As members of the House possibly know, a great number of bodies of divergent characteristics fall within the classification, "trade union". Some of these, notwithstanding their name, have very little to do with the fixing of wages or conditions of employment. Some of them, in fact, concern themselves merely with regulating the conditions under which their members may trade. This Bill deals with that particular type of trade union which is concerned with the fixing of wages and the settlement of conditions of employment. It applies to these trade unions irrespective of whether their membership is confined to the employing class or whether it consists of those who are engaged as employees.
I think it is desirable that that point should be stressed, so that we shall not be told that this measure is a class measure or be alleged that it discriminates as between one class of those who are engaged in industry and another. The Bill is really a very simple measure. It deals in a straightforward way with a very tangled situation. I suppose it is not necessary for me to remind the Seanad of the very powerful and, I might almost say, dominating place which the trade union movement has come to occupy in our industrial life. If not to-day, at least yesterday, it could be said that a trade union could do what no Government would dare to do, and that is to paralyse one of the essential services of the State. We have, in fact, in our own day seen the transport system of the country brought to a standstill by the action of a trade union, acting, presumably, in defence of the interests of its members, but, in defending the interests of its members, undoubtedly inflicting hardship and inconvenience upon the general body of the community. I am not, because I do remind the House that a trade union has been so powerful and has felt called upon to exercise its power to that extent, to be taken as passing judgment upon the wisdom or the justice of that action. I am merely citing it to demonstrate the powerful place which the trade union movement does occupy in the life of our community.
Now, it has happened that on occasions there has been a dislocation of industry—not, perhaps, so widespread as that to which I have referred—which has been received, not because such dislocation was necessary in order to improve the position of those who were employed in a certain industry, but because there was a certain difference of opinion among the employees in that industry as to what trade union had the right to organise workers therein. In fact, these disputes have persisted for a long time, have occasionally been fought out with the utmost bitterness, and have been much more numerous than the general body of the public might be inclined to believe. It is likewise an undoubted fact that the existence of these disputes has been deplored by all responsible trade unionists. For a considerable number of years—for more than 20 years, as I shall submit evidence to prove—responsible leaders of the trade union movement have been trying to find means to obviate these inter-union differences which, as I have said, have manifested themselves on occasions in a general dislocation of our industry. They have not succeeded in that endeavour but I think I would be justified in saying this: that they are agreed that one of the prime causes of this inter-union bitterness and this internecine strife within the trade union movement is the facility with which trade unions may be formed.
Under our law, any seven individuals who comply with certain simple conditions, who draw up suitable rules, have a registered office and purport to follow statutory objects, can register as a trade union and, once being registered and desirous of organising workers in a certain industry, can at once go out to compete for members and, if the competition becomes keen enough, can, as I have said, wreak havoc on the industrial economy of the country. This position, in my opinion, has engendered great abuses in the trade union movement. That, I think, is a fact that cannot be denied. As I have already mentioned, it has been openly admitted by responsible leaders of the movement, not merely to-day or yesterday, but more than 20 years ago.
Now, the present Bill has been the subject of some heated controversy recently, and the whole question of trade union amalgamation and rationalisation, which the Bill seeks to achieve, was discussed at the Trade Union Congress at Drogheda, a few weeks ago, in a temper which was far from rational and with an approach to this problem which was far from deliberative. We had, indeed, perfervid heresy-hunting at that congress, and it seemed to me that it was used as an opportunity to vindicate old personal spleens and to secure petty personal gains in a manner which, if I might say so—as a person who, though outside the movement, is very much concerned for its welfare—has brought no credit to labour organisations in this country. But what really struck me about that congress was that it was merely a repetition of the proceedings which took place at the 25th Annual Meeting of the Irish Labour Party and Trade Union Congress as it then was, which was held in Drogheda in August of 1919, more than 22 years ago. At that meeting, this question of the rationalisation of our trade union movement was the main question on the agenda. At that meeting there was considered a memorandum respecting amalgamation, which opened with these words:
"There are something like 700,000 adult wage earners in Ireland— potential trade unionists. At present, from 250,000 to 300,000 are organised, and about 220,000 are associated, through their unions, with the Irish Labour Party and Trade Union Congress. They are members of about 70 different societies, many of these catering for the same craft or occupation. Several of these societies are small local bodies, weak in bargaining power or compelling force, and there is no good reason for their continued existence as separate organisations".
At that congress a motion was adopted by, I think, 131 votes to 50, asking the National Executive of the Irish Trade Union Congress to consider this question of the reorganisation of the Irish trade union movement, as something which was long overdue, in the interests of the Irish workers. I shall show that, in the 22 years which have passed since then, many attempts have been made by the trade union movement of itself to deal with this problem and they have all failed, as I believe every other attempt made by that movement is bound to fail for reasons to which I shall refer later.
It is interesting, in view of the discussion which has taken place on this Bill, to read what was said then in support of the motion. The mover of the motion, the late Mr. O'Lehane of the Irish Drapers' Assistants' Association, said this:
"In dealing with this problem of reorganisation they (that is to say the trade union movement as a whole) would be up against old-standing institutions, machinery and vested interests."
Here am I trying to deal with that problem and I can only think of Mr. O'Lehane as an inspired prophet because the great obstacle in the way of this endeavour to secure the rationalisation of the Irish trade union movement is to be found in these old-standing institutions, machinery and vested interests.
Then we had Mr. Johnson, a former member of this House, a former Leader of the Labour Party in the Dáil and, at that time, Treasurer of the Irish Trade Union Congress. He stated that,
"he did not disagree with Mr. O'Lehane's resolution but they had before them a concrete suggestion of a line of policy, and this would enable them to discuss their aspiration with something tangible in their minds. He thought it desirable that, in any scheme of amalgamation or federation, they should think, not merely of the moment,"
—not of these old-standing institutions, machinery and vested interests, which were blocking the way then as they are to-day—
"or of strengthening the trade union movement for aggressive or defensive action in the immediate future; but they should have in mind a line of development which would prepare the working-class movement in Ireland for the possibilities of the more distant future."
Then he went on to say in the course of his speech:
"Now, the suggestion in this scheme of amalgamation was that those unions directly associated with the building trades, with the engineering trades, and with the distributing trades should be brought together and federated nationally and locally, and that these unions should appoint an executive or council which should take charge of the wider and bigger movements connected with that industry."
I might say that I anticipate that, if this Bill is passed by the Oireachtas and becomes law, one of the results flowing from it will be the federation within each industry of these smaller organisations which are now competing with one another for membership of the industry and which now fight bitterly amongst themselves for the allocation of employment within the industry amongst their members.
The Bill now before the House reacts also in some degree upon these trade union organisations which, though long established in this country, are not in any way registered under our law or which, I think I may say, do not come within the ambit of the laws of this country. In regard to these particular unions Mr. Johnson had to say this much 22 years ago:—
"They knew that the financial control of some unions was across the water and of other unions in this country, and if they were going to wait until they got one single financial control, they would have to wait too long before they got far on the road to these ideals. The Miners' Federation of Great Britain was not yet the power that it would be in the future. It was not yet the one big union of the mining industry, but it had considerable power and tremendous weight in the mining industry, and this scheme, if adopted, will deal with the various industries in Ireland as the Miners' Federation is doing for the mining industry of Great Britain."
He gave illustrations, but said that "there was not much need for him to go into detail because the scheme he had in mind was outlined as succinctly as he could do it in the memorandum that was before them. But he wanted to say that it was only on these lines, in his opinion, they could prepare the organisation of labour in Ireland to undertake the duties that would be incumbent on the organised workers in future if their hopes were at any time to be realised".
Mr. J.J. Hughes followed Mr. Johnson and said:—
"The average Irish worker must recognise that his interests lay in close co-operation with his fellow Irish workers and the desired end could only be achieved by amalgamation".
Mr. Duffy of Cork declared:—
"The danger he saw at present was that the fight of the trade union movement might be diverted from a fight against employers to a fight amongst the unions".
There have been occasions in this country when the apprehensions of Mr. Duffy of Cork at Drogheda 22 years ago have been well on the way towards realisation, when, in fact, we have almost had in the trade union movement of this country what might be described as civil war. Mr. Duffy went on to say:—
"Mr. Johnson had mentioned that one of the difficulties in the way of the one big union was the officials of the unions. He (Mr. Duffy) suggested that if this was the only difficulty they should superannuate the officials."
Then we had Mr. Cathal O'Shannon, a one-time Labour representative in the Dáil, a very important, and I am glad to say, an influential leader in the Labour movement to-day. He said:
"They had been talking of amalgamation for years. He agreed that amalgamation must come through the action of the rank and file rather than through Congress and the National Executive, to encourage the movement towards amalgamation. He did not want to see two unions affiliated fighting each other as in County Meath. He wanted to see them all in one organisation but he thought they must proceed by stages."
Then we had Mr. Comber, of the Irish National Painters, who said:
"There was a great deal of talk about moral and financial support but the majority of the unions were not able to give moral or financial support when they were wanted."
Mr. Comber might have said that, because they are so small it is impossible for the unions in question to maintain an efficient organisation or to build up finances which would enable them to discharge their duties to their members effectively. But, perhaps, Mr. Comber had other grounds upon which he based his view that the majority of the unions were not able to give moral or financial support when they were wanted because he went on to say:—
"Because the morals and the finances were in the hands of cross-Channel executives."
Mr. Comber even then knew that these cross-Channel executives, as I showed in the discussion on this Bill elsewhere, can, when it suits them, send over their big guns to destroy any attempt on the part of the Irish trade union movement to reorganise itself. He, perhaps, put the issue more succinctly and tersely than I did. Then we had Mr. Foran. He stated:—
"He would content himself by pointing out the failure of the present system of organisation, leaving it to delegates and unions in general to consider how long they would tolerate the present methods and the present machinery in the trade union movement. The previous day they had a very perfect illustration of the inadequacy of the present methods in Limerick."
Then we had the late Mr. MacPartlin, well known, I think, to many of us, and whose early demise was a great loss to the Irish trade union movement, who said:—
"He protested against the reflections cast upon the cross-Channel unions. Somebody had referred to the tin-gods of the small unions. These little gods, they met in the front rooms of the publichouses. They were no use to the trade union movement".
Following him we had Mr. Redmond of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers who said:—
"While they were talking on the question of amalgamation, the engineering unions had been working. Within the next few months those trades would be embraced in one big union which would not be called the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. The name would be The Engineering Trades Union".
Then came the then national secretary of the National Union of Railwaymen in Ireland, Mr. Bermingham, who stated:—
"In the course of a very short time they would have an executive council in Ireland on behalf of the railwaymen of this country. His advice was for them to put their heads together to amalgamate themselves into one powerful union, whatever they might call that union. There was greater trouble with the officials of small unions on this question than with the rank and file. But as long as members had the right of control —as they had—their organisations must not be controlled by officials."
There is nothing in this Bill which in any way detracts from the control of the ordinary rank and file of an Irish trade union over the affairs of the union or over the officers of the union. Mr. Bermingham was followed by another railwayman, Mr. Luke Larkin, who stated:
"In the south of Ireland there were unhappily to-day too many small organisations. In some small towns and cities they would find two or three organisations catering for clerical workers. As to the question of officials, he agreed with some of the delegates who had spoken that officialdom greatly barred the way as far as the rank and file were concerned."
Next was Mr. Harte, then of the National Union of Dockers, now, I think, of the Amalgamated Transport and General Workers' Union, who stated:—
"Labour must not be allowed to become disorganised. He mentioned a number of unions in the south of Ireland catering for the same class of work and called it a most ridiculous state of affairs. Irish labour must take up the question and his union was prepared to allow its members to decide their future policy."
These are some extracts, as I have pointed out, from the speeches which were delivered at the 25th Annual Meeting of the Irish Labour Party and Trade Union Congress, held in Drogheda in August, 1919, 22 years ago, in support of this resolution asking the National Executive of the Irish Trade Union Congress to consider this question of amalgamation and trade union rationalisation. I could go on, if I did not think it would be unfair to try so hardly the patience of the House, to quote from the proceedings of subsequent congresses which have taken place since then. The congress, for instance, of 1921, because of the fact that the National Executive of the Trade Union Congress had not found a way of dealing with this question of inter-union rivalry and inter-union competition for members, was concerned very largely with a dispute between a big Irish union and a big English union catering for the general workers. As it is perhaps indicative of the bitterness which then characterised, and I am afraid still characterises, disputes of this kind, I ought to read an extract from a speech which was delivered at that congress:—
"I confess I have taken some men into a certain union. If men come along driving motor vehicles in our district they must belong to some union. Our friend has been telling us of some intolerance in Galway. I visited some of the workers in Galway. I was in the town ten days. Our friend was in the town at the same time. I was visited by the Crown Forces, hauled out of bed and asked my name. I gave it and said I was the secretary of my union. I was taken out of the house and brought to the canal side, and only I had an English accent and that the man in charge was English, I would have been shot. The sergeant of police said publicly to several men that the attack on me was due to jealousy between two unions. He went further and said that men had gone to the barracks and reported I was in the town. I don't know whether that was an instance of a certain union hitting back".
I just quoted that passage because it is indicative, as I have said, of the bitterness which has been bred inside the trade union movement by this inter-union competition and jealousy. And the bitterness which existed then has not been diminished by the passage of time, the only thing being that the protagonists in 1921 seem to have changed their ground a little, and now it is an Irish union which is being accused by other unions of being responsible for a measure which is regarded as detrimental to the interests of those associated with these other unions. I should like, since I have mentioned that point, to make it quite clear that there is nobody directly responsible for this measure except the Minister and the Government; that this measure is not the result of any collusion or of any negotiations between any section of trade unionists in this country. It is a measure which has been introduced by the Government because it is believed to be in the interests of the Irish people as a whole.
In 1935 this question of inter-union rivalry had become so acute that the Trade Union Congress set up a special commission to deal with the matter and in referring to its action in setting up that commission the Trade Union Congress in its 42nd Annual Report stated:—
"In the report of the national executive last year mention was made of the necessity for co-ordinating the various activities of the unions as far as possible. As the year developed, inter-union disputes and rivalries reached a climax when several unions' differences became acute and strikes over lines of demarcation developed."
Mark that, strikes not to improve the condition of the workers in general, not to secure higher wages for them, not to secure better conditions of employment, but strikes precipitated because one section of workers stated that another section of workers "will not be permitted to do that job and, if they are permitted to do that job, we shall walk out and close down the whole industry." I think Senators will agree with me that, in the times which this country is facing, we cannot allow that sort of thing to take place any longer if there is anything we can do which will remove the causes of these demarcation disputes. I believe that they can be very largely removed if we can bring about an amalgamation of the unions within one industry, because then those disputes about demarcation will have to be settled at the council table of the amalgamated union, and they will not have to be fought out, and will not be permitted to be fought out, in the workshop. The report went on to say:
"So numerous were these union feuds becoming, and calculated as they were to gravely prejudice the whole trade union position, that the National Executive considered it advisable to call into conference all the unions and to lay the position before them."
The conference had before it a resolution which was passed unanimously. As we were reminded recently, we are great for resoluting. The resolution reads:—
"That this conference directs the National Executive to forthwith set up a commission to inquire and report on the terms of reference submitted to the unions."
The terms of reference inter alia were:—
(1) the amalgamation or grouping of unions analogous to or associated with one another within specific industries or occupations....
... (2) (b) to set up machinery of a permanent arbitral character to decide on industrial demarcation and other inter-union disputes.
The Commission set up to act upon these terms of reference was unquestionably representative of the Irish trade union movement as a whole. It included Senator Seán Campbell, Mr. Samuel Kyle, Mr. J.T. O'Farrell, Mr. William O'Brien, of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union, Mr. William Norton, T.D., Post Office Workers, Mr. Cullen, of the Irish Bakers' Union and a number of other representatives of the trade unions. It was set up on the 25th April, 1936, and on November 11th, 1938. An interim report was submitted by it to the Trade Union Congress of 1939. That report was considered by a Special Conference held I think in February, 1939—I speak subject to correction. The report consisted of three memoranda. Memorandum No. 1 had the support, I think, of all the members—perhaps only in their individual capacity—who might be described as belonging to Irish unions, and in the course of that memorandum which, for convenience of reference, I shall describe as the Irish memorandum we have this preparatory statement:—
"At the outset it must be realised that the complete implementation of item (1) of the terms of reference means largely recasting the whole trade union movement."
The term of reference thus referred to was to consider the question of amalgamation.
"...That some recasting is desirable cannot be doubted. A more modern and more compact trade union movement is necessary all will agree. To attain that necessary and desirable end there is a large number of technical difficulties to be surmounted, which could be done with time and good will...."
Something more, however, than time and good-will was wanted. There was some impelling cause wanted—something which would compel the movement to direct itself to a solution of this problem. It is my belief that unless you have that impelling cause the Irish trade union movement will never be able to attempt that re-casting which all admit to be necessary. We are, by means of this Bill, providing that cause, and we are not going any further than that.
Memorandum No. 1 went on to say:—
"Craft or trade union pride and rivalries tend to keep alive animosities, which militate against comradeship and association."
We heard the same thing at Drogheda 22 years ago.
"...Trade union pride and rivalries tend to keep alive trade animosities."
As I have shown they were very much alive at the Mansion House in Dublin in 1921. The same rivalries exist to-day. The memorandum went on:—
"The difficulties which arise under these several heads are fairly numerous. If they are to be surmounted it will require, firstly, an expression of intention by all concerned to have a more up-to-date movement. Some sacrifice from the various unions all round will be necessary to achieve success....
"Furthermore, it must be remembered that the internecine quarrelling of the trade unions weakens them, not alone physically but it also vitiates them morally. This great evil can never be eradicated while the organic existence of the trade unions is confined to and dictated by the accidental divisions of trade, commerce, or occupation. Neither can legislative interference to end these inter-union differences be ignored.
"The position of the organised trade union movement, as represented by the Irish Trade Union Congress, cannot be considered satisfactory, either from the point of view of the numbers organised or the manner in which the whole trade union movement is split up into some very small and often opposing unions."
I should like to emphasise here that these are statements which were accepted and endorsed by responsible members of the trade union movement. They are not being made by the Minister charged with the duty of putting this Bill through this House. They are the considered judgment upon the Irish trade union movement of those who have risen by their personal capacity, talents and ability to responsible positions inside that movement. It is the Irish trade union movement judging itself. The memorandum finally concludes:—
"...The elimination of inter-union disputes, if nothing else were secured, will bring relief to all concerned. Such disputes do a tremendous disservice to trade unionism and militate against that progress which should now be manifesting itself in the movement.
"It is also claimed the saving in financial resources, where over-lapping and duplication have been abolished, will be considerable, which would enable the unions to embark on social, political and literary activities. To-day, such activities can only be talked about and not fulfilled because of competition and decentralisation."
This memorandum was not accepted by all the members of the commission. A second memorandum was put in by another group who said they put it in on behalf of their unions. These were all unions which are not registered inside this country but are registered under the laws of Great Britain. They say that in their opinion the proposals in memorandum No. 1, signed by five of their colleagues, were much too far-reaching, but they also went on to say:—
"On the other hand, there are many small unions—as pointed out in memorandum No. 1—where it is stated that no fewer than 18 unions affiliated to congress have a membership of less than 500.... We are of opinion that an effort should be made to draw up practical schemes for the merging or amalgamating of these small unions into larger units. The experience gained in this way might prove invaluable in the future."
Now, mark what is contained in this memorandum No. 2. There is there a frank acceptance of the principle of amalgamation in so far as the smaller unions are concerned; so that, on this question of amalgamation, there was no difference of principle as between memorandum No. 1 and memorandum No. 2. There was merely a difference as to the degree to which that principle should operate. Then we had a third memorandum—one submitted by Deputy Norton, who said:—
"While I ardently support the principle of trade union amalgamation and recognise its efficiency as a weapon of protection to the organised workers, I regret I am unable to subscribe to the recommendations contained in memorandum No. 1...."
Again, we have definite acceptance of the principle of amalgamation and reorganisation. Deputy Norton went on to say:—
"I would welcome a reorganisation of the unions with a view to avoiding the wasteful overlapping and baneful jealousy and rivalry which exist to-day——"
