraying and displaying a selfish attitude.

We must enshrine in our legislation a recognition of the independence and autonomy of the trade union movement. This Bill does this. The courts and the Labour Court should be kept in the background as a last resort in industrial disputes. We hope that is a pattern which will build up over time. We hope that the mechanics put in place will be so clear as to ensure that the court is a place of last appeal. Good trade union law must be unambiguous and crystal clear and should set down predefined rules and regulations. Ambiguity, ambivalence and lack of clarity lead to misunderstanding, confusion and industrial strife. We must have a system that protects the rights of both industry and workers. There is an increasing awareness that mutual respect is of advantage to both sides. Without such respect there is mistrust leading to confusion and industrial strife.

When changing to a rights-based system the precise details of the type of industrial action permitted must be set down as should the methods which are excluded. This Bill recognises the fundamental right to strike in a structured, responsible, legal fashion. This measure will ensure that workers will have a defence in all civil proceedings. The protection given to workers must stop short where personal injuries are involved and where damage to property is involved and where there is a case of trespass in the course of looking for one's labour rights.

I welcome this measure, particularly the introduction of the secret ballot. We have to remove all taint of intimidation and the only way to do that is to ensure that a person has a secret ballot in the right atmosphere. This is something that has been welcomed by the trade union movement.

I welcome the introduction of regulations prohibiting secondary picketing and the introduction of one week's notice to employers. Pre-emptive or sudden strikes are outmoded, unfair and damaging to all sides. The proposals are good in that they manage to strike a fair balance between workers' rights and employers' rights. Where the rights of the workers are enshrined in legislation we are well on the way to improving industrial relations.

It is good to provide incentives. Where the unions keep within the guidelines of the law they will enjoy the full protection of the law. The positive approach here is good. As a trade unionist my heart and sympathy is with the trade union movement. I want to see it grow and become strong and vibrant. Unfortunately, in other countries union history has not been very satisfactory. For example, in the US the trade unions have been literally squeezed out. There, fewer than 20 per cent of the workforce carry union membership cards and workers are the losers in the long run. That has come about because of a conscious policy on the part of the Government but aided and abetted by the workers and the way in which the unions in the US have managed their affairs. Meeting trade union members in the States one gets the impression that there is a sense of demoralisation there and many seem to be ready to pass the chalice or put up the white flag. That is not healthy.

In Great Britain under the present regime the unions have taken a severe mauling. A considerable amount of this has been brought on by the trade union movement. One would like to see the unions stage a responsible comback in the UK in the interests of the workforce whom they purport to represent.

Here, the trade union movement is not as strong as it should be. There has been a reduction in the membership of the unions by virtue of the fact that we now have so many part-time workers, a system of sub-contracting, because many companies have gone to the wall and because there have been many early retirements, redundancies and job losses, and because traditional industries have not been able to meet the challenge of the seventies, eighties and the nineties. One has only to look at the number of people involved in affiliations to Congress — 80 unions and 650,000 workers. One gets the impression that there is a lack of unity, cohesion and purpose in the trade union movement. One often gets the distinct impression that the trade union movement does not vocalise in a unified fashion the same type of coherent response one gets from the IFA and the farming organisations, who manage to function under not more than two umbrellas.

Up to now the unions here have been too diffuse. We have only had a few really big players, the ITGWU and the FWUI, the ATGWU, the public sector unions and the craft unions. Everybody must welcome the emergence of a sense of unity among some of the larger unions. But when one looks at congress, they seem to be a rather loose confederation of unions. They do not seem to have the sort of strength required for a coherent policy. For example, congress can persuade unions but they cannot compel unions to stick to any national agreement.

In defence of the unions, I do not think we have got anything like the rewards unions should be given in the Programme for National Recovery. Unions have made a supreme sacrifice. They have been prepared to take wage increases on a par with — and sometimes below — the level of inflation. They are barely managing to keep pace with the level of inflation, that is a fairly substantial sacrifice at a time when wages are relatively low, when the average industrial wage is, unfortunately, too low and when many people would be better off on social welfare than working in a low income regime.

The Programme for National Recovery has tied workers to a national wage agreement and one might justifiably ask, after all the sacrifices made by the social partners — mainly the workers — where is the beef in terms of giving workers a decent industrial wage, but particularly in terms of producing jobs and, consequently, enhancing and improving union membership? There is no beef there because when you look at the scale of job losses as against purported increases in employment, job losses unfortunately are in the ascendancy, which was not the intention of the programme. I hope, when the next Programme for National Recovery is undertaken — and this side of the House have been responsible in encouraging participation in a further programme of this kind — that there will be a greater recognition of the role and sacrifices made by the unions in this regard.

The litmus test is job creation and that has not been delivered on. I should like to see — and it is part and parcel of the congress policy as well — no more than ten unions which would lead to solidarity, cohesion and a better industrial relations policy all round. Like all sides of the House I particularly welcome the long overdue merger of the ITGWU and FWUI into SIPTU which came about after a certain amount of trepidation. We hope that that will become the flagship, the guiding principle and the pioneer for further major rationalisation and amalgamation of the trade union movement.

In 1975 the then Minister for Labour, Deputy Michael O'Leary, introduced the Trade Union Act, the intention of which was to bring about the type of process we have seen in the new SIPTU development. It was to facilitate mergers but, unfortunately, it was underutilised. As Deputy McGrath said, there are many obvious areas of potential for union amalgamation and assimilation. He rightly instanced the obvious area of development which is the amalgamation of the teacher unions. Back in the sixties under the chairmanship of Professor Louden Ryan, Trinity College, the common basic salary scale was introduced. Before that the primary teachers were at the bottom of the scale, the vocational teachers were on another level, secondary teachers were on another level and the new elite corps of the teaching profession — the comprehensive schools — were in the top bracket. When we managed to get a common basic salary scale for people who were fundamentally doing the same job and, by and large, working the same hours, one would have thought that there would have been a natural tendency on the part of the unions to converge. Unfortunately, one teaching union represent vocational teachers and part of the staff of community and comprehensive schools, the ASTI represent secondary teachers and some of the staffs in community and comprehensive schools and the INTO represent primary teachers. They all get the same pay cheques, allowances, superannuation rights and degree allowances, yet they work as three parallel but separate and distinct entities. At Easter all the teacher conferences will be held at various venues, all representing the same body of people, all with the same aims and aspirations, traditions and values, but yet they cannot come together.

The educational process, teachers and trade union policy and industrial relations would be well served if these teaching unions would do the obvious thing and come together once and for all. Unions are too disparate and fragmented and, consequently, they do not have the sense of cohesion which is needed. When one considers that only seven trade unions opted for merger between 1981 and 1985 it is very obvious that this legislation, which exhorts and encourages this movement, is very welcome indeed.

I want to see the process accelerated. I welcome the legislation because it is to the mutual advantage of unions and industry and ultimately for the nation as a whole. I commend the Minister who is doing a relatively good job and who seems to have managed to establish with the trade union movement a rapport and a sense of identification which is doing quite an amount to improve the industrial atmosphere.

Mr. Kavanagh

It was not my intention to participate in this debate because it has been adequately covered by spokesmen from this side of the House. Nevertheless, as I was a former Minister for Labour it is hard to resist speaking in this important area of the legislative process.

As has been said time and time again, the 1906 Act was the bedrock of trade union legislation, not only in this country but in Great Britain. The fact that it did not attract legislative change over many years is to its credit in that the trade union movement always believed it to be the fundamental legislation on which their operations were conducted over many years. Despite the fact that Members said that the trade union movement have created difficulties in the area of disputes it can be said that many have been avoided because of the operation of the trade union movement under that Act.

In 1982 and 1983, when it was considered necessary to bring that law up to date, it was my responsibility to invite both sides in industrial relations — the employers and the trade unions — to form a standing committee to debate changes which could be agreed on. The committee operated for at least one year during my time as Minister and a great deal of progress was made. Unfortunately, a great deal of progress needed to be made and the process continued when I left office. I was sorry that it was not possible to see the final consideration of their deliberations. At one stage the committee broke up as they could not agree and it is to the Minister's credit that he persisted and produced a Bill which has generally met with acceptance by the trade union movement and the employers.

There will always be disagreements on the contents of a Bill of this nature, it is probably the most important legislation we have had to debate since this Government came to power. It will affect more people than many other Bills over which we have had to pore in the last two years or more. In that respect, I commend the Minister for his patience in bringing forward legislation that will improve industrial relations.

I am sure the Bill will be amended on Committee Stage and I know the Minister will be listening attentively to comments made on this side of the House. Indeed, people, particularly on this side of the House, have had to operate previous legislation in their own business outside this House as employers and trade unionists.

The country is watching the passage of this Bill with a great deal more interest than perhaps would have been the case many years ago. The Minister has had the benefit of a period of relative industrial peace and that is to his credit. Previous Ministers came to office when industrial relations were difficult and the strike record was probably at its highest. I had the misfortune to arrive in the Department which the Minister now occupies when industrial relations were at their most difficult. I can recall in 1981 when I became Minister there were at least four strikes, one being the CIE strike which had to be attended to there and then. I had responsibility not only for the private sector but also for the public sector. As Minister for the Public Service I found a certain amount of difficulty in that area also. The climate is now right in which to produce legislation such as this. The Minister is not preoccupied with trying to get buses on the road or power to homes and factories and there are no difficulties such as those which arose with Ranks and so on in the past. Because of the arrangements which have been made with the Government and the trade union movement the Minister has had an opportunity to look at the legislation and get the goodwill of all concerned.

The Bill deals with trade union law and proposes changes to the 1906 Act. It attempts to solve problems with secondary picketing, introduce ballots, regulate the granting of injunctions, including ex parte injunctions, and facilitate the rationalisation of the trade union movement. It also proposes to introduce an industrial relations commission. They are the main and most important areas dealt with in the Bill, apart from other activities which the Minister is taking the opportunity to regularise. The section relating to secondary picketing is very important. I would not be in total agreement with the limitation being put on secondary picketing. I think there will be problems in its operation rather than in its acceptance. Difficulties arose in England in the Wapping area and with the miners strike and that is something I would not like to see repeated in this country. We hope this Bill will help towards eliminating that type of activity.

If the Minister, in this legislation, confines picketing to the employer who is in dispute or to a company whose main business is with that employer, difficulties will arise for the trade union movement. All secondary picketing cannot be seen from the public side as bad in itself. There are good reasons for secondary picketing in that collusion takes place and conspiracies are arrived at with employers to enable strikes to be broken. That may mean collusion and conspiracy with firms who would appear on the surface to have nothing to do with the strike in question and it may be necessary for the trade union movement to highlight that by having secondary picketing. I would underscore that because I know in this country we would condemn a lot of the type of secondary picketing that has taken place across the water. On the other hand we know that activities take place between employers and firms to ensure that an end is brought to a strike. As I have said, I have some reservations regarding confining secondary picketing to a very narrow area. There may be some difficulty in regard to that section, section 9 of the Bill.

I would give an example of one area where a strike is taking place at present, that is the Barlow radiator company. I know a little about radiator companies. In this case the company appear to have extended their business abroad and a great deal of the activity that formerly took place in this country seems to have been transferred to an operation in Great Britain. Obviously we cannot legislate for what happens in Great Britain but where it affects workers in this country and it is seen by those workers to be eliminating their jobs and transferring them to another area, I wonder how secondary picketing would operate if those people were to go to Great Britain. Perhaps they would be in breach of British industrial relations laws. When the Minister meets his counterpart as President of the Council of Employment Ministers perhaps he would raise that matter and try to bring about an end to that strike.

Another area dealt with in the Bill is that of ballots. To the general public who would have no dealings with strikes balloting seems a reasonable and democratic way of ensuring that a decision is arrived at. From my experience of the Veha strike in Wicklow, perhaps if this had been a requirement at a very early stage in that dispute it might have been resolved at a much earlier stage but that was not the case.

I would go a long way in agreeing with what the Minister is endeavouring to do in this area. We are elected to this House and we know the amount of legislation that covers balloting in our particular area, whether it be in regard to general elections, local elections or whatever. We know the extent to which people will go to interfere with a ballot. I do not think this legislation covers to the same extent the holding of ballots, nor indeed would we expect it to but it is a little weak in regard to how ballots are to be carried out, where and who oversees them.

There are companies and firms of all sorts and sizes and they are spread over many different areas of the country. One section of a firm may be approached on a ballot on one basis and another section may be approached on a different basis. The office staff who may be trade unionists may be approached on one way for their ballot while the shop floor workers may be approached in a totally different way. There may be two or three different unions in the work place with different approaches as to how the ballot should be taken. I know it is stated in the Bill that all the results would be collated and a decision made on the final result but I hope the Minister will ensure that whatever way ballots are carried out there will be no intimidation or that intimidation could be brought to the lowest level. Part of the problem arose in the past where ballots were taken by a show of hands on the shop floor.

We know that pressure is brought by certain elements to ensure a particular result, at least the ballot is a step away from that. That does not mean that that type of pressure will not continue. I suggest that ballots should be taken from the shop floor and, perhaps, away from the firm. I am not referring to a unit of ten or 12 workers but where several hundred are involved I do not see why the ballot should not take place at the union's headquarters or local branch office. There could be a strict surveillance of the ballot in such venues. I appeal to the Minister to consider that suggestion.

It has been said that the provisions in the Bill will facilitate the rationalisation of the trade union movement. Some people believe that it will bring an end to many of the problems in the trade union movement. Others believe that if rationalisation meant we would be reducing to one union — they hold up the German model as one we should work towards — we would be better off. We do not need the First World War or the Second World War to rationalise the trade union movement. The move has got under way in the trade union movement to rationalise and r sit is being encouraged by grants from the Department of Labour. I look forward to more rationalisation taking place.

The practices of members of some trade unions have changed over the years. I am thinking in particular of those in the crafts unions. Their practices have changed because of different work methods used, the introduction of technology and the type of materials used. It is because of those changes that some skilled people are not as necessary as they were in the past. We are all aware that practices in the building industry have changed in the last 20 or 30 years. Workers in Aer Lingus now have the flexibility to change their operations and the company are able to attract more contracts from abroad. Where trade union practices have been seen to be blocking expansion the unions have adopted a more enlightened approach. There is a willingness within the trade union movement to ensure that rationalisation takes place.

I am glad the Bill encourages further rationalisation in the trade union movement. We will always have exceptions however. We cannot expect goldsmiths to join with plumbers. The various trades and crafts are jealous of their position and are anxious to ensure that their voices are heard. However, it is my belief that as members of a larger trade union they will be able to protect their position in the same way as members of a small union can. Rationalisation will be of benefit to all union members.

Section 14 provides that two years after the passing of the Bill the rules of every trade union will contain a provision that no strike or industrial action will take place without a secret ballot of all members whom it is reasonable for the union concerned at the time of the ballot to believe will be called upon to engage in the strike or industrial action.

Not all employees are organised in unions. That is a pity and it would be better for industrial relations here if they were. In some industries unions are only partially organised. If office staff, for example, are not organised and the shop floor staff are, will the Minister say how he intends to meet such a problem? Will it be necessary for a majority of the employees to be members of a trade union before a ballot can take place? If the majority of employees are not members of a union, will their view prevail over those who are in a trade union? The Bill should make it clear how such a mix of employees will be catered for.

The Bill states that notwithstanding a majority vote favouring industrial action the committee of management of the trade union will have full discretion in relation to the organisation of industrial action. That is perfectly reasonable. The national executive of any trade union should have the last say. They are the guiding figures in the trade union movement and they are experienced enough to be able to gauge the benefit of a strike even if some members believe that that action should be adopted. I am glad that that provision is included in the Bill.

Under the Bill a trade union must make known to the members entitled to vote in a particular ballot the result of a secret ballot as soon as practicable after the vote. That is important. Where members of a union feel a strike is necessary in order to resolve a problem they should not be left hanging while others pore over the results of a ballot or wait for voting papers to arrive from remote parts of the country. Where a ballot involves members over a wide area there is no reason, through the use of modern telecommunications and computers, the result cannot be made available within a short space of time. For example, problems could arise in the case of a dispute involving forestry workers. The dispute may be a local one and I do not think the workers involved should have to wait for the votes of their colleagues in other parts of the country.

The Minister should ensure that facilities and personnel from his Department are made available to speed up the ballots. If such assistance is requested by a trade union the Minister should give favourable consideration to it.

The establishment of the new Industrial Relations Commission with responsibility for the promotion of good industrial relations is another important feature of the Bill. I am happy with that provision but we must take into consideration how such bodies operated in the past. I should like to pay tribute to the officials of the Department for the effort and time they have put into their task in the past. The Minister in providing for the establishment of such a commission can be confident that those appointed have experience of dealing with trade disputes over the years. I do not see any need for concern about the new arrangement. The people appointed have dealt with many problems and know how to approach them. Therefore, any change in methods always causes concern. The new Labour Relations Commission will be combining all the activities of the conciliation service and the Rights Commissioners, etc. An initial approach will be made through the new commission where a strike is contemplated or where there are disputes but we will have to wait to see whether the operation of the commission will prove a more efficient procedure than has been the case in the past. The operation in the past was relatively good and relatively efficient but if it can be improved, that is to be welcomed.

I hope the section of the commission that will take over the functions of the joint labour committees will maintain, if not add to, the numbers or do away with joint labour committees where they see fit. I hope there will be an input by the trade union movement in that area because although not everybody in the country is in a trade union, the unions have a very strong commitment to those in poorly paid employments who, perhaps are actively discouraged from joining a trade union movement and whose needs are generally met by the joint labour committees. I hope that before any additions or subtractions are made in that area, there will be full consultation with the trade union movement to ensure that the needs of those many hundreds of thousands of people who are not organised will be always safeguarded.

I am well aware that the Government are putting great emphasis on the expansion of the hotel and catering industry in terms of employment. In that case the Minister will want to ensure that in that whole area the people would be encouraged to join trade unions so that workers in the hotels and catering trade get proper recompense for the work they do. We are only too well aware that there still exists in all of that area a very low wage structure, a structure that I believe militates against a great deal of employment and discourages people who are in receipt of unemployment benefit or assistance from taking some of the jobs on offer because of the hours they are expected to work and because of the low level of remuneration. They would probably consider it not worthwhile taking such work. I am asking the Minister to ensure that there is more activity on the part of the joint labour committee so that they can bring about a greater return, better remuneration for workers in the hotel and catering industry and perhaps even some yield for Revenue if wages are brought to a level where they are taxable.

The conciliation service of the Labour Court will now be part of the new commission. One would have to read the list of results from the Labour Court to realise how much work is done in this area, the number of strikes that have been avoided by the court's intervention, and the great service they have given. Likewise, in times of very serious labour disputes in industries that have an effect on the whole population the ability of the Minister to call in the Employer Labour Conference and the Rights Commissioners to deal with these particularly difficult strikes was most important. I did not have very much time to look over the Bill but I hope that the ability to continue with the operation of the Employer Labour Conference will not be removed because of this Bill.

I would like to inquire from the Minister what his position will be in the future. It would seem to me that although we had a conciliation service, rights commissioners and full hearings of the Labour Court, at the end of the day some people felt that their particular industrial difficulties could not be adequately met unless the Minister intervened; that will always be the ultimate demand in certain areas. It is sometimes felt that the Minister can do something which all the other agencies and all the machinery cannot do. For the two and a half years I had the responsibility I resisted entering directly into any dispute. I know that various Minister since have carried out that policy and that has been to the benefit of the Labour Court. I am not sure whether the Minister's position is adequately catered for in this Bill but, perhaps, we will hear from him on that topic and on whether he will have that dominant role, the court of last appeal when this Bill is passed. I hope he will take the opportunity to discourage that practice because it is accepted now that if all the machinery of the Labour Court is used, the final decision should be binding. I hope that will be the position.

I join with the other Deputies in complimenting the Minister on bringing forward this legislation. I would like to think that back in 1983 I played some part in having carried out the initial investigations between both the employers and the trade union movement. We had hoped these would result in a Bill such as this.

Mr. S. Barrett

I want to make a few short comments on this legislation. There is a fair deal of balance in the Bill and I congratulate the Minister on that. Indeed, I congratulate one of his predecessors, Deputy Kavanagh, who had the same quiet and reasonable way of doing his business as Minister for Labour. He seemed to be very successful in that Department.

The Bill is entitled an Act to make further and better provision for promoting harmonious relations between workers and employers. It is that spirit of the Bill I would like to speak to because it is no secret that in the past number of years a general fear has built up between employers and some trade unions. Instead of working together to build a better relationship, to improve business and provide a better standard of living for those who are in employment and to create jobs for those who are not, there was a great deal of mistrust between both sides at various times. That was part of our difficulty.

I welcome the provision in relation to a secret ballot. That will go some way to allaying fears that people are forced out on strike without having a real say in whether they want to do so. I was once in a position when I was an employee of finding myself on the street for eight weeks. After a few weeks I do not think anybody in the company could really say why they were on strike. That was not uncommon in the past, in so far as things got to a certain point. There was a breakdown in communications between the employer and the representatives of the employees and suddenly tempers got a little frayed and things happened that should never have happened. I think this is a very sensible move and it will do nothing but good for developing a harmonious relationship between both sides. You will find from time to time that strikes occur for various reasons and people start thinking that they are getting a bad deal because they see certain things happening. That is happening at present to the employees who accepted a reasonable wage increase in the interests of getting our economy back on a proper footing. It is fair to say that some of these employees feel cheated. Profits are being made by their employers while they are making all the sacrifices and a fairly high percentage of their income is taken from their wage packet in tax and PRSI. Costs are going up all the time and those employees who have to pay a mortgage feel very sore because what they may have received in terms of tax relief as a result of a small reduction in PAYE has suddenly disappeared out the window because of the increase in mortgage rates. We all know about the problems which will follow on from higher wage increases: there will be higher rates of inflation which will lead to more people on the dole queue so that nobody will gain.

I avail of the opportunity whenever I can to express a theory which I genuinely believe will go a long way towards resolving that problem, that is, the encouragement of employee profit sharing or share ownership in companies. I do not think we have done enough to encourage employers to invite their employees, through their trade unions, to engage in profit sharing or share ownership. We have failed miserably to show an example ourselves. As employers, through commercial States bodies, we have not taken that initiative. In the Finance Act, 1982, a limited amount of tax relief was given in regard to dividends on employee share holdings. This concept should be developed. If we manage to build the sort of harmonious relations mentioned in this Bill shareholders and employees will share in the rewards during the good times and rather than high wage bills leading to forced redundancies people will still have jobs, even though they may not earn as much, because of a reduction in the profit-take they will get during the bad times. It is better to gain in the good times and to at least have a job when the bad times come compared to what is happening at present. There are occasions when employees feel cheated and, as I have said, we should lead the way by offering shareholdings in commercial State bodies to employees. It makes good sense to do this.

The establishment of a new labour relations commission is a very good concept. The process of conciliation is very positive. However, I notice that the Minister of the day will have to appoint the membership of such a commission. I fail to understand why Ministers always have to have responsibility for the appointment of members to commissions and boards. We have all heard the allegations that it is an opportunity for us to fix up our friends. This defeats the purpose of what we are trying to do. It would be better for the Minister to have some say in the appointment of a percentage of a board or commission, and other bodies could also nominate people. This would give the impression of greater independence.

Minister for Labour (Mr. B. Ahern)

We always do that in the labour area. The social partners appoint four out of the six members and the poor Minister for Labour only appoints the minority, unlike every other Department.

Mr. S. Barrett

It says in section 24 that the commission shall consist of a chairman and six ordinary members who shall be appointed by the Minister.

Mr. B. Ahern

That has been the law since the foundation of the State.

Mr. S. Barrett

I am only commenting on what the Bill says at present. It is unwise to continuously make that provision.

Mr. Rabbitte

If I may say so, the Deputy is doing very well.

Mr. S. Barrett

I thank the Deputy for the compliment.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

It is a move to the left.

Mr. S. Barrett

As I said repeatedly over the weekend, I am not interested in labels, I am interested in action.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sure Deputy Barrett is not advertising the fact that he is in need of assistance from any source.

Mr. Rabbitte

I thought that is what they were saying at the weekend.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Tá sé sin thart.

Mr. S. Barrett

Too many people both inside and outside of this House spend their time concerning themselves about labels as distinct from doing things. I am here to say things, and I am expressing an opinion. I do not know whether it is left or right to say it is better to leave it to representative groups to appoint people. It is a new one on me if that is a left approach. If it is, so be it.

The concept of a labour relations commission is a very good one. I listened carefully to what my colleague, Deputy Liam Kavanagh, whom I respect very much — his record speaks for itself — had to say about this whole area. He expressed a fear about the secret ballot and said that there could be abuses. I suggest — I have not thought this through fully — that perhaps the labour relations commission could play a role in this respect if a returning officer was appointed. If they are in the business of conciliation and supervision they could offer an advisory service in respect of industrial relations. I am certain they would be capable of playing a part by providing a returning officer to supervise these secret ballots. That is partly why I believe the more independence this commission have the better. This would be a positive way of gaining respect for the commission. Perhaps the commission could be used in supervising secret ballots and have a supervisory role.

I listened to what Deputy Kavanagh had to say about part-time workers. It is very hard to understand why so many people are on the dole queue while at the same time a large number of part-time workers are engaged in various industries. It would appear that it is policy in many instances to employ students on a part-time basis rather than provide regular jobs for employees. Deputy Kavanagh referred to the hotel trade. Anybody who visits supermarkets will know that the turn-over in these supermarkets of young staff who are engaged in third level education is staggering. These students are not being paid a reasonable wage; yet I am sure many people who are left on the dole queue could fill these posts. I do not see anything in this legislation — perhaps I am wrong and the Minister will correct me — which deals with part-time workers and possible abuses in this area. When the Minister is replying to the debate perhaps he will make reference to this point. I am not denying students or young people the opportunity to earn some money. We did the same when we were trying to subsidise our education and keep a little money in our pocket. I do not want to sound begrudging in that respect.

It is noticeably on the increase and the Minister for Finance who has just arrived here helped to encourage this to some extent because of the provision he made in relation to PRSI and the very low exemption limit of £50 or £60 a week. I would say the reality is that there are very few people employed on a full-time basis at £60 a week.

Debate adjourned.