Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 14 Aug 1941

Vol. 25 No. 26

Trade Union Bill, 1941—Committee (Resumed).

Question proposed: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."

This section applies only to trade unions that are registered under the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1935. That would mean that what are sometimes called British unions which have headquarters across Channel would not be entitled to the benefits of this section. I was listening to Senator Lynch last night referring to the case of the Association of Engineering and Shipbuilding Draughtsmen, a very small union that has its headquarters in Great Britain, which it seems would not be entitled to claim this privilege of having the deposit reduced. It strikes me that the abnormal conditions referable to the war which induced the Minister to grant this concession to the Irish unions would perhaps even to a greater extent affect unions which have their headquarters across the Channel. Is there any particular reason why that distinction was made?

Representations on this matter were made only on behalf of the Irish unions. We know what their conditions are and we know to what they are referable. I have no reason to believe that this particular society would be adversely affected by the war. In fact, the probabilities are that it is in a more flourishing condition than it was pre-war. I suppose that would apply to all English unions that we know of which are operating in this country. Accordingly, I do not see there is any reason for granting them the same concession.

I hope that I did not convey in speaking last night that the Association of Engineering and Shipbuilding Draughtsmen would not be capable of putting down a deposit. I believe they would, but whether they would put it down on behalf of the small number of their members in Ireland is another matter.

In this section the Minister proposes to take power to reduce to such extent, not exceeding 75 per cent., as he thinks proper, the amount of the deposit to be kept in the High Court where he is satisfied that, as regards any particular trade union registered under the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1935, the making of the full deposit would cause undue hardship to the union. That, in my opinion, is very fair so far as it goes. But sub-section (2) goes on to say:—

An order under sub-section (1) of this section shall have effect in accordance with its terms for the period specified in that behalf therein, save that no such order shall have effect after the Emergency Powers Act, 1939, has ceased to be in force.

The Minister, I think, when he decided to make this alteration did so on account of the abnormal conditions arising out of the war and the undue hardship that might be caused to a trade union by having to pay the full deposit. I submit to him that the conditions of many trade unions, from the financial standpoint at any rate, when the Emergency Powers Act shall have ceased to be in force conceivably may be much worse than they are even at present. I put it to the Minister, therefore, that before making it mandatory on a union in this category to pay up the full deposit when the Emergency Powers Act ceases to be in force, he should favourably consider an extension of the period for, say, a further 12 months before calling on a union to complete the full deposit. Many small, well-conducted unions which have been performing valuable services for their members over a long period of years, and which may be suffering from a temporary shortage of money would, I think, be glad of such a further respite.

I think the Minister ought favourably to consider that, particularly in view of the fact that after the last war many strong unions, financially and numerically, in Great Britain found it difficult to pay the ordinary benefits and superannuation benefits to their members. I think the Minister should take into consideration the conditions of many of the unions covered in this sub-section who may find themselves in the same difficulty. If there is nothing against a union except that it is suffering from a shortage of money to complete the deposit, I think the Minister might extend the period in order to facilitate that union. Where the union is a well-conducted small union, I think he ought to allow a further period to permit them to complete the deposit.

I will consider that, and perhaps bring in an amendment on the Report Stage.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 9 put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That Section 10 stand part of the Bill."

Is it mandatory on the Minister to grant a licence under this section, or is power given to the Minister to satisfy himself that the applicant is a proper applicant for a licence?

No. My view of this section is that it makes it mandatory on the Minister, where he is satisfied that the conditions set out in Section 7 have been complied with, to grant a negotiation licence. He is bound, of course, to satisfy himself that the appropriate deposit has been made, and that the body applying for a negotiation licence is either registered under our law as a trade union or under the law of another country. Once he is satisfied about that, he must grant the licence.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.

I do not propose to move amendment No. 8 at this stage, but I reserve my right to put it down in an altered form on the Report Stage.

Amendment No. 8 not moved.
Section put and agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Question proposed: "That Section 12 stand part of the Bill."

This section is very objectionable, because it gives the right to a person, not being a member of the union, to go in and inquire into the affairs of a union. This does not apply to any similar association. A person, not being a member and having no interest whatever in the affairs of a union, can go to the Minister and get permission to make inquiries about the affairs of a union. Surely, there is no need for putting such an objectionable section in the Bill. What the object of it is, and why it was put into the Bill I do not know. Certainly there is no precedent for it so far as I know. I would be glad to hear the Minister's justification for having that section in the Bill.

I should like to support Senator Foran's objection to this section. Sub-section (3) is highly objectionable and the Minister ought to delete it altogether. It has been represented to me that certain people are displaying an unsavoury interest in the affairs of trade unions at present and are more or less spying upon the activities of individual trade union leaders. I am not inclined to believe that, but it has been represented to me that it is being done at present. This section might easily be a natural development of that system of spying that is alleged to be in operation at present. I should like to know if the Minister can give us any examples of bona fide interest on the part of any person in inspecting the register of members of a trade union of which he is not a member. The provision made in sub-section (1), paragraph (c), which entitles any person having an interest in the affairs of a trade union or any officer of the Minister authorised by the Minister in writing, to inspect such register is understandable and reasonable enough. But sub-section (3), as I have already said, is most objectionable and is resented by trade union officials, so far as I have ascertained their views in respect to the matter.

Speaking for myself, any information contained in the register of my union has always been available to anybody who seeks genuine information. Those who sought information have invariably got it. A considerable amount of time has been devoted to supplying information for income-tax purposes. I do not know what to describe them as, but officials have come along seeking information about the non-payment of income-tax by members of the union, in an endeavour to find out the number of weeks they were employed at different offices for the purpose of assessing income-tax. If this section goes into the Bill I suppose it will be possible to collect 5/- each time people come to make inquiries. I believe there is no justification for this provision, because the position is already covered by paragraph (c), giving the right to any interested person to inspect the register. I suggest that the provision might be omitted from the Bill. Trade union officials resent it.

I am afraid this provision is an essential part of the Bill. It is a very simple provision, and I do not think it would operate in the vexatious way contended. After all, what information can be gleaned from the register, if it is kept in the form prescribed by the section, but the name and habitual address of the person registered, the date of commencement of membership,

"and where membership has ceased, the date; whether it has ceased by suspension or expulsion, the date of the order directing and a reference to the rule or other provisions authorising such suspension or such expulsion."

These are statutory provisions which the register must contain. It may happen for the convenience of trade union administration that the register may contain other particulars. For instance, there may be particulars of the benefits payable to a person, and an indication whether he was in good standing or not in the union. We are not concerned with that and in so far as a person is inspecting the register he is not concerned either. So far as I can see the only information he would be entitled to would be the information which is set out in sub-section (1) (b), paragraphs 1 to 4. The right to inspect the register is not a universal right. It is not given to everyone. It is only conferred on a person having an interest in the funds of the trade union thereof presumably a member, or an officer who has to satisfy us that he has a bona fide interest in inspecting the register. How would such bona fide interest arise? It would arise under Section 34, which states:—

"(1) Where a determination is granted under this Part of this Act that one trade union alone shall have the right to organise masters of any particular class, no other trade union shall thereafter, so long as such determination remains unrevoked, accept as a new member any master of that class."

Supposing a determination of that class were granted and disregarded, and that persons were being taken into a trade union other than that to which the determination had been granted, it would be open to the trade union which was aggrieved to go to the Minister and say: "We have reason to believe that this is going on. Accordingly we have a bona fide interest in inspecting this register and we wish you to grant us a certificate.” Obviously the trade union which has secured a determination could not fall under (a) or (b), and some provision must be made to allow a trade union, which is affected by the disregard on the part of another trade union of a determination, to see the register, and to satisfy itself, if necessary, that the determination has not been violated in the way I have suggested. There are other cases which might arise where a person would have a bona fide interest. Supposing one trade union or two trade unions get the sole right to organise a certain body of workers and a question arises as to whether, in fact, a person was a member of the trade union or not, and such person wanted to inspect the register, it would be quite open, if we had not the provision which is contained in paragraph (c), for the unions concerned to deny that person a right to inspect the register, on the grounds that he had no interest in the trade union funds and was not a member of the union.

In view of the reorganisation of the movement which we think will follow this Bill, it may be of importance to an individual to establish his right to be regarded as a member of a union, and to establish that in the simplest way, in the cheapest possible way, simply by an inspection of the register. There are other instances which could arise where a person could contend that he had a bona fide interest. One thing is clear. I do not think any Minister would allow this provision to be used vexatiously. The reason we have hedged this privilege of inspecting the register of a trade union with a safeguard of this sort is to ensure that it will not be used vexatiously, the Minister will have to be satisfied that the person concerned, if he cannot show membership by producing a card, has a bona fide interest. A representative of a union which feels that a determination secured is being violated by another union, might want to see if members of a particular trade living in a district had been admitted to membership of the union whose register it is sought to inspect. There may be other cases where people concerned with inspecting a register would fall outside the classes set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) sub-section (4) but they are governed by paragraph (c). The right is reserved to the Minister under sub-section (3) of refusing to grant a certificate where he is satisfied that the person applying has not a bona fide interest in the business of the union.

The Minister has not met the case at all. Provision is made for an individual who might have an interest in a trade union to inspect the books of a union, but this provision goes very much further, and authorises the Minister to empower any inquisitive person, who might have a prejudice against a union, to inspect the register. I suggest that this provision is unique. I do not think it exists in any other law. Certainly, a combination of bankers or industrialists would very much resent the Minister or anybody else authorising a person to go in and inspect their register.

This does that.

Yes, a few employers are concerned, but generally speaking, it does not apply, and I believe it never will apply, to any large section of the community or combination of interests. Consequently, it is a very aggravating clause to have in the Bill. If this is to be the law later on, the present Minister may not be in that position in the future, and some Minister with an anti-trade union bias may come along and can send in people to inspect these registers and so handicap or hamper business in the union. I can see no justification whatever for any individual not having a direct interest in the affairs of the union having the right to go in and inspect the register. The Minister has not justified it, in my opinion, and I suggest that he should look into this matter. The removal of this portion will not do any harm to anybody, and the intention behind it is justifying a good deal of the opposition being created against the Bill. Its elimination would not injure the Bill in any way.

It seems to me that the Minister, as Senator Campbell has said, is quite justified in having power himself through his officers to inspect the register of any trade union. I presume that, for the purpose of their job, the tribunal officers will have similar power. They ought to have it for certain cases. One example given by the Minister seems to be one which would make for friction. If there is rivalry between two trade unions, I do not know anything more likely to fan the flames of that rivalry than the inspection of the books of trade union A by an officer or member of trade union B, for the purpose of prosecuting the dispute or the rivalry between them. I have no special knowledge of this, but, listening to what has been said here to-day, I find it difficult to understand what particular person or type of person sub-section (3) will apply to. You have covered already interested people—people who have an interest in the funds of the trade union; you have covered any officer of the Minister; and it may be necessary to cover any officer of the tribunal. That further power should be taken it is not quite easy to see. Certainly, if it applies to the officials of a rival trade union, it will not work towards the harmony which I understand is the main object of the Bill.

In studying the Bill I have marked a passage in (c) of sub-section (1):—

"... shall keep at its office such register of members open during ordinary business hours for inspection by any interested person who pays such fee...."

An interested person, as used in that context, is a well-understood phrase but "interested" occurs again in line 53 where you have the definition of interested person:—

The expression "interested person" means ... (a) any person having an interest in the funds of such trade union.

That, I submit with all respect, is somewhat ambiguous. It struck me precisely as it struck the Labour Senator, that the term "interested person" in (c) might be simply some one actuated by curiosity prying into the affairs, perhaps for the purpose of making "copy" and writing an interesting article or paragraph for a newspaper. As in the definition of interested person there are three categories, I venture to suggest that, if they were made to have a common basis, it would be an improvement, namely, that all those who on payment of this fee are authorised or permitted to scan the register should as a prior condition, be authorised by the Minister.

I quite appreciate the reason the Minister gave for (c) in referring to a later section of the Bill. For carrying out the law and seeing that the law is not being ignored it would be necessary to see if some one were joining a union notwithstanding it. That is really the official business of the State: that inspection is precisely like an inspection that Senator Hayes mentioned on the part of an officer of the tribunal. If it were arranged that (a) should be "any person who satisfies the Minister that he has an interest in the funds of such trade union as makes it rightful or necessary for him to be permitted the inspection", that would remove the objection. That would not give rise to friction and the person so authorised could not be regarded as an interloper or as a prying, inquisitive person, and it would be accepted by the officials of the trade unions in charge of the registers as all in the day's work.

I do not think it would be possible to accept the suggestion that the Minister would be required in each case to authorise an inspection of the register by any person who might apply to him and who he was satisfied had an interest in the funds of the trade union. It is customary, as has been pointed out, for members of the trade union on occasion to inspect the register and that is freely permitted. It would be rather inadvisable that a right already enjoyed by members of the trade unions or people claiming to have an interest in the funds should be exercisable only on the authority of the Minister. It would rather complicate the machinery. Paragraph (a) as put in here meets the present position under the law, that any person having an interest in the funds of the trade union has a right to inspect the register. We do not intend to alter the existing position in that regard.

The next point is that it was felt desirable, in view of the work of the tribunal set up under Part III, that there should be no question as to the right of the Minister to inspect the register. A third question arose: Suppose that there were any other person who was able to show that, in fact, he should be permitted to inspect the register, perhaps in order that he may be able to enforce his rights against the trade union, if he were a representative of the other trade union, it might be argued that he had no interest in the funds of the trade union whose register he wished to inspect. How would he get this right to inspect the register? The only way that could be done was, first of all, to go to the Minister and satisfy him that he had a bona fide interest in doing what he proposed to do, and, on the Minister being satisfied, he then could get this authority.

The phrase "interested person" in paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) and the words "bona fide interest” and, in fact, the whole of sub-section (3) of Section 12, and again the definition of the words “interested person” in sub-section (4), are all interlinked and interdependent, so that they cannot be regarded or considered apart.

Who is to be satisfied if I allege that I have an interest in the funds? The official in charge of the register may say that I have not. Does the matter end there? That is why I have in view the regularising of the whole thing. What the Minister says is, of course, correct that a man who actually in point of fact, through membership of the union either past or continuing, had an interest in the funds, would have his claim accepted, but supposing there was a dispute or if the purpose or intention of the inquiry is suspect? He is simply described here in the broad terms "any person having an interest in the funds". But it should be shown to someone's satisfaction. It should be beyond dispute that he has an interest. That is why I think it would be an improvement to have the whole thing regularised by having all three of a common character, namely, that they had a right which was accepted authoritatively as a right to inspect the register.

I suppose the position at the present moment would be that if a person applies to inspect the register of a trade union on the grounds that he has an interest in the funds of the trade union and if the official were to say, "You have not an interest; you will have to go elsewhere", presumably he would have to go to the courts and prove an interest. That might impose a great hardship upon, say, a rank and file member of the trade union and, as an alternative to that, he can come under sub-section (3) and if he can prove to the Minister that he has a bona fide interest, the Minister can grant an authorisation, which rather simplifies the situation. There is nothing to compel him to come to the Minister unless the officers of the trade union refuse him the right to inspect the register. I think there is a primary obligation upon them, in the first instance, under paragaph (a) to permit any bona fide member of their union to inspect the register of the union. I think that is generally accepted by them as binding and it is observed as a binding obligation. But, supposing a case did arise such as Senator Magennis has suggested, where they refused, at the present moment, as I have said, the individual may have to go to the courts and that may involve him in a great deal of expense. As an alternative, under sub-section (3) they can come to the Minister and the situation may be simplified.

Again, take the case of a union which has secured a determination from the tribunal and which has reason to believe or which does believe, whether with reason or not, that the determination is not being observed by another union. At the present moment, I presume, if we had not some expedient of this sort they would have to go to the courts; there would be further litigation, and I think that would lead to rather an increase of bitterness; whereas, if it is recognised by all the unions that if there is a breach of a determination granted by the tribunal on the part of any trade union, that matter may be easily and expeditiously settled by inspection of the registers of the trade union, and I think there would be less temptation on the part of unions to disregard the findings of the tribunal. Accordingly, I think that this particular provision, instead of intensifying bitterness and rivalry between the trade unions, will rather tend to dissipate and to obviate it for the reason that the trade unions will recognise that it is an offence that can be very easily proven and, accordingly, that they had better not commit it, that they had better keep within their own territories. That is the reason why we have this particular provision in relation to paragraph (c) that, first of all, if a person is denied the right under (a), because it is alleged that he has not any interest in the funds of the union, the matter can be easily settled upon application to the Minister and, secondly, that where a trade union has reason to believe that a determination of the tribunal is not being observed, the officers of that trade union will be entitled to go in and satisfy themselves as to whether it is being observed or not and, if it is not being observed, will get the necessary evidence from the register of the offending trade union to enable them to take the necessary proceedings. Because, remember, the tribunal itself will not institute any proceedings under this Bill. The tribunal is there in the nature of a permanent arbitration court, and it itself will not take any steps to enforce its findings. The findings will have to be made operative by the union which secures the determination from the tribunal.

Of course, there may arise—we do not know—under paragraph (c) other cases of people who can show a bona fide interest. I do not think we could narrow the section any further than we have done. When the Bill was originally before the House this section gave the right to any person to inspect the register and it was to meet the objections which had been raised that a person might not have any real interest, beyond that of being a nosey-parker, in the affairs of the union, that we put in this proviso restricting the right to inspect the register to classes (a) and (b) and to a person who could satisfy the responsible Minister that he had a bona fide interest.

I suggest the Minister has not met the case up to now. In the Bill provision is made for every person having a legitimate right to know what is going on in trade unions. The member, the ex-member, are provided for. They can go and inspect the books. They have that right. The Minister has the right to send in his officials to inspect the books under the Bill as it stands. Surely those are the only people who could possibly have any legitimate interest in the funds of the trade union. This provision which we object to here gives the right to the Minister to authorise any person who may apply to him to go in and inspect the registers of the union. Why is that put in? There has been so far no substantial reason given. By allowing these people to inspect the books, we can see a possibility of, at least, a positive nuisance. People will be coming in there, parking themselves in the office, looking over the registers and spending their time there looking over the registers for some ulterior motive that is not for the benefit of the trade union. A person who would go in under these conditions would not have the interest of the members or the trade union at heart. He would go in there simply to find out a lot of things and, possibly, cause obstruction in the office. If he is to be handed over the register during office hours it means that the people who ordinarily look after the register are prevented from carrying on their ordinary work. Seeing that provision is made for every interest that would have a right to inspect the books, we see no legitimate reason for retaining this clause in the section of the Bill.

Would not the position be met, and the case made by the Minister be met, if his officials would carry out any investigations that were made necessary by reason of the complaint of any person? A complaint might be made, for instance, that a particular union was endeavouring to poach the members of another union. Suppose that another union was trying to take away members of my union. Suppose I get a determination that people in a particular class of work should belong to my union and I have a suspicion that another union is trying to get my members. Instead of the Minister giving me permission to make, as it were, a nuisance of myself, I suggest that the position would be equally met if the Minister sends one of his officials to carry out the necessary investigations—that is, if he were satisfied that my complaint was well founded.

That is one of the troubles we want to avoid. We do not want that to occur. My hope is that when we get Part III of the Bill in operation, the trade union movement will carry on and manage its own affairs without too much interference on the part of the Minister. The suggestion which has been made would tend to bring the Minister into every dispute that could possibly arise with every trade union in the State. We would have all sorts of people coming to us claiming that they were members and we would have to inspect the registers and supply them with evidence. If we did not do so, they might contend that we were concealing certain facts from them, that we were not telling them the whole truth. We would have to expand our staffs very considerably and we would be embroiled in every possible dispute that would arise between a trade union and its members, or persons alleging that they were members, or that they had an interest in the funds of the trade union. The only thing we can do is to say that a person has authority to go in and inspect the register.

It has been contended by Senator Foran that a person may abuse that authority, that he may pay his 5/- for every day or part of a day when he is inspecting the register and that he may obstruct the officials of the trade union in getting ahead with their legitimate business. If a person behaves in that way, if it were clear that he was only using this right to inspect the register in order that he might obstruct the work of the trade union, that would be evidence that, notwithstanding his statement to the Minister, he had no bona fide interest in the affairs of the union and it would be open to the officers of the trade union affected to make representations to that effect and naturally the Minister would cancel the authorisation. I cannot see how an authorisation granted by the Minister under paragraph (c) could be used merely for the obstructive and vexatious purpose which Senator Foran has suggested.

With regard to the point raised by Senator O'Connell, I think it would be very undesirable and I could not agree at all that the Minister or his officers should be put in a position in which they would have to inspect the register on behalf of persons claiming to have an interest in the funds of the union, claiming to be members of the union, or on behalf of another union which was claiming that a particular union was disregarding the determination granted in its favour. I think, once the tribunal is set up, that we have to leave the trade unions and the trade unionists themselves to take whatever steps may be necessary to make the findings of the tribunal effective and establish their rights as members of the union. The only thing we can do is, bearing in mind that we want the law to operate and that a number of people concerned may be in such financial circumstances that they could not prosecute their claims in court, to give them the right to inspect the registers under reasonable conditions.

I suggest there ought to be some rules or regulations determining the time that anyone coming under this section should be allowed to spend examining the register. Let me take my own union as an example. If a man were to spend from Monday to Friday on the register finding out any information, the whole administrative work of my union would be held up. I think something ought to be done to make it plain that a man cannot obstruct the administration of a union in that fashion. The position in my union is that no member can claim any benefit unless he is clear on the books. It takes at least three and a half days in order to enter all the subscriptions; it takes at least all Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Then on Wednesday we have to send in returns and deal with the case of every member, out of work claims, and so on, and in order to do that we have to go right through the register. I shall have to spend three hours on that job to-night in order that I may be able to pay out in the morning. If any person were to enter the office and hold up the office administration even for two consecutive days, it would knock the whole work of the union out of gear.

The Minister ought to devise some quick way in which that type of person could be ejected from the office if he came in mainly to hold up the business of the union. He should devise some method other than ordinary Civil Service methods, because then probably a week or a fortnight would elapse before a decision would be arrived at. These are some of the difficulties that would present themselves, in the case of my union at any rate. Perhaps some method could be arranged whereby an individual would not be allowed to hold up the work of administration in the office by staying day after day examining the register. That is probably an exaggerated view, but it might happen. There should be some method of determining the length of time a man could spend examining the register.

My contribution to the debate is only by way of inquiry. I believe it is agreed that a member or ex-member of a union or an authorised representative of the Minister has the right to inspect the books. I think the Labour leaders agree to that. I should like to know what other type of person, and in what class or category, the Minister could visualise as having a right to inspect.

The officers of another union might desire to inspect the books.

Although they were not members or ex-members of the union?

The officers of a union which secures a determination in its favour from the tribunal. They might like to inspect the books in order to ensure that the determination was being observed.

Would that be by permission of the Minister?

It is the Minister's duty to vindicate the law. Suppose I as a member of a union inspect the books of another union and I find that some of my members are being taken by that union. I take it I must make some complaint. What is my subsequent action to be?

You would have to initiate proceedings. Your union would have to initiate proceedings to establish the fact that the law had been violated.

I have to make a complaint to the Minister or to somebody, in the first instance. It would be much simpler if the Minister would accept my suggestion.

You could initiate proceedings in the court. It is the duty of every citizen to vindicate his rights and to take the necessary steps to enforce them.

The point made by Senator Honan is met in this way. If any person believes he has a complaint and wants proper information, the Minister's official has the right to go in. The Minister is taking that power in the Bill.

Although we have it, so far as I am concerned it is going to be exercised very sparingly. It is one thing to take power in a Bill to meet some contingency which is unlikely, but which may arise. It is another thing if that power is going to be habitually used. I think no section of the people would be more strongly opposed to the habitual exercise of that power on the part of the Minister than the trade unionists. It would simply put the Department of Industry and Commerce in an impossible position vis-á-vis the trade unions.

I think there is a great deal in what Senator Campbell has said and, perhaps, on the Report Stage I may bring in an amendment providing that the Minister should make regulations governing the exercise of this right to inspect the books. We might be able to get agreement with the trade unions concerned as to what would be reasonable facilities. I am prepared to consider something along that line.

I think that the way the sub-section is phrased is rather objectionable. At the beginning, there is emphasis laid on the statement that "any person may apply to the Minister for an authorisation". If the sub-section began with the statement "The Minister shall have power to grant" it would be better. I think there is a psychological effect in emphasising that any person may apply to the Minister. I do not know whether there is anything in the point.

I shall have it looked into.

I do not want to delay on this comparatively small point, but if the Minister thinks that this Bill will enable the Department of Industry and Commerce to wash its hands of trade unions and trade unionism——

These inter-union disputes, anyhow.

The truth is that although civil servants get a certain amount of abuse from time to time, the Department of Industry and Commerce, ever since its inception here and, I think, another Department before, is on extremely good terms with trade union officials, and I think that Senator O'Connell is absolutely right that the chances of friction as between an officer of the Department and a trade union official are infinitely less than they would be if you give power to an officer of a rival union to inspect a union's books. There is no doubt about that, and I am prepared to present to the Minister, or to any successor in title the Minister may have, the bouquet that he and his officials will probably be less objectionable to a trade union in question than a rival union. In any event, some official in the Department will have to examine all claims made under sub-section (3) and will have to decide whether an applicant has any case for inspecting the union's books, and, really and truly, it would waste less time in the Department if he went to the 'phone, rang up Senator Seán Campbell or Senator Tom Foran and said: "What about this?", if the practical things which happen every day are to happen. I think the Minister will find, if the case is the case the Minister makes, that his suggestion is going to result in friction and not in smooth working. If he kept the power for an officer of his Department, he would find that it would work smoothly in practically every case, as, in fact, it has always worked smoothly for 20 years or more.

I doubt it.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Question proposed: "That Section 13 stand part of the Bill."

Would the objections raised to Section 12 apply equally to this section? Has the Minister in mind bringing in regulations to cover them?

Yes, they will cover Section 13 as well.

With regard to sub-section (1) (e), would the Minister tell us what is to be the status of "a person ordinarily resident in the State whom a trade union considers suitable for accepting service of documents on its behalf"?

The only thing about it is that once we get his name and once we have proved that the documents have been served on him, such document shall thereupon be deemed for all purposes to have been properly served on such trade union. That is the main purpose.

What will be the nature of these documents? Are they to be legal documents? Is this person to be considered ordinarily as a trustee to sue and to receive suit in legal cases, because, if so, certain difficulties will arise in relation to the status of this person? If he is to be treated as a trustee, especially having regard to the fact that a large number of bodies will be involved which are unregistered trade unions, certain difficulties will arise, because the position of a trustee in relation to an unregistered trade union or unregistered society is of a peculiar character. In fact, I think the Minister will find that such persons cannot be sued and cannot sue. Certain actions have already decided the point in that case, for instance, the case of Gould v. the South Wales Miners' Federation and others. The Miners' Federation of Great Britain were struck out as defendants on the ground that, not being a registered trade union they could not be sued in their trade union name. There is another decision in Bloom v. the National Federation of Discharged and Demobilised Soldiers and Sailors, 1918. There again it was a case of an unregistered society and the trustees in that case could not be sued. It was not a particular trade union case, but related to certain property which makes it even stronger, because, under Section 9 of the Trade Union Act, 1871, the property of a union can be made liable in certain cases. But in the case of non-registered unions or societies, it is clearly established that the unregistered nature of the body makes it immune from attack through a trustee. Having regard to these cases, it would seem, therefore, that if the person referred to in Section 13 (1) (e) is to be regarded as a trustee, he cannot be treated as a trustee where the body on whose behalf he is acting is an unregistered trade union, and about 50 per cent. of the unions in this country are in that category at present.

I do not think the question of trusteeship really arises because all this paragraph does is to ensure that when a document is served. in due form upon the person nominated by the union to receive service of such documents, it will be taken for all purposes as having been so served on the union. Beyond that, I do not see that any question of trusteeship enters into it. It is merely to ensure that any communications we may have or any service of documents upon these unions will be legally valid, if it can be proven that, in fact, they have been served on the person nominated for the purpose.

Provided they are not legal documents designed to reach any of the properties of a union. They are ordinary documents for the purposes of this Act?

Ordinary documents for the purposes of this Act and for any other purposes, too. I want that to be quite clear.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That Section 15 stand part of the Bill."

This section deals with the change in the amount of the deposit consequent on the change in the number of members. Sub-section (2) provides that where there is a failure on the part of a trade union to send a statement to the Minister, or where a statement is sent which is wilfully false, the members and officers of the trade union and, in the case of Irish unions, the unions themselves, shall each be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100. I cannot understand why a penalty of £100 should be fixed for an offence which, in many cases, might be a purely administrative one, due probably to overwork or forgetfulness on the part of some official, and, in contrast to that, a fine not exceeding £10 for what might be regarded as a major offence as set out in sub-section (2) of Section 6. Under that sub-section it is provided that where any body of persons acts in contravention of the section, the members of the committee of management or other controlling authority and such of the officers as consent to or facilitate such act, shall each be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £10. If a £100 penalty were provided it might be regarded as an appropriate one, but, instead, we find that the £100 fine is fixed for what may be a purely administrative offence. I think it is outrageous to have such a high penalty in this section. The section also penalises the Irish unions in that the officers and members can each be fined £100. Take the case of the union that I belong to. Under this section we might be fined up to £1,600 if the Minister were to invoke the full force of the law against us. The penalty here is really more serious than even the deposit. I suggest to the Minister that the penalty should be a maximum one of £5, or something of that nature.

Senator Campbell has overlooked two things. The first is that there is included in the offence for which there is a maximum penalty of £100, the sending of a wilfully false statement. The gravamen of sending a wilfully false statement was not emphasised by the Senator. A fine of £100 is quite frequently provided for offences of that kind. The second point overlooked by the Senator is that the fine in this case is not to exceed £100. That is the maximum. Very frequently we see fines of 1/-, 2/6 and £1 imposed although there is a maximum provided in the enactment under which the decision is made. This maximum fine is not provided for some technical offence due to overwork on the part of some official or to forgetfulness or something of that sort, but is meant to prevent the sending of a wilfully false statement.

I agree that the sending of a wilfully false statement would be a very serious offence and that substantial penalties should be provided.

The Senator should remember that the onus would be on the State to prove wilfulness which is a rather difficult thing to do.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Question proposed: "That Section 16 stand part of the Bill."

Sub-section (2) provides that the accountant of the courts of justice shall determine the value of the balance remaining of the deposit, and shall notify the trade union concerned in writing of the amount of the deficiency. I suggest that it would be more desirable to provide that the accountant should first notify the Minister's Department, and that the latter should then notify the union concerned. I do not think there should be direct contact between the courts and the trade union.

It is a small point and there does not seem to be much in it. I would ask the Senator to bear in mind that my Department would not want to be brought into these things too frequently or unnecessarily. For that reason provision is being made that the accountant of the courts of justice should write to the union and inform it that it was short in its deposit.

Except that the Minister's Department is responsible for the administration of the Act.

On sub-section (3), may I call attention to the fact that if a union is mulcted and has to pay a judgment debt out of the deposit it only gets 14 days to make up the amount required which seems to me to be very short time. One does not know what amount of money may be involved, but 14 days' notice seems peremptory.

I had intended raising that point. A longer period than 14 days ought to be allowed.

I would be prepared to consider that. What does the Senator suggest?

I think that two or three months would be quite reasonable.

I suggest six months since the union concerned may have to impose a levy on its members to make good the deficiency. If the Minister is not prepared to accept six months perhaps he would accept three.

My own view about it is that the court would be slow—I may be wrong in this—to make an order that the debt should be satisfied out of the deposit. I think the court would only do that in cases where there had been a deliberate attempt on behalf of the union to evade meeting a judgment debt. I would be prepared to consider something in the nature of two or three months, but I do not think I could go so far as six months. I am prepared to make it three months.

A great number of the trade unions will not be suable in any of these courts, and, consequently, the deposits cannot be reached. First of all, you go to some of the ordinary courts and get a decree or judgment. You take that judgment to the High Court in order to get it satisfied out of the deposit. Having regard, however, to the position of unregistered trade unions, and to the fact that even registered trade unions cannot be sued for actions in tort because of the immunity granted to them under Section 4 of the Trade Disputes Act of 1906, it seems to me that the number of judgments capable of being secured in any court, even against a registered trade union, will be extremely small. Consequently, the deposit will be immune from practically all decisions of the courts, except decisions in regard to property or contract.

That is, in fact, very largely the position.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 17 agreed to.
SECTION 18.
Question proposed: "That Section 18 stand part of the Bill."

This section provides that—

"this Act shall come into operation on such date, not earlier than six months after the date Section 6 of this Act comes into operation, as the Minister by order appoints."

Section 6, as Senators know, deals with the negotiation licence and its coming into force. I suggest to the Minister that he would be wise to alter the six months in this section to 12 months, and say that this Part of the Act will come into force 12 months after the date on which Section 6 had come into force. If the Minister wants to have harmony after the Bill becomes law, he ought to allow the greatest possible amount of time to trade unions to enable them to overcome their difficulties, in so far as they can. On a question of this kind, it would be in the best interests of the community that the longest period possible should be allowed. There is sitting at the moment a commission on vocational organisation. No reference has been made during the debates on this Bill in this House to that fact. By the time I have mentioned, the report of that commission should be available. I am not breaking any confidence when I say that that commission has discussed this question of trade union organisation. It issued invitations to all the unions to give evidence. Most of the unions did so. Having regard to the probability that that report will be available before this period and that it may have an influence in settling union differences, I think the greatest amount of time possible should be allowed and it would be very welcome. Instead of allowing six months, the Minister might allow 12 months. I do not want to embarrass him in any way. It is in the interest not only of the trade unions but of the community and of industrial peace that the longest time possible should be given the trade unions, even at this late stage, to remedy those defects which are obvious to all of us. The Minister should allow, at least, a reasonable time for that to be done.

I do not think that it is necessary to make the amendment which Senator Campbell suggests. The effect of the amendment would be to debar me from setting up the tribunal at any time earlier than 12 months. The only restriction placed upon me under the Bill, as it is at present, is that I cannot set up the tribunal earlier than six months. I am fully conscious of the desirability of allowing the trade union movement time to adjust itself to the new conditions and of not trying to impose this tribunal upon it inconsequently. I should be prepared to allow a reasonable time to elapse before setting up the tribunal. It might happen, however, that, when the trade unions had got ahead and carried out the work of preliminary amalgamation, they might be very anxious to have a tribunal of this type in operation at an earlier date. I think that the period of six months might be allowed to stand on the assumption that we are not going to rush at this matter like a bull at a gate, and that the tribunal will be set up only when the time seems to be ripe for doing so.

Section agreed to.
SECTION 19.
Question proposed: "That Section 19 stand part of the Bill."

In the third part of the Bill, the term "trade union" changes its significance. That will create a little difficulty in citation, especially in the law courts. The Minister will note that, in Section 22, we have the formula "authorised trade unions," so that the draftsman, when dealing with Section 22, was alive to this difficulty. If the trade unions were called "negotiating trade unions" or "licensed trade unions" or were given some title indicative of the fact that they had complied with all the requirements of Parts I and II and were now, under Part III, functioning in regard to the tribunal, it might meet the case.

We had proposed to proceed by adopting the nomenclature, "authorised trade union," but the draftsman, having considered the matter, decided, for some mysterious reason, not open to the layman to understand, to put Section 19 in the form in which it appears. Accordingly, we have a consequential amendment down to delete the words "an authorised" elsewhere.

What I have been suggesting is a reversal of the engine.

Unfortunately, the draftsman reversed the engine on us.

Section agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 1.35 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.
SECTION 21.
(1) The chairman of the tribunal shall be a practising barrister of at least ten years' standing or a practising solicitor of like standing and shall be appointed by the Minister for such period not exceeding five years as he thinks fit.

I move amendment No. 9:—

In sub-section (1), to delete all words from the word "practising" in line 14 to the word "standing" in line 16 inclusive and substitute therefor the words "a person with knowledge and experience of the operation of trade unions or of employers' organisations or a person with experience in the settling of trade disputes."

I think, possibly, that it would be convenient if we were to discuss amendments Nos. 9 and 10 together. This is another case in which an interesting degree of agreement has been reached between Senator Quirke and myself without any collusion.

I wonder!

But in this case there happens to be a fundamental difference. Senator Quirke has a most extraordinary and amazing belief in the value of a gentleman who is a barrister with ten years' practice, whereas I cannot see that a person necessarily has any qualification for the purpose of dealing with industrial matters, simply by virtue of his legal practice of that length. I have a sort of feeling, for instance, that if, by any chance, there should be some amendment to the Ministers and Secretaries Act, we would have Senator Quirke proposing that the Minister for Industry and Commerce should be chosen from amongst persons with legal qualifications, because, certainly, the same qualifications that would make a person a good Minister for Industry and Commerce, might, quite conceivably, make him a person with good qualifications for the purpose of acting as chairman of this tribunal. Nevertheless, I still think that the qualifications, and the only qualifications, that should be considered in connection with a position of this kind are experience in the operation of trade unions and in the settling of trade disputes, and that no other qualification is of any particular value. It might be that you would find your particular barrister with that knowledge, but it would be rare and, if he had that knowledge, it would have been gained through special practice, and that is not obtained to any great extent during ten years.

I am not going to fight the question as to whether the Minister is prepared to meet this—as, I presume, he is—to the extent of saying that he is willing that the person concerned should be a barrister who is fitted by experience to deal with trade union matters and settle trade union disputes. I should prefer if the Minister would cut the barrister out altogether, because it seems to me that, if the barrister is not experienced in these matters, he is not suitable for a position such as this. I should like to emphasise the fact that nobody knows how this tribunal will work. It may never work at all, if nobody applies to it, but I wish to emphasise that the person appointed, in effect, might be a dictator so far as the trade unions that apply are concerned, and for that reason it might be well that the Minister should not bring a barrister into this matter at all, because I suggest that this is definitely the kind of case where legal experience is of no value. I can think of a number of persons who might be suitable as chairmen of the tribunal, not a single one of whom would be qualified as the Bill stands now.

I admire Senator Douglas's courage in running his head against a stone wall and putting down an amendment which, he must know, the Minister could not accept. He must be aware that in the Bill as passed by the Dáil it was decided that a person occupying that position should be a person with legal experience.

On a point of explanation, I did not know that the Minister could not accept an amendment unless it involved a person with legal qualifications. It may be that the Minister cannot accept such an amendment in this House and, as to that, Senator Quirke, from his position in a certain group, would know much better than I would.

I should like to support Senator Douglas's amendment. With regard to this question of the selection of a barrister of ten years' standing he might be a barrister of no standing at all—he might have spent the ten years waiting for a brief, either standing or sitting—and I do not see why his knowledge of the law should be a special qualification for this purpose.

I think a knowledge of the psychology of the people with whom he has to deal, and of the origin and history of trade unionism and the various laws governing trade unionism, would be the most desirable qualification. The only way in which he can get a knowledge of these matters is by actual contact either as an employer or trade unionist. Men who have experience of trade union affairs or employers have these contacts but they may be persons with very little knowledge of law. The Minister says that this is a very simple Bill. I would say that it is a Bill that is full of complications, but I think a man trained in trade unionism, whether he be an employer or workman, would be best capable of discharging functions such as chairman of this tribunal. Why a barrister should be selected is a mystery to me. I beg to support the amendment of Senator Douglas.

The plea which is made for this amendment is that it is not possible to get a barrister, a person of legal training, who is in touch with the affairs of everyday life.

It might be possible, but why should it be confined to barristers?

I can conceive no other profession which brings a person so closely in touch with the realities of life as that of the law as it is practised in our courts where the practitioner of experience has many contacts. I think he knows both sides of every case with which he is connected fairly well; otherwise he would not be a person of the standing which it is hoped to secure for this tribunal. What is going to be the function of the barrister or the chairman of the tribunal? I am not binding myself to the fact that he must be a barrister, though I do think it advisable to have a person with the sort of training which a successful barrister generally gets, a person who has a knowledge of the law of evidence, and a person who has these contacts with human nature in its various aspects which one can get from practice in the courts. Apart altogether from these particular qualifications, there is this point to be borne in mind. The chairman of the tribunal may very often have to act as arbitrator between two trade unionists.

Let us not forget that. He will be sitting with two persons who are, or who have been, trade unionists, whether they represent employers or represent employees. It is not going to be very easy, in the circumstances of our time at any rate, to get two representatives of trade unions absolutely dissociated from the whole history of the movement or who might not have a sort of subjective bias in favour of one line of development or the other. That is going to be one of the practical difficulties in the way of giving effect to these proposals.

What do we want then to do? We want to get, not merely a person who has been in actual contact with trade disputes, but a person who has a certain training, who is able to sift evidence, who has a certain knowledge of human nature and who is able to act as honest broker, if necessary, between the other two members of the tribunal. That does not make him dictator or controller of the trade union movement because the power of decision is not reposed absolutely in him. He is only one of three persons on a tribunal which can decide by a majority. If the two experienced trade unionists decide upon one course, the barrister, the outsider, the person representing outside interests, if you like—because, after all, the community as a whole is interested in this just as well as the business people or the workers—this outsider, the person who has been remote from the various disputes which have arisen inside the movement, would be charged particularly with the duty under Section 26 of looking after the public interest. If there is a division of opinion between the two experienced trade unionists as to whether or not a determination should be given, he will come in as third party, as honest broker, as a representative of the general public interest as I have said, and will vote whatever way it seems to him to be best, taking all the circumstances of the case into consideration. I think so far from there being any case against having a more or less detached mind of this sort on the tribunal, there is a good deal to be said for it.

While I do not say that the difficulties in the way of getting the type of person I have in mind may not be very great—if we cannot get a person who has legal qualifications and is a lawyer of standing and of the type I have suggested, we may have to go further and take some other person— I do not think myself that there is such an unanswerable case against a lawyer as has been represented here.

There is the other aspect of the matter to which Senator Quirke referred. After all there is not much use in hitting one's head against a stone wall. This question of the suitability of the lawyer was discussed on the section in the other House and the Dáil has decided that legal qualifications are, in any event, admissible or that the fact that a person has legal training is not a disqualification. Nor do I suggest that it would be a disqualification under Senator Douglas's amendment, but if an amendment of the Seanad such as this has to be presented in the Dáil, I think it would be desirable, at any rate, that the person who had responsibility for it should be prepared to argue for it with some conviction and I would not be prepared to argue, with any conviction whatever, that the fact that a person possessed legal training should be a disqualification for this position.

On the contrary, I think it would be a qualification. I think it would be desirable, too, perhaps, if that person also possessed the other qualifications which are here suggested. But further than that I do not think I am prepared to go. I am prepared to accept the amendment which is down in Senator Quirke's name. At the same time, I want to make it quite clear that, in my view, it would not be a disqualification for the chairmanship of this tribunal that a person should have had the benefit and advantage of a legal training.

It is hard to believe that the Minister is really in earnest. He has just argued about an amendment suggesting that a legal degree or qualification is a disqualification for the chairman of this tribunal. We are not a marvellous body, but there is nobody here so entirely lost to common-sense and reason that he would say that the fact that the man was a barrister or solicitor should disqualify him for this chairmanship. Senator Douglas did not say it.

He proposed to delete it.

With great respect, the amendment proposed that the person should have the qualifications set out here. It did not say that he would have to be a barrister as well; but nowhere did a barrister's qualification disqualify him either in anything I said or in the amendment.

No one argued that because a man or a woman was a barrister or a solicitor that would disqualify him or her from the chairmanship of the tribunal. Nobody made such an entirely ridiculous and foolish argument, so the Minister can dismiss that from his mind. The Minister in this case is taking the line of least resistance. Senator Douglas proposed an amendment to delete this qualification that a man must be a barrister or a solicitor and to insert that he must be a person with knowledge of trade unions, and trade unions in this case mean organisations of employers or of employees. The Minister retains what is in the section and he adds in the words of Senator Quirke's amendment—

"Or a person experienced in the operation of trade unions or in the settling of trade disputes."

Quite plainly from his speech the Minister has come to the conclusion that the proper kind of chairman for this tribunal is a barrister with a blank mind so far as the history of trade unionism is concerned, with no interest in the trade union movement, no experience of the settling of trade disputes, and with, like the Minister himself, apparently no convictions. That is fantastic. That is what he said. We want a barrister because somebody else might be interested in trade disputes. Did anybody ever hear the like of it? There could be nothing worse for the working of this Bill and of the trade union movement than to have a dry-as-dust barrister, who never met a blacksmith or a carpenter—and there are many barristers who never met a blacksmith or a carpenter—and who thinks that trade union officials are Bolsheviks or something dreadful.

Except their own trade union.

Yes, except their own trade union. There is no stronger trade union in this country than the barristers' trade union. The idea of getting a person entirely dissociated from trade unionism because he is a barrister is entirely futile. My objection to this section is that I think it is an outstanding example of a very wrong form of trade unionism which has been slipped across us for a great period of years. The draftsman has got into the habit, when he finds a job going, of saying that the person must be a barrister of ten years' standing. I should like to explain that. There are two trade unions, one the barrister's, and the other the solicitor's. The solicitors did not get a look in until after 1922. Then they came along and said: "Make it solicitors" and, rather reluctantly, the legal authorities of the Government, who are always barristers of course, put in the unfortunate solicitors, who very rarely get in, in fact. The whole idea that these chairmen must be barristers or solicitors is entirely erroneous. What the Minister wants in this case is not a barrister or a person with legal training at all. He argues that lawyers are in touch with life and that, apparently, those of us who are not practising lawyers are not in touch with life at all.

The Senator is certainly traversing the circle; now he is back to where he started from.

Let me put the argument more clearly. Surely the Minister can get people in touch with life who need not be barristers.

Certainly.

Let me give a few examples. Take the Ministers for Industry and Commerce. I remember one, two, three of them; I think the Minister is the fourth. Only one of them was a barrister, and he was not a practising barrister of ten years' standing when he got the job.

Was he a good Minister?

He was an excellent Minister to my mind—the best of them all obviously. Let us take the first of them—no names, no pack drill. You could not get a better chairman of this tribunal than the first Minister for Industry and Commerce in the Irish Free State. I think everybody will admit that. He is not a barrister. He is not a candidate for this job or any other job; but surely he is a person with experience of trade unions. He is a person of commonsense and a person used to this business of handling disputes. He is a person who subsequently proved that he was able to handle a very big organisation. Surely he would be competent as chairman of this tribunal, assuming he were available, which happily for himself he is not. The idea that you must be a barrister to get this particular kind of post is quite wrong.

Let me put another point to the Minister. A barrister of ten years' standing who is looking for a job—and there are such things as barristers of ten years' standing looking for a job—is by no means the cream of the legal profession, far from it. Senators looking at this amendment dispassionately must know barristers of ten years' standing. Let us say that certain members of the Dáil are barristers. They are not available for this and would not be in any circumstances. A man who is the cream of his profession and who has a substantial practice will not take this kind of job. So that the notion that you will get a very outstanding barrister is quite wrong. This man will not have to decide any question of law. He will decide questions of fact. As a matter of fact, I am well aware of this. In 1922 somebody said to me, "What about Private Bills?" I said by way of answer, "What is a Private Bill?" because I did not know. Now there were two barristers, both of them now dead, in particular positions at that time. One of them was the Attorney-General and the other was the Chairman of the Seanad. They persuaded me that the Examiner of Private Bills should be a barrister at a very big salary. But I discovered afterwards that the Examiner of Private Bills need not be a barrister —he was not a barrister in England— that he need not be a practising barrister here and that the work could be done for half the money and done better by a person who is not a barrister. These two men would not agree to anything else but that, and they were both wrong.

I think there is no argument at all for inserting as a kind of guide to the Minister that a man must be a barrister or a solicitor. He has nothing to do with deciding questions of law at all. The fact is that he has to have experience, to have commonsense, and to have a grasp of affairs; and you will not find that in the law library among people of ten years' standing, any more than you will find it amongst, let us say, secondary teachers or staffs of universities. Take Ministers, take the Ceann Comhairle of the Dáil, the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad, and Parliamentary Secretaries, for none of these offices was a barrister's qualification regarded as essential or desirable.

But it would not be a disqualification.

The Senator has not grasped the point. There is nothing in this to keep the Minister from appointing a barrister or a solicitor. The Minister can appoint a barrister if he likes. What I object to is that the section should direct the Minister to go round amongst the barristers saying: "I wonder would you do". Take the position of Chairman of the Dáil or Seanad, Ministerial office, Parliamentary Secretaries, or for example the headship of the Department of Justice. They are not confined to barristers. With one exception none of the Ministers in charge of that Department was a lawyer. There is no such thing as saying that the person who has to administer the whole Courts of Justice Act should be a barrister or solicitor. Take the higher Civil Service about which there is certain unanimity as to competence. They are recruited by a particular process. I put it to the Minister, as he was Minister for Finance, that he is familiar with the qualifications prescribed there. The Civil Service takes people into the administrative grades who will eventually be heads of the Civil Service, but they do not emphasise the necessity for legal qualifications. There is no more reason for putting in B.L. than the degree of Bachelor of Science, or First Class Honours, M.A. If a man had First Class Honours, M.A. he would be a better educated man than the average barrister. Take national teachers amongst whom you get very excellent men and, of course, still more excellent in the universities. The notion about the qualification, barrister or solicitor, is one that has grown up, but it is one that in this particular case has no foundation whatever on the facts of the case. The Minister objects to the description of this particular proposal as dictatorship. I have not read the Dáil debates and perhaps I am wrong there. Surely the Minister does not want us to take up the attitude in this House that what the Dáil decides is something we must not undo. Surely the Minister is here to assist us in undoing what the Dáil does, if we think fit.

Certainly that is not the constitutional position.

That is the constitutional position. If the Minister had the opinion of 17 barristers of ten years' standing they could not controvert that. Our position is that we are here for the purpose of stating our own views and amending Bills without regard to what the Dáil did. To tell us that we are running our heads against a stone wall if we disagree with the Dáil is simply telling us that we might as well have stayed at home. We are not up against a stone wall. I would not mind prophesying that there is not one member of Dáil Eireann including the barristers who would spend part of the night awake if he read that this particular proviso about barristers and solicitors was gone out of the Bill. I do not think anyone would worry. There may be barristers who have an eye on the job but probably they are not in the Dáil. As to this man being a dictator there seems to be an extraordinary process here. First of all there is a tribunal which is composed of the chairman and two members, both of whom are trade unionists, belonging, let us say, to the employees union. There is an appeal board which does not decide anything. It sends back a determination to the tribunal and if there is not unanimity there the chairman of the tribunal makes the decision. Will the Minister say that that is not dictatorship? If there is an appeal is not the chairman monarch of all he surveys? The chairman is bound to be a dictator in this case. If a matter of a dispute between two trade unions looking for a determination arises, and if it is referred back, unless I am misreading the Bill the chairman has power to determine the matter himself. It is a very important function but it is a function in which legal training has no particular value. Eminent lawyers would probably agree with that.

I do not see any reason why the Minister should not appoint a barrister of particular qualifications if he wants to do so, but I see no reason why he should bind himself to appoint a barrister. I make no more fuss about it, beyond asking why he should leave in the Bill a proviso for a practising barrister of at least ten years' standing. Trade union officials are dealing constantly with civil servants concerning trade disputes. They have plenty of experience of people but are by no means practising barristers. They have proved to be most effective chairmen. There is another delusion. There is nothing in legal training that makes a man a good chairman. Some excellent chairmen never had any legal training. The notion that you ought to have a barrister and that that ought to be put into the section is quite erroneous. I suggest that you want a different type of person. I gave several examples, the higher Civil Service, the Department of Justice, Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries, the Chairman of either House. You want an educated person; a person with brains and experience. When I say "educated" I do not mean M.A.s. I mean a person formally well educated or better still with experience of life. The Minister should not bind himself to take a person from the ranks of barristers. He should not be precluded from taking barristers, but the section should be wide and the Minister should be given power to take any one he pleases. The proviso that he should be a legal person should be taken out of the Bill.

I cannot see why Senator Hayes was so insistent in this matter. There is nothing to prevent the Minister, if the Government amendment is accepted, appointing anyone. If he wants to appoint a barrister or a solicitor of ten years' standing and if there is one suitable, there is nothing to prevent that being done.

What Senator Quirke said confirms my objection to the Bill. The Minister's mind is bent on looking first for a barrister and if he cannot find a barrister then someone else. That is what I want to get out of the Bill and, if I can, which is much more difficult, out of the Minister's mind.

Perhaps it would relieve Senator Quirke if Senator Hayes will let me withdraw my amendment for his. In doing so I suggest the matter could again be dealt with on the Report Stage. I am not going to put down another amendment. He will find that what the proposal amounts to is that the Minister has to appoint a person experienced in the operation of trade unions or the settlement of trade disputes or a barrister if he cannot get the former. It is a great move forward to have Senator Quirke's amendment. I do not propose to proceed with mine.

Amendment No. 9, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 10:—

In sub-section (1), page 10, to insert in line 16 before the word "and" the words "or a person experienced in the operation of trade unions or in the setting of trade disputes".

What is intended by the amendment? I am in a bit of a fog between the lawyers. Perhaps Senator Quirke would clear the matter up.

Senator Foran should not have taken Senator Hayes seriously. That is the difficulty. If Senator Foran will visualise the section, as amended, he will find that there is nothing to prevent the Minister appointing a barrister or solicitor, if considered suitable. If there is any difficulty in finding a suitable person with those qualifications, there is nothing to stop him going round the country and finding another person who has the necessary qualifications other than the qualifications of a barrister or a solicitor.

Perhaps the Minister would tell us what he has in mind as the fee or remuneration for this position?

I cannot say.

I am out of a job myself. I was many years at the work and I am not a lawyer. I want to advise the Minister, if he wishes to make this Bill a success and accomplish what he set out to do, to avoid engaging a barrister or a solicitor as he would a plague. I have long experience in dealing with these people in trade union disputes and applications arising out of the disputes, and in no case where a lawyer was operating was the thing any better when he had finished with it than when he started. Whenever we had trouble with the employers, we were able to find some commonsense individual who understood the points of view and ramifications of the industry. He knew nothing about statutes or law but had a lot of commonsense and, consequently, was much more effective in this position than any lawyer. In my experience, lawyers are not experts. There are no lawyers here, so we can afford to "rub it in". I wish to emphasise again that, in all my long experience, the lawyers never have been of any great value in trade disputes in which I was engaged—and I was engaged in a number of them. I sincerely hope that the Minister will avoid engaging either a barrister or a solicitor for this position.

The Taoiseach has the nomination of a number of people to this House—11 people—and he has made more than 11 nominations but has not appointed a practising barrister or solicitor at all. Think of the importance of the work we have to do.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 11:—

To delete sub-section (2) and substitute therefor a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) The chairman of the tribunal may at any time resign his office but shall not be removed by the Minister during his term of office except for stated misbehaviour or incapacity.

This point deals with the question of the independence of the chairman and it is my considered opinion that, if the Minister appoints him, he should appoint him for two, three or five years and that during that time he should be independent in his functions. If he is in a position that the Minister can remove him at any time without notice, it will be found that he will be removed without notice. It is extremely hard to get a man with the qualification we desire—apart altogether from whether he is a lawyer or not. I think there is no risk to the State, as the Minister can make his term a reasonably short one; but there is very grave risk if he is liable to dismissal without notice and, therefore, can be regarded by various parties with whom he has to deal as the tool of the person who appointed him and as one who can be removed at any time. I am not suggesting that it is the intention of the Minister to do this, but it not infrequently occurs that acute difficulties arise and that a person is in a difficulty because he thinks that he is regarded by the person with whom he has to deal as one who could be removed from office the following day. There may be no intention to do that, but it weakens his position. I thought I should express that considered view and I put down the amendment for that purpose.

It is desirable that the person appointed to a post of this sort should be secure in office and secure from Ministerial interference, but it would be very unwise at this stage to accept the proposal made by Senator Douglas. After all, the first years of the tribunal will be experimental. We might get a person who would not misbehave himself and who would not in any sense prove to be incapable in the sense which would be so considered by the court, but who would be temperamentally unsuited or who might be lazy or negligent. I do not think it would be wise—on the contrary, I think it would be very unwise—in the first years of the operation of this tribunal, for the Minister to find that the operation of the Bill and the whole policy behind it was at the mercy of a person who, for reasons other than actual misbehaviour or mental incapacity, showed himself to be the wrong man for the job. Accordingly, I think the Minister must reserve to himself the right to remove a person if he finds it an unsuitable appointment in the circumstances.

Does the Minister realise that there would be considerable difficulty in getting a person of standing in any profession or in any walk of life to take up a post of this kind with no security of tenure at all? I realise the Minister's difficulty. I thought he was going to say that he had some proviso he might put into the Bill about it. This man—as I pointed out a moment ago—will have immense powers and should have some kind of independence. In the nature of things, he may not be a very young man: I do not see that anybody would be appointed at less than 35 years of age, and at 35 any man who is considered good enough to do this job will have made some post for himself. He will have practice in some kind of profession, or will have made some kind of career for himself, and he will not abandon that—and this post contemplates abandoning every other kind of work—to take up a post with, perhaps, a reasonably good salary but where he is in the position that in 12 months he could be put right out. Therefore, the Minister must have some scheme in his mind—or some scheme must be devised—if he is to get this man on some kind of terms. I am putting that quite seriously to the Minister.

I could sit down and think of some people who could act as chairman of this tribunal but every one of them, I am sure, would be making a reasonably good living already. We cannot assume that a person with these qualifications is doing so badly in life that he would jump at this completely temporary job. So, from that point of view as well as from the point of view of the independence of the chairman, some endeavour must be made to give him security on some kind of terms. Otherwise, how can you get the man you want? The Minister agreed, in his last speech, that it is on the chairman the working out of the policy behind the Bill will depend. He will have immense powers and I do not know how he can be got for any salary without giving him some kind of security. The salary is not fixed, the Minister says. It may be £1,000 a year; it may be the salary of a Circuit Court judge, for example, but even for that, without security you will not get a man in a steady way in a particular profession or occupation.

I think Senator Hayes assumes that from the beginning this would be a whole-time job. We do not know how it will work out. Frankly, we do not know, as there has been quite a lot of heat, and an attitude has been taken up in regard to the Bill which might mean that, for a considerable period after the tribunal is set up, it will have very little to do. Accordingly, we will have to feel our way. Unless it is clear that this is to be a whole-time job and that a person could not carry on the practice of his profession—if he happened to be a professional man—or could not engage in any other business or occupation, I do not think it necessary at this stage to give the person that security of tenure which Senator Hayes suggests is essential—virtually the same terms as those on which we appoint judges. If security of tenure were essential to get the right person, the man who would look for that would probably look at this term of five years and say, "I will not come, not even if you give me this job for five years; I must have it for life." We have got to remember all the time that our approach to this question of a tribunal is experimental. It is something that has not been tried in this country before, though it has been suggested by the Trade Union Congress itself that there should be a tribunal of this sort for this particular purpose. Until we see how it works out, I think it would be very unwise to bind the Minister in the way in which this amendment of Senator Douglas would bind him.

If it is going to be a part-time, it is a different question.

We do not know, you see.

I know that. Senator Douglas is not pressing the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 21, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 22.
Question proposed: "That Section 22 stand part of the Bill."

This word "authorised" will play the dickens with the drafting of the Bill. In lines 30 and 34 of Section 22 the word "authorised" occurs. I think it is redundant in both cases and on the Report Stage we may have an amendment to knock it out in view of the terms of Section 19.

I would like to ask the Minister if it is plain, as I suggest it is, that the terms "master" and "workmen," when they occur in this section, can be construed as being of the feminine as well as the masculine gender?

This section and this business depends upon the nomination of of panels—does it not?

It does, yes.

Supposing they do not make nominations?

We will have to wait and see.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 23.

There is an amendment on the Order Paper in my name. When Senator Douglas said that there had been a degree of agreement between Senator Quirke and himself, without any collusion, Senator Foran expressed some doubt, but I can assure him there was no collusion between Senator Quirke and myself with regard to this particular amendment. I rather think that possibly what happened was that the circulation of my amendment reminded Senator Quirke, we will say, of something that should have been in the Bill. I can only express my own surprise that the Bill should have reached this stage without the insertion of such an obvious provision. On the assumption that the amendment in the name of Senator Quirke to Section 24 will be agreed to, I do not propose to move amendment No. 12. It is the same amendment.

Amendment No. 12 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 23 stand part of the Bill."

I would like to preface my remarks by saying that I had hoped to make them in support of an amendment to Section 20 in the names of Senator Foran and Senator Hogan to the effect that the tribunal should consist of a chairman and four ordinary members of whom one should be a woman. Of course, that has not been done.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

We are on Section 23.

I am saying that I would like to support an amendment to that effect, but I take the opportunity, on Section 23, to remind the Minister that when he was speaking on the Second Stage of this Bill he hoped that it would work out for the benefit of trade unions, making it a highly intelligent and responsible movement. For that you would need the support of women and I hope, although the amendment was not moved, that when the Minister is appointing the members of the first tribunal he will bear in mind how useful it could be to include a representative of the more responsible and intelligent section of humanity, namely, women.

It may relieve Senator Mrs. Concannon's mind to have recalled to her that in the interpretation of statutes, wherever the masculine is used it includes the feminine. So, it is merely a matter of thoughtfulness or sense of justice on the part of the trade union members themselves whether or not they will have a woman representative.

That is the real point. The ordinary members must be taken from the panel which is nominated by the authorised trade unions.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 24.
(1) Three members of the tribunal shall sit at every sitting thereof and such three members shall be—
(a) where the relevant application to the tribunal was made by a trade union of masters—the chairman and the members appointed from the masters' panel, and
(b) where such application was made by a trade union of workmen —the chairman and the members appointed from the workmen's panel.
(2) At every sitting of the tribunal, the tribunal may, save as otherwise provided by this Act, act by a majority.

I mave amendment No. 13:—

Before sub-section (2), page 11, to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the immediately preceding sub-section of this section, if any ordinary member of the tribunal is, in the opinion of the Minister, directly interested in any of the trade unions concerned in an application to the tribunal, such member shall not sit at the sitting of the tribunal at which such application is heard and another person appointed by the Minister from the same panel as that from which such member was appointed shall sit at such sitting in the place of such member.

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 24, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I would like to ask the Minister a question about the section. It says: "Three members of the Tribunal shall sit at every sitting thereof." If there is a sitting of the tribunal to deal with such questions as would come under Section 26 (4), "the tribunal may, if it thinks proper, require such trade union or unions to satisfy the tribunal that such trade union or unions would provide suitable employment or reasonable compensation for any officers of a trade union who will lose their employment in consequence of such determination." In that case, would it be possible for the tribunal to sit as a whole, or must there be only three members in each case?

Only three in each case.

In that case, what would be the position when the tribunal would be dealing with the case of compensation?

It would depend upon whether the union applying to the tribunal was a union of employers or a trade union of employees. In the first case, the chairman would have to sit with two members taken from the panel nominated by the employers' trade union. If, on the other hand, the application was from a worker's trade union then the two ordinary members would be those appointed from the panel of workers nominated by the workers' trade union, and in no case would there be more than three members—the chairman and two ordinary members— sitting on any application.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 25.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, where application is made to the tribunal by an authorised trade union which claims to have organised for the purpose of the carrying on of negotiations for the fixing of wages and other conditions of employment a majority of masters of a particular class for a determination that such trade union alone shall have the right to so organise masters of that class, the tribunal after hearing such application and having considered all the circumstances of the case, shall, as they consider proper in the public interest, either—
(a) grant such determination, or
(b) refuse to grant such determination, or
(c) determine that two or more specified trade unions alone shall have the right to so organise masters of that class.

I move amendment No. 14:—

In sub-section (1), page 11, to delete in line 12 the words "an authorised" and substitute the word "a".

This is a drafting amendment. The words "an authorised" are redundant in view of Section 19 of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

On a point of order. Amendment No. 15, in the name of Senator Quirke, is evidently to bring the section into conformity with a sub-section that I propose to delete later on, in Section 26. Senator Quirke's amendment proposes to do for masters what sub-section (2) of Section 26 does for the men. Now, although the Minister last night was pleased to dub me as a champion of the masters when I merely asked what would be their position under the Bill, I am not specially interested in the position of masters. But, if this amendment is passed now, there will be no sense in my moving my amendment, and my suggestion, if it is acceptable to the Chair and to the House, would be that the debate on these two amendments should take place together, and if my amendment is carried, then there would be no sense in moving Senator Quirke's amendment. If my amendment is defeated, of course, then Senator Quirke's will be relevant.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

That seems to me to be the best plan to follow.

Or the amendments could be left over to the Report Stage.

As we are going to have a Report Stage, I do not mind doing that.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendment No. 15 is not moved.

Question proposed: "That Section 25, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I do not want to take up the time of the House but, being unfamiliar with these matters, I would like the Minister to tell us if this is an entirely new venture in trade union legislation or if he has knowledge of machinery of this kind being operated in any other country?

There is no machinery of this kind in any other country, so far as I am aware, but this is the type of machinery which some members of the Irish trade union movement, Irish trade union workers, suggested would be advisable in relation to workers' trade unions. Perhaps I am understating the case to a certain extent, because all the members of the Trade Congress Commission were in agreement that some tribunal of this sort would be desirable and this is an attempt to give effect to that suggestion.

I hope the Minister did not take me as suggesting that it was not desirable because it was not tried elsewhere. I am glad to see we are attempting some pioneer work in trade union legislation.

It is obvious that in dealing with unions of masters there is very great difficulty because, on the face of it, there are three different types of employers. There is the one-man employer, who is very often a worker himself incidentally; then there is a partnership of two employers, perhaps a father and two sons or an uncle and his nephews; then there is what the modern trend is universally making towards, the joint stock or limited liability company. It is very hard to get those three together, to conceive them as unified by anything except a desire to exploit the workman for the advantage of the employer.

A further difficulty arises out of this sub-section. Frequent reference has been made, since this measure was introduced, to the possibility of a report being presented by the Vocational Organisation Committee. If we allow in this enactment classifications merely by area, that is, if we are organising territorially instead of vocationally, we are deliberately and with malice aforethought running right across the whole conception of vocational organisation. I am speaking merely to draw the Minister's attention to the difficulty; I am not proposing a remedy.

If, in fact, it is found, when the Vocational Commission reports, that there is a defect in this section, it would be very difficult to provide a remedy now before we know the extent to which the section may be defective. It is, perhaps, desirable at this stage that the tribunal should be able to classify the trade unions or the class of people concerned by reference, not merely to their vocations, but also to the area in which they carry on their vocations.

We might have the bricklayers in Cork organised by one union, or the master builders in Cork organised in one masters' trade union, and we might have the master builders in Dublin in another masters' trade union. It might, as a matter of practical necessity, be unavoidable for the tribunal to come to any other decision and yet, unless we have this sub-section, I do not think they would be able to say that the Cork people should be organised by the Cork association or the people in Dublin by the Dublin association.

In any event, if the report of the Vocational Commission will have such far-reaching consequences as has sometimes been suggested here, I am afraid it will take a considerable time before that report is implemented by statute and, when the question of its implementation comes up, presumably there will have to be a considerable number of consequential amendments not merely in this, but in the general body of the legislation of the State.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 26.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, where application is made to the tribunal by an authorised trade union which claims to have organised for the purpose of the carrying on of negotiations for the fixing of wages and other conditions of employment a majority of workmen of any particular class for a determination that such trade union alone shall have the right to so organise workmen of that class, the tribunal, after hearing such application and having considered all the circumstances of the case, shall, as they consider proper in the public interest, either—
(a) grant such determination, or
(b) refuse to grant such determination, or
(c) determine that two or more specified trade unions alone shall have the right to so organise workmen of that class.
(2) The tribunal shall not grant a determination under this section that a trade union registered under the law of another country and having its headquarters control in that country or two or more such trade unions shall alone have the right to organise workmen of any particular class.

I move amendment No. 16:—

In sub-section (1), page 11, to delete in line 34, the words "an authorised" and substitute the word "a".

This is again a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 17:—

To delete sub-section (2).

In order to prevent any possible misunderstanding, I should like to say that I am not moving this because of any representations made to me by any body or any individual. I have not been approached by any union or any individual or any body of persons, nor have I approached or consulted with any body or any individual before I put the amendment down. It was put down entirely on my own initiative in the interests of what, I believe, to be fair dealing as between one body of Irish workers and another.

This sub-section was introduced, I believe, only on the Report Stage in the Dáil. It did not appear in the Bill as originally drafted, so far as I remember. There was no very adequate discussion of this particular sub-section in the Dáil. It is a very important provision and will have far-reaching effects. I think the Bill should not be allowed to pass without having the reasons for the insertion of this sub-section, if there are any good reasons, made quite clear, and, if there are no good reasons for its insertion, then it should not be there.

It will be noted that this particular sub-section prevents the tribunal from doing something it might think proper. It debars the tribunal from taking a particular line of action. I could not find any similar provision in any other part of the Bill. The tribunal is set up to determine certain questions, but there is one thing it must not determine and that is the matter mentioned in this sub-section. There are numbers of workers organised in trade unions with their headquarters in this country and there are also numbers of Irish workers who are members of unions that have not their headquarters here. From the latest report issued with reference to the numbers affiliated with the Trade Union Congress it would appear that the numbers are roughly fifty-fifty. As a matter of fact, there are 83,000 in Irish unions and 79,000 in the other unions.

That would represent 51 per cent. and 49 per cent. respectively of the organised workers of this country; that is how they are divided. The workers affiliated to cross-Channel unions are familiarly or colloquially referred to as members of British unions, but they are Irish workers, and I do not think it can be alleged that they are any less patriotic than those who belong to the Irish unions, and I think that they have proved that. We all remember when the trouble was on in this country, and we recollect how members of the railway union sacrificed, or were prepared to sacrifice, their livelihood and even their lives rather than fall in with the views of the British authorities who were here at that time. It is not on record, so far as I remember, that that action was interfered with in any way by the executive councils on the other side of the Channel.

There must be strong reasons for these workers continuing their affiliations to these unions, and there are such strong reasons. Many of them have a very great financial interest in their unions. They are entitled to certain benefits; they have built up reserves for themselves; and there is another, and perhaps a more important, consideration, that when skilled workers cross to the other side, as unfortunately they are compelled by economic circumstances to do, the fact that they are members of a union with headquarters on the other side makes it very much easier for them to obtain work. But whether it is right or not, we must face the facts, and the facts are that, although this State has been established for almost 20 years, almost 50 per cent. of the Irish workers are still affiliated to unions with headquarters across the Channel. Because of that, this Bill seeks to make a discrimination against them.

I shall support the Minister in any measure he thinks necessary to make these Irish workers amenable to the law of this country. They are, I think, already amenable to the law—and, of course, this Bill will strengthen that position, but not in this particular way —but I do not think this should be used as a means of, as it were, coercing or forcing them to do something which they are themselves not willing to do. The only reason for it that I can think of is that it is a matter of policy, the policy of breaking the connection, but I suggest that that policy might be carried too far. There are many connections between this country and the country across the Channel, such as business connections and trading connections, which none of us would desire to break. Nobody will suggest that these connections should be broken, but in any case it seems to me quite clear that this is directly opposed to the policy which inspired the Minister to introduce this measure.

As we understand it, and as has been explained to this House and to the Dáil, the object of the Minister is to prevent small break-away unions, to prevent a multiplicity of unions, and to prevent disgruntled people from getting out of one union and forming a new union, and thus causing disturbance in the labour world. We all recognise that that is the policy, but how does this sub-section help it? Take the railway unions. In those there are something like 15,000 workers who are organised in three unions, each of which is distinct from the other. The National Union of Railwaymen caters for porters, signalmen and what might be called the traffic grades; the Amalgamated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen caters for the engineers. and firemen; and the Railway Clerks' Association organises the salaried grades. These are quite distinct from, and do not interfere with, each other, and I think the Minister will agree with me when I say that these unions are well managed and well operated.

Up to 17 or 18 years ago these were the only unions organising railwaymen, and I think the Minister will agree, too, that these bodies have devised means of settling any possible difference between themselves and their employers which we should like to see other bodies devise and operate. They have certain negotiating machinery, the final court of which is the Irish Railway Wages Board, with which most Senators will be familiar. A former judge—Judge Wylie—is chairman of that body, and there are on it representatives of employers and of workers. When a question of wages or conditions of service arises, both sides argue their case before that court, and a decision is given, and, although it is not binding on either side, the almost invariable practice has been that the decision is accepted by the railway companies and the men.

Let us see what happened some short time ago in that industry. I understand that a certain individual was removed from employment in one of these unions. He was one of the disgruntled people the Minister talked about. He went out and set about organising another union. The people whom he got to associate with him did not believe in accepting a decision of that court which the vast majority of the members of the union were prepared to accept, that is, a decision making a very substantial cut in their wages. Of course, it was a fairly popular thing to say: "We will not accept this cut. We will form a new union of our own." That union, I understand, is still operating, but, in the 17 or 18 years that have elapsed, it has succeeded in organising less than 5 per cent. of the members of the railway services. Yet, under this provision, that union is given a lease of life.

It will be entitled to continue trying to drag away members from the other long-established and well-managed unions, and surely the Minister must admit that that is entirely contrary to the policy of the Bill. Not one of the members of the union which caters for the salaried grades, I understand, is enrolled in any other union, but, at the same time, the tribunal is prevented from giving a determination to that union that it is the only union for organising these people.

There is always the possibility of a break-away by disgruntled people, so long as this sub-section remains. I think the Minister will find that any really serious trouble which has occurred in the railway service in the past 15 or 16 years has been due to the operations of this break-away union, and I do not think it can be said that these unions with headquarters across the Channel are the most bellicose of the trade unions. That was not my experience when I was a member of the Trade Union Congress, because I found they were at least as ready, and sometimes more ready, to compromise and to take a reasonable view than some of the other unions, and it must not be assumed that all the trouble in the labour movement arises from rivalries between what we call Irish unions and English unions. I think the very case which the Minister quoted on Second Reading was not a dispute between an English and an Irish union, but between two Irish unions. Even where disputes have taken place, and where rivalries have taken place, as they have, between unions with headquarters here and unions with headquarters across the Channel, it cannot, I think, be said that all the merit was with the Irish union, and all the blame with the union on the other side. I would appeal to the Minister not to make this discrimination. No purpose will be served by it. I think nothing would be lost by leaving it to the good sense of the tribunal to decide each case on its merits.

I have quoted a particular case, with which I am familiar, where I think the tribunal would not hesitate to give a determination on the merits that it should be the only body to organise workers in that particular service. It may be suggested that, unless the sub-section is there, there will never be a chance for an Irish union to organise in that particular service. I do not think that argument will hold. A determination will operate only for three years. If, during that time, a majority of the members wish to form an Irish union, and to sever their connection with the cross-Channel executive, they will be in a position to make an application at the end of the three years. I strongly urge on the Minister not to insert this provision in the Bill, but to leave the position so that the tribunal may decide each case on its merits. If the object of this be to try to induce Irish workers to belong to Irish unions, I do not think this is the way to do it. I think it is the wrong way to go about it—to put a disability on them in this Bill. In conclusion, I strongly urge on the Minister to reconsider the matter and not to insist on the insertion of this sub-section.

I must ask the Senator not to press this amendment. I am prepared to concede all that he has said as to the efficiency and the capacity with which certain unions, having their headquarters in Great Britain, conduct their business. If the Senator will consider the effect of the words in sub-section (1), and particularly in line 41, he will see that the tribunal are bound to give a decision which they think will be proper in the public interest. When this matter was raised in the Dáil, I relied on that fact because it would never occur to me that a tribunal of this sort could say that it was in the public interest that the sole right to organise the workers of this country should be vested in an organisation which was not registered under our laws and whose headquarters were not in this country.

I could not conceive that any tribunal would regard that as being in the public interest. However, the argument was pressed on me that the tribunal might conceivably find that, and I, accordingly, came to the conclusion that the Legislature, as the supreme body to determine what is the public interest in this country should —lest the tribunal might not take the same view of the position as I think we are bound to do—prescribe that certain things would not be in the public interest. I would ask any Senator to consider whether he thinks it would be in the public interest to confer—and remember that is what is being sought—the sole right and privilege to organise the workers of this country upon an organisation which is not registered as a trade union under our laws and whose headquarters are not under our control. I think that, if we were to do that the position would be altogether anomalous, in view of the constitutional position in which we find ourselves. I think it would be unthinkable that any State, not alone ours, should confer that right upon outside organisations, and it is merely to define the public interest in such a way that no tribunal, not having our responsibility, would be able to disregard it that the sub-section is inserted in the Bill.

The sub-section does not impose any disabilities upon existing organisations. At the present moment these trade unions, with their headquarters outside this country, have not the sole right to organise. They have to compete, as the Senator has indicated, with other organisations here for the right to organise workmen of their particular class. In this case the Senator referred to trade unions which deal with railway workers, but, as against that, there are other trade unions, having their headquarters in Great Britain, which organise other classes of workmen. You have trade unions organising general labourers, you have trade unions organising wood-workers and you have trade unions organising engineering operatives, all with their headquarters outside this country. At the present moment, as I have said, they have not the sole right to organise workers in the particular classes for which they cater. I do not think it can be said that we are imposing any disability on them if we do not worsen their position, and we do not worsen it when we make this reservation: that whoever else may be granted the sole right to organise our citizens vocationally, that right will not be granted to organisations which are not fully and effectively under the control of our laws and whose headquarters control does not rest in this country. One might say, if we were to allow that to vocational organisations, why not allow it to political organisations, why not go and say that it is open to a State which has its own peculiar form of government to come along here and organise inside our community the body of citizens who want that political form of government and who would, presumably, carry their peculiar ideas into all walks of life here.

I think there would, naturally, be a great deal of apprehension on the part of the community in general if we were to concede that principle in other fields of organisation than vocational organisation. The same would apply in regard to educational matters. Accordingly, I think that if we are going to give people the sole right, to the exclusion of every other person in the State, to organise people in particular classes, we, at any rate, ought to ensure that that particular right and privilege will only be given, as I have already said, to people who are fully under the control of our laws and whose headquarters are situate in this country.

Would the Minister say, for the purpose of enabling us to discuss this amendment, what the position will be when a union is given a determination that it is the sole body that can organise workers in a particular class? Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the railway union which organises, I suppose, over 90 per cent. of railway workers were given an exclusive determination, what would be the effect of that upon any attempt that might be made to form another union?

No other union could be formed.

Could ever be formed?

During the period of five years no other union could be formed—that is as long as the determination stands.

What I have a difficulty in understanding is this: The Minister mentioned the woodworkers. The position is not quite as the Minister represented it. He went into analogies and comparisons. These are generally defective and they were very defective in this case. In the case of the woodworkers, with which case I happen to be familiar, the vast majority—more than 90 per cent.—are in what is called the Amalgamated Society. That means that Irish skilled workers, citizens of this State, as patriotic and as sensitive to their duties to the State as any other body in the community, have for a long period of years, and particularly for the past 20 years, decided for themselves that they want to belong to that particular union. The Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers has, I understand, over 10,000 members and the Irish Union of Woodworkers has slightly over 800 members. The proportion is 11 to one. The Minister speaks of political organisations coming in from some other country and propagating their peculiar ideas.

I spoke of giving them the sole right to do that.

The Minister spoke of their propagating peculiar ideas. No peculiar ideas attach to this particular union. I have no special brief for them but, owing to personal circumstances, I happen to have knowledge of this particular organisation. Some of the very best Irish nationalists I have ever met would not leave that particular union and would not have hand, act or part in forming or joining an Irish union. The Minister can take it as absolutely true that some of the very best Irish nationalists persist, for their own reasons, in being members of a union which has not got its headquarters here. These unions do not propagate any peculiar ideas. That is where I think the Minister is wrong. If a determination to be the sole organisation is given to a union, can it be changed at all by any process? If so, what is the process? Members of a union may secede. They do not become an authorised trade union. At all events, they cannot get a negotiation licence until the determination expires. What steps can they take to make the determination expire?

It automatically expires.

Then, what steps can they take to prevent its being renewed? If a determination of this character were given to the National Union of Railwaymen or the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers, could an Irish union ever arise?

If that be so, then it would appear to me that no union should ever get a sole determination— either English or Irish. I am not trying to score a point off the Minister. When I commenced to consider Senator O'Connell's amendment, I happened to have particular knowledge of one set of facts. I do not understand the Minister's point. He is dealing in this case with just half the trade unionists of the country. The members of these amalgamated unions have been at all times—particularly in the towns—the backbone of every national movement. The Minister is making a very grave mistake and arguing on false premises if he endeavours to persuade us that the nationalism of people who do not belong to an Irish union suffers from some defect.

That has never been suggested.

I think it was suggested but I accept the Minister's statement. When the Minister says that control is not entirely here, what does he mean? So far as I understand, control is entirely here. The members of the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers, for example, cannot be brought out on strike in Dublin unless they themselves decide on a strike. I know that intimately and there is no doubt about it. There is nothing in the rules of that union—the position is, I think, the same in the case of the railwaymen—which enables the executive in Manchester to bring the Irish members out. If they are to be brought out, they must decide by secret ballot to come out. Control of their operations rests solely and entirely with themselves and I do not understand the Minister's point that control is not here. Control is entirely here.

I am not arguing against the Irish unions. Some of them were formed— I think the Woodworkers' Union was one of them—in the Sinn Féin period, for national purposes, as then understood. Even in that period and even with the national effervescence of that particular time, they did not get a majority. They did not get even a substantial number and, with all their efforts since, that union has succeeded in organising less than 1,000 out of 11,000 workers. Quite clearly, on the merits—if you leave out this question of English headquarters—the Amalgamated Society ought to get a determination to be the sole organising body. If they do not get that, we shall have a peculiar position. The avowed aim of the Bill has nothing to do with foreign unions. That is a very important principle which might have been decided separately but it was brought in only on the Fourth Stage of the Bill. The avowed aim of the Bill is to settle inter-union disputes. This particular proviso which Senator O'Connell is seeking to delete—I am still open to conviction on it—will put us in this position: with regard to transport and the building trade, two very important parts of our industrial life—perhaps, the two most important—trade union strife will be left as it was. You may remedy it in other places but on the railways, including the bus services of the G.S.R. and G.N.R., you are leaving open all the causes of strife.

I pay the Minister this tribute: his introductory speech on Second Reading wearied me, but his concluding speech was very good and very convincing. His best point was that concerning secession to form mushroom unions on the plea "Listen boys, we will get you more wages." That was his principal argument for the Bill, and that is the best argument for the Bill. In this matter of road and rail transport, and in the case of the building trade, you cannot have one trade union because, whatever the Minister may say, workers on the railways and the woodworkers have refused—and, I think, will continue to refuse—to organise themselves in an Irish union. They are Irish citizens, perfectly loyal, belonging to all political parties. As the Minister knows, some of the members of these amalgamated unions belong to the most extreme political parties. So far as transport and the building trade are concerned, the evils which the Minister is trying to eradicate by this Bill are, by this particular sub-section, left untouched. Unless I am greatly mistaken, it is not long since we had a very disastrous strike on the Great Southern Railways, initiated, I think, by an Irish union. I happen to know very intimately one of the victims. That strike resulted in quite a number of men losing their jobs.

That was on the G.N.R.

Yes. Several men lost their jobs. They never would have lost their jobs if they had been dealing with these big amalgamated unions.

The N.U.R

I do not think it was the N.U.R. The situation is not quite as the Minister described it, although I understand his reluctance to give a sole organising licence to a union which has not got its headquarters within the State. Can any other union ever get a sole organising licence if it is true to say that, when a union gets it, it is fixed for all time? I do not think it can be fixed for all time but it does appear as if it were. Perhaps the Minister would enlighten us on that.

Perhaps the Senator might discuss that on the section, because it seems to me that we are wandering all around.

I wish to say now that this is the one clause in the Bill with which I am in entire agreement, and I shall try to make it clear why I am in agreement with it. We call ourselves a sovereign State, and are we going to permit a foreign trade union to come in here and permit them to have the sole right to organise people in any industry or business? Senator Hayes, like Senator O'Connell, tries to convey that he knows this story from A to Z, and that Irish nationals have complete control of their own affairs. They have no such thing.

They certainly think they have.

The man who controls the purse has the control, and I do not know of any of these amalgamated unions where the purse is controlled here. Now, I know that there are foreign unions in this country losing money on their social or friendly benefits in the country. I am not denying that, but if we are prepared to give them a monopoly and the sole right to organise, we are making this thing perpetual, and a body of Irish workers would have no right to set out and form an Irish union in any industry or business, however much they might be convinced of the wisdom of doing so. Now, much play has been made about the bellicose attitude of certain Irish unions as against English unions. I submit that this is not a question of whether a union is bellicose or pacifist. There is a big principle involved in the matter, and in that connection I might relate a little of my own experience. I attend international conferences representing my own union, and until comparatively recently, there never was an Irish place allocated for the Irish trade unions. I do not know whether Senator O'Connell has had that experience or not, but it fell to my lot at a congress of international transport workers to refuse to sit on a panel of Great Britain.

Hear, hear! Quite sound.

No doubt, but supposing we admit the right of British unions— the sole right, mark you—to organise workers in this country, where is our status, and where is our standing?

Consequently, as I said, I am in favour of this section more than any other. Now, regarding the break-always which Senator O'Connell emphasised and deplored, in the event of a break-away has not the Minister to be satisfied that the union concerned is a bona fide, genuine trade union? At any rate, he has laid it down that before they will get a negotiation licence they will have to put up £1,000. Now, there might be one or two of these cranks that could find £1,000, but they would be very few.

A Senator

It may only be £250.

That is only during the period of the emergency.

Eventually, they will have to find the £1,000.

Normally, it would be £1,000, but the Minister has power, in the case of certain unions and in view of circumstances, to vary the amount during the period of the emergency.

At any rate, cranks will have no scope under this clause in the Bill. A substantial financial backing has to be found, and, consequently, any break-away from any of these amalgamated or foreign unions will have to be substantial. They will have to have the backing of a very substantial number of the people in the industry, and I submit that the amalgamated unions are in no worse position under this Bill than they were formerly, but Senator O'Connell would give them the right to organise all the workers in the industry concerned. Now, if we remove that clause, it is not going to improve the Bill, and if we adopt the clause that is in the Bill, break-always in the future will not be recognised as trade unions unless they can show that they have real substance, both in finance and membership, behind them. Consequently, I am in favour of the clause.

I might relate another little experience, which shows the mentality of certain trade union officials across the water. I think it was in Sweden, and I was speaking to a man who was the head of a large amalgamated transport union. In my innocence I suggested that the time had come when they should leave this country. He laughed heartily and said: "Leave the country? When are you coming over?" That is the mentality—the imperialist mind— that we do not count at all, that they are going to dominate.

Is that what he meant?

Of course.

Maybe he meant that you would be bringing the advantages of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union over to Great Britain.

Oh, there was no likelihood of that. Now, I wonder what Senator O'Connell's reaction to this Bill would be if there were an amalgamated teachers' union. Would he face up to it in the same spirit in which he puts down this amendment here? I scarcely think he would. On the Second Stage of this Bill I paid due credit to the work done by the amalgamated unions in the past and to the membership of these unions. I retract nothing that I said on that occasion, but I am one of those who believe that the time has come when we ought to have Irish unions for Irish workers.

And if we are going to react in this way and hand over the monopoly of Irish workers to foreign unions, then I think we are stultifying ourselves to a degree that we should not possibly tolerate. We should leave it open for Irish workers, at any period, if they consider their position makes it possible, to form an Irish union, and under this Bill it must be a genuine Irish union. If other people have certain interests—and I know they have certain social interests—in foreign unions, then it is their affair; they can function and carry on, but not with a monopoly to organise the people in any particular organisation, whether railway men or anybody else.

After hearing this debate I feel that I am rather in the position of a juryman. I am quite satisfied, in my own mind, that the section should stand and that Senator O'Connell's amendment should not be accepted, but I disagree with the wording of the sub-section to some extent. I should not like to see a position brought about whereby, if the Irish section of a union broke away from an English union and formed its own union here, it would be precluded from getting the sole licence to operate merely because it had some sort of loose affiliation with what had been the parent union previously.

I think such affiliations might have a good influence. They broaden the mind and they spread the trade union movement which I think we all agree is a good movement. I should like to see that position safeguarded. I should not like the tribunal to say that by reason of the fact that a registered trade union was affiliated with an English union they should be deprived of the right to organise, merely for that reason.

I do not think there is anything in the section which would have that effect.

Senator Foran has stated that I wanted to give those bodies the sole right to organise. I do not, but I want that question to be left for decision to the tribunal. I say that you should not debar the tribunal from giving them that right if in their opinion that is advisable, in the interest of peace in industry which seems to be the main object of this Bill. The Minister in the course of his speech rather suggested—although I am sure he did not intend it in that way—that this 50 per cent. of Irish workers must be a very foolish body. If we take Senator Foran's statement, they are a very unpatriotic body, if I might put it in that way.

I never said anything about their being unpatriotic. There is no use in Senator O'Connell putting words into my mouth which I never used. I never said that, and never implied it.

I said that inference could be drawn from the Senator's statement, and I say that still. The Minister seems to suggest that these Irish workers were not completely and entirely amenable to Irish laws.

Their organisations are not, nor are their headquarters under our control.

But the workers themselves are.

We are talking about organisations. We are not talking about workers or individuals, but about the corporate bodies to which they belong.

If the Minister sought to insert any provision in this Bill or any other Bill that would put these organisations, in so far as they operate in Ireland, completely under the control of this State, of course I would support that. I think—I do not know definitely—that they are already in that position and that they are completely under the control of the law of this country.

Senator Lynch mentioned some of the anomalies of the position when he was dealing with the question of trustees.

It should not be impossible to remove some of these anomalies. I put down this amendment because I felt, and still feel, that the proposal in the section destroys to a great extent the purpose which the Minister had in introducing the Bill. If, of course, we import political considerations into this question, we shall not have a discussion of the matter on its merits. I still am not convinced that it would not be in the interests of peace in industry, which is one of the objects of this Bill, to delete this particular sub-section. The Minister seemed to stress very much the question of the public interest, but I cannot see how the public interest would be detrimentally affected if a union, which has been organising a particular body of workers for a great number of years, gets the sole right to organise them.

Níor mhaith liom cur isteach ar an díospóireacht seo mar tá daoine eile anseo a thuigeann an cheist seo níos cruinne ná mar thuigim-se é, ach ba mhaith liom tuairim ar an gceist do thabhairt. Tá brón orm a chloisint go bhfuil ceárd-chumainn sa tír seo go bhfuil baint aca le ceárd-chumainn i Sasana. Thainic sé sin orm go hobann agus chuir sé brón orm mar, do réir mo thuairim-se, ní rud maith é. Ó tháinic na Sasanaigh isteach sa tír seo, chuireadar na mílte cruaidhte ar an tír seo, agus seo ceann aca. Mar a dubhart cheana, níl aon rud agam i gcoinne lucht oibre na Sasana, ach ní maith liom aon bhaint do bheith aca leis an tír seo ach oiread agus ba mhaith liom aon bhaint do bheith ag Riaghaltas na Sasana léi. Sasanacha seadh iad agus má bhíonn aon bhaint aca leis an tír seo, nó le ceárd-chumainn na tíre seo, beidh smaointe Gallda ag teacht isteach san tír seo agus beidh deacrachtaí in aithbheochaint na teangan. Cuireann siad smaointe Sasanacha i gceann lucht oibre na hEireann, áit 'na bhfuil a lán smaointe Sasancha cheana. Tá súil le Dia agam nach gcuirfidh an tAire aon rud sa mBille seo a thabharfadh níos mó nirt do cheárd-chumainn na Sasana sa tír seo. Má dheineann sé aon rud chun an neart sin do lagú, sé a déarfainn, buidheachas le Dia.

Senator Foran's speech seemed to me to put the question at issue in this amendment on the one plane on which it should be debated by one of the Houses of the Oireachtas of a sovereign independent State—that is, solely the consideration of national interest. It is not a question of the merits or the demerits of amalgamated trade unions that we are considering. What we are considering is whether it would be right for us, in our responsible position as the Parliament of this State, to allow a weapon that could conceivably be used against us to pass out of our control. We have all sad experience of economic wars and one can conceive a state of things under which, if we grant the sole right to organise workmen in a particular class to a union over which we have no control and which is not subject to the laws of this country, a union which has its headquarters in another country, that weapon could be used against us. I think no responsible House of Parliament could stand for such a proposal.

Senator Foran was not here to listen to Senator Mrs. Concannon, but I think Senator Foran is by no means as simple as Senator Mrs. Concannon would make him out to be. I have an open mind about this amendment. I understand the difficulty about giving a determination to be the sole organiser of workers to a particular union which has not got its headquarters here. But I think we ought to consider the matter in relation to the actual facts and not beat the national drum about it.

It is not beating the national drum.

I think it is.

Is fíor. Tá eolas agam-sa ar an gceist seo agus tá an Seanadóir Cú Uladh tréis a rá na thuigeann sé dada mar gheall ar an scéal.

Senator Cú Uladh wants to talk to me about this matter, but he confessed himself that he had no knowledge, good, bad, or indifferent, about this subject. It came as a revelation to him that nearly half of the Irish trade unionists belong to amalgamated unions. It did not come as a revelation to me—I knew it. Senator Mrs. Concannon tells us that we must not let a weapon pass from our control. That is the kind of thing that I want to disabuse Senators' minds of. We are not letting any weapon out of our control. It is demonstrable that there is nothing in the working of the amalgamated unions in this country which has ever proved, in our circumstances, to be detrimental to the national interests. It could not be detrimental to the national interests unless those men, who are so organised, became traitors themselves, and they are not likely to become traitors. As a matter of fact, Senator Cú Uladh can take this from me as a fact, that in amalgamated unions there are Irish nationalists who would regard him as a rank conservative, who would regard his coming into this Seanad as turning his back on all the best traditions of what they would call Irish nationalism. That is true.

You will find cranks everywhere.

The Minister himself was a crank long enough before he recovered. There are still plenty of cranks. We do not all turn when father says turn—that is the difficulty. Senator Foran, of course, is naturally an opponent of amalgamated unions. Why would he not be? He spent his life in an Irish union which had as an opponent an amalgamated union. But, mind you, there is this to be said for Senator Foran and his union: they made a job of it. But the fact is that there is nothing in the amalgamated unions that is detrimental to Irish nationality. I said before, and I want to repeat it, that I know people in those unions—I was reared in the house of one of them —who are as strong Irish nationalists and have as clear a sense of what is their right and their duty as Irishmen as anybody in this House or as anybody who ever died for this country. Senator Foran knows that well.

Nobody denies it.

I am glad nobody denies it. As to all this talk of Senator Cú Uladh about England interfering in our affairs, we should not use our national freedom, as so many small States have used their national freedom, immediately to use the jack-boot on all kinds of people who are not prepared to join in a particular cry. Here you are dealing with half the organised workers of the State who are just as nationalist as anybody else, who are politically divided exactly the same as any other body in the State would be divided. That is the position with regard to them. There is no doubt that in the transport industry and in the building trade this Bill cannot operate as satisfactorily as the Minister wants it to operate because he is leaving a position under this sub-section in which a big union, which has succeeded in organising more than 90 per cent. of the workers over a long period, over the period of our most intense and active nationalism from 1916 onwards, cannot get a sole licence to organise. In those two spheres—transport, and one important section of the building trade—you will always have a situation which the Minister says he does not want to have. That is what I want people to be clear about.

It is easy to get up and make a nationalist speech and say, what I am sure Senator Cú Uladh would be glad to say, that we should pass legislation to compel everybody to join an Irish union. But it is doubtful whether an Irish Parliament calmly and deliberately should take the line that a set of workers, a great many of them skilled workers, all of them intelligent, and all of them nationalists, should be prevented from exercising an option which they have deliberately exercised over a period of years. They should not, I think, be made to do it by legislation. What I really would like the Minister to tell us is this. I think Senator Foran is right when he says that when a determination to be the sole organisers is given to a union, it cannot in fact be altered. If it cannot, then I do not think it ought to be given to any body, Irish or English. What steps can be taken with regard to people who are in a union with which they are dissatisfied? What steps can be taken to stop a situation whereby only one union has a right to organise a particular class of workers? If the position is that you cannot get a change at all, then I would be against it. I should like the Minister to elucidate that.

There seems to be a great deal of confusion in this whole matter, and I only rise to try to reduce it to its simplest terms, if I can. Like Senator Hayes, I deprecate the beating of the national drum in this matter. At the same time, I cannot help recognising that it is not possible for the Parliament of this country to take a step which would or could possibly confer a monopoly of organisation on foreign unions. We are not here engaged in taking away any rights which those unions have at present. We are engaged in considering whether we should allow monopoly rights to be conferred on those foreign unions in future. I feel very strongly, like Senator Mrs. Concannon, that that is a position into which no Irish Parliament should get. If it does get into that position, it will find itself completely running counter to the public opinion of the vast majority of the people. That is said with all due respect to the patriotism and the integrity and the honour of the Irish workers who are organised in those foreign unions. Nobody wants to question their position in the slightest degree. Nobody wants to cast any slur on them, or to maintain that there is anything wrong with them because they do happen to be, through force of circumstances in our peculiar history, organised in those unions. The fact remains that you cannot at this hour of the day set out to confer upon those foreign unions privileges far outranging any privileges they have under Irish law at present. There is no question that we should do such a thing. It is altogether outside the bounds of possibility that we should even consider conferring such a monopoly on foreign unions, no matter how much we may sympathise with the people who are organising them. Nobody says that it is the fault of the workers, or that it is any kind of original sin on their part that they happen to be so placed. It arises from a long and a peculiar history.

Even if it involves weakening the Bill in certain respects, as long as the section retains workers outside the scope of the Bill, we will have to face up to it. We would not be allowed by public opinion, even for three months, to do such a thing as to confer a monopoly on non-Irish unions. That is not merely my own opinion. I have talked about it with a number of people and one thing I am convinced of is that, apart from the unions, we would have 99 per cent of public opinion of the country against the idea of conferring such a monopoly on foreign unions. That may be right or it may be wrong. It may be possible to say that we are importing too much nationalism into this question. I do not think we are. We have to take a long distance view in conferring such a monopoly or giving such rights to bodies with headquarters and direction outside this country. Remember all the time that we are not taking away anything from them. We are simply refusing to give them the new rights being created by this Bill. We are not doing them injury in that respect. It may be said that their position is due to history and circumstances for which they had no responsibility, still we cannot contemplate conferring new rights on them.

Senator Foran said that there were other means in the Bill by which break-away unions and small unions could be dealt with in relation to trade unions under foreign control. When Senator Hayes suggested that it would be impossible for any union to get a determination from the tribunal, once such a determination has been given, I think he was exaggerating the position. Surely, it will be possible for any union representing a substantial number of workers to apply to the tribunal at any time for such a determination, and it will be within the power of the tribunal, within the scope of the Bill, to give such determination if applied for bona fide, and by a properly constituted body of workers. I do not think any difficulty will arise in that respect. As regards the other point, that the Bill will leave a large section of industry unorganised, which comes within the scope of small unions, that is fairly well covered by the fact that before break-away unions can operate they will have to have a negotiation licence from the Minister.

Senator Tierney has put the matter quite plainly. It is inconceivable that any body of workers could agree to leave the control of anything connected with this country in the hands of people in another country. It might be well to examine why so many are members of the amalgamated union. When it was formed many Irishmen joined it and remained members of it. Their contributions have been paid to it and as a result they are entitled to certain benefits that they would not, probably, derive from Irish unions. Having been so long members of this union they cannot very well sacrifice these benefits now. It is not because they are unpatriotic, or because they wish to favour a union outside their own country that these men remain members of this union. It is due purely to economic reasons. But we had better look to the future. If we put this provision in operation, that only these unions will have the right to negotiate for their Irish members, what about the future? These English unions have all their funds invested in England. What is going to be the position of these funds in England when the war is over? How will the contributions of Irish members suffer as a result of the effects of the war?

Is not all of our money there?

We will be in a much better position than our friends across the Channel. I think it might be safer for Irishmen to have unions of their own to fall back upon, rather than be dependent on what might conceivably be bankrupt unions on the other side. None of us knows what will happen. I am not going to say that English finances are going to fall to pieces.

We hope not, generally.

We hope not.

At any rate it is a speculation irrelevant to this debate.

It has a bearing on what we are discussing, I submit. It would be very unwise on our part absolutely to close the door on our organisation and to prevent them in the future having responsibility in their own country.

It was rather strange to hear in the Second House, which was created to give opportunities to those endowed with the committee mind to criticise and to revise the findings of the other House, to hear that objected to as something introduced on the Report Stage. Senator O'Connell seemed dubious about there being any merit in this section, because it was introduced on the Report Stage. Surely, as a Senator he ought to consider that as his function and as being the ultimate wisdom of superior thought. It was very plausible, so plausible that it persuaded me for a time that it would be better to have left this question to the tribunal, and to trust in its good sense not to give exclusive control of the particular class of workers' interests to a union that had its headquarters in another land, and that operated under another law than ours. It was a very specious argument. Granted even that it is a convincing argument, it has lost all its merits because of this debate. I submit that if we as a House of the Legislature, having considered the proposal, should enact that it should not be permitted for such a union to get exclusive control, and that we accepted the amendment of Senator O'Connell, then we should have put ourselves in the position of declaring that we as portion of the Oireachtas of the Irish State— of the Twenty-Six Counties—as regards actual jurisdiction at present, had decreed that in regard to such a vital national item of our public service, to wit, railway transport, we were willing to concede a monopoly of control. That would put us in the monstrous position that after considering the possibilities, and weighing the merits of the case we, purporting to be the National Parliament, should decide in cold blood and as a result ostensibly of deliberate thought, to vest in a foreign body such an important item of the national life. Is there any one thing more brought home to us at present, in the war raging over the world, than the importance of transport?

There was a lot of mere specious argument put forward with regard to patriotism—which no one had questioned. It was simply a specious case of introducing another issue altogether. Granted that patriotism of all the workers—everyone of them without exception—who are members of a union that has its headquarters in England —in Manchester or elsewhere—it is still utterly irrelevant. As the Minister has said already, incidentally, what we are dealing with is not individuals but corporations or associations. I would ask Senator Hayes to reconsider this: he speaks of attempting to establish the authority and control of a vital national service in the hands of Irish-made law and under an Irish Government, rather than in a combination of associations or alliances. He calls that "beating the national drum." Great Britain and the British Empire are fighting for their life at the present moment: are they beating a national drum? If a man is maintaining himself to the best of his ability in the circumstances in which he finds himself, and maintaining his life at as high a level as he can secure, is he beating some drum? We are in here, engaged in making legislation which is part and parcel of the national task of creating an efficient State—a State with all its powers and their exercise rightly thought out and recognised; are we beating a national drum? That is a deliberate confusion between nationalism and party politics —two wholly different things.

I contend that Senator O'Connell would have been correct in the main had it not been that the decision had been made before he had proposed his amendment, and that his amendment was a proposal raising the issue when the Bill had been brought in by a Minister of State. We cannot consistently claim to be engaged in the task of organising the State and organising its services and at the same time be willing to preserve the remnants of a régime against which we contested in every form of contest. That which he refers to as doing good for so many workers—a good which the workers themselves appreciate as a benefit—is a remnant of the old régime. There was a time, which Senator Hayes and I very readily can recall, when these trade unions were all simply in a unitary State—Great Britain and Ireland. Undoubtedly, it was a great benefit—though it would be an exaggeration to say that it was an incalculable benefit—to the Irish workmen to have membership in a powerful and rich union, and that especially in the early days of trade unionism, when it was necessary to have the power of money and the power of numbers to assert this great right of free association on the part of employees, to defend their claims to the betterment of their condition and so lead a truly human life. But that belongs to the past.

These patriots that he speaks of are conscious of the financial and other social benefits that they derive from membership: they could not fail to be conscious of them. It clouds their judgment with regard to the issue we are raising here, regarding the rights of the State. When Senator Hayes was talking I recalled an incident of my student period in Dublin. There was a second-hand bookseller on the quays to whose premises I paid frequent visits. He was one who in England would be called "a card", and whom we would call "a character". He had noticed that I frequently bought books by Catholic writers on philosophy and on Catholic theology. One day he accosted me in an aggressive manner and said: "I am as good a Catholic as you are." I retorted: "You should pitch your standards higher." He answered angrily: "I am as good a Catholic as you are, but I do not believe in the immortality of the soul." To that I replied: "I am afraid I have the advantage of you there." Senator Hayes's nationalists are pretty much like the bookseller.

They are not.

They are nationalists, but they do not believe in national control: they are nationalists as regards flag-waving, in regard to societies, and as regards the wearing of a Robert Emmet uniform, but their nationalism stops at that. They have no right conception of what nationalism means, or of what it is to be members of an independent State, and what the responsibilities are. It seems to me, therefore, that what we are asked to do, by the amendment to delete this section, is really to declare that we are only playing at being a State and that we are not to be taken seriously.

What Senator Magennis has just said convinces me that this question of foreign unions is worth a debate. If we could have had a Second Reading debate on a Bill dealing with this matter only, Senator Magennis, without going to any second-hand bookseller or buying any books, could have had some enlightenment, as his speech to-day shows a complete ignorance of what an amalgamated society is like. That would be remedied to some degree if we could have had a debate on this matter. I wish to make one point that the Minister knows as well as I do. There is no question at all of handing over the control of our transport to any other than Irish hands. Our transport service could not be paralysed by way of a trade dispute except by the action of Irish workers. There is no foreign control involved, and no foreigners could do to that transport industry any disservice. Everybody knows that, of course.

There is one other point. Nobody should slip, for rhetorical purposes, into the statement that certain people only believe in nationalism for the purpose of flag-wagging. Some of these people have died for this country and that was not a form of flag-wagging. It was a very real thing, and some young men joined foreign unions and would not join an Irish one. There is no doubt about it. It is not a question of benefits or of money; it is a question of a conclusion to which a man comes, in his own position as a worker, exercising his own judgment—and he has a right to do that. I know there are arguments against this, but the arguments should be the real arguments and not specious ones. What Senator O'Connell asks is that the tribunal should be left to determine this important matter. If, in view of the tribunal, public interest dictates that no determination to be the sole organisers should be given to a non-Irish union, well and good. I suppose the amendment should not be pressed. The Minister has not said what happens if a sole determination is granted by the tribunal.

That does not arise on this section. It arises on Section 34.

I do not wish to go over cases already made, as to whether a man is more patriotic by being a member of an Irish union than by being a member of an English one, but there is just one question I would like to ask the Minister from a worker's point of view. The Amalgamated Woodworkers' Union in this country is a very strong union. I think the majority of woodworkers are members of that union. There are certain rights and certain privileges by being a member. In some cases there are pension rights and other benefits. Members have paid into that union for a long period of years. Under this Bill, when amalgamation takes place and when that union is refused a licence, will those members lose their benefits to which they have contributed or, if their union is more or less handed over to a new union, will they be entitled to the same benefits all the time? I think that is one of the points in which the workers will be most interested. I believe, like Senator Hayes, that it is not a matter of one man being a better nationalist than another but of belonging to the union which he thinks suits him best. That is the only point I wish to make.

The point raised by Senator Hawkins is fully covered in sub-section (3), where it states that the tribunal, before granting a determination that a particular trade union shall alone have the right to organise workmen of a particular class, may, if it thinks proper—and presumably a responsible body would think it proper— require such trade union to satisfy the tribunal that the grant of such determination will not adversely affect any rights or claims to benefits enjoyed for the time being by any such workmen as members of a trade union. I think the point is fully safeguarded there. The tribunal would have to do that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 26 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 27 stand part of the Bill".

There is provision here for a ballot. Is the tribunal bound by the ballot when it takes it?

No, I would not say that it is absolutely bound but it is certainly a fact which it would have to take into consideration and I presume the members of the tribunal would hesitate to disregard the results of the ballot.

When I read this first sub-section I found some difficulty in understanding among whom the ballot was to be taken. Is it to be taken among members of a union or among workmen, whether union or non-union?

I think that is a matter which rests within the discretion of the tribunal because it states that "the tribunal may... arrange for the holding of such ballots among such workmen or any class or classes of such workmen" It will depend entirely upon the form of the application before the tribunal as to which workmen will be consulted by ballot if the tribunal thinks it necessary to arrange for a ballot.

It would be very difficult to arrange for a ballot among non-union workmen.

Perhaps not. It has happened before.

It beats me.

There are people outside the union who may like to have a voice in this matter.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 28 to 33, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 34.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, no determination under this Part of this Act shall:
(a) extend to or apply in respect of any civil service staff association, or
(b) operate to prevent any organisation of teachers recognised by the Minister for Education from accepting any teacher as a new member of such organisation, or
(c) operate to prevent any trade union which does not carry on negotiations for fixing wages or other conditions of employment from accepting any person as a new member.

I move amendment NO. 18.

To delete paragraph (b) of sub-section (5).

I put down this amendment merely to find out from the Minister what his purpose or object was in inserting this particular paragraph here. Suppose an organisation of teachers becomes an authorised union, pays its deposit in the ordinary way, and applies for a determination to the tribunal, and the tribunal thinks that that organisation is the only organisation that should organise a particular class of teachers, what is the purpose of making the exception which appears in this particular paragraph? I will take an example. Take our own organisation, the Irish National Teachers' Organisation. That is an organisation which, as I stated here before, has been in existence for a very long time, and there is no other union, and there never has been in this country any other union of national teachers, and it is not unreasonable to assume that if we did apply to the tribunal we would get a determination that we would have the sole right to organise national teachers. But that sole right, if this is to be left in, does not prevent national teachers joining perhaps another organisation of teachers, or even starting a break-away union, if the Minister would recognise them. I cannot see the purpose of putting that in. Perhaps the Minister would explain.

It seems to me to be quite simple. The Minister for Education is charged by the Dáil with the responsibility of ensuring that the citizens of this country will secure the educational facilities which are reserved to them by the Constitution, and I do not think it would be possible for us to permit an inferior tribunal of this sort to bind the hands of the Minister for Education in any way in relation to a matter of such primary importance to the community as a whole, and if he feels that for the purpose of fulfilling his functions it would be necessary to recognise an organisation other than one which had gone before this tribunal and had secured a determination there, it seems to me that we should not permit any action of that tribunal to bind the hands of the Minister for Education in any way.

That appears to me to be an extraordinary position. This Bill is putting an organisation of teachers in an inferior position to any other organisation of workers in the country.

Because the educational services are quite distinct from any other services in this country. They are too vital..

There are other services in the country which are vital to the life of the country as well as education. It seems to me an extraordinary thing indeed that an organisation of teachers, that is given the sole right by the tribunal to organise a particular body, still is not in fact given that sole right. The tribunal gives them the sole right to organise a particular body of teachers, but the Bill says they cannot have the sole right. It is doing to this particular kind of Irish organisation what the sub-section we debated some time ago did to the English unions—it is refusing to give an organisation the sole right to organise teachers of a particular class. It is an extraordinary position to my mind.

Is the amendment being pressed?

I feel that I should press it. No sufficient reason has been given to me as to why that paragraph should appear there. Unless there is, I feel inclined to press the amendment.

Can the national teachers apply for a determination to have the sole right?

It is conceivable. If they became an authorised trade union, they could, and it is again a question of what the public interest is. The view of the Minister for Education— and I must say I concur in that view —is that it would not be in the public interest that one organisation should be given the sole right. I am not saying it would not be, but conceivably it might not be, in the public interest that one organisation should be given the sole right to organise the teachers of this country.

Surely that should apply equally to any other organisation of workers in the country.

I submit there is a great difference between a service which is responsible for a large part of the training and education of the future citizens of this country and an organisation catering for, say, manual workers.

Surely the case for the Minister, the case for what is in the Bill, is that the national teachers are paid out of public funds. Is that not the case?

No; because of the nature of their vocation.

The nature of their vocation?

Because of the nature of their vocation?

I think so and the fact that there is a particular Department of State dealing with them and kindred organisations.

Because they are paid out of public funds and they deal with the Minister—partly civil servants.

The Minister reserves for himself that right and there can be as many break-away unions as they like.

I am not saying that either.

The possibility is there.

The question of break-away unions can be dealt with in a different way, if necessary.

All that is necessary is that the Minister should recognise them.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Question proposed: "That Section 34 stand part of the Bill".

Perhaps the Minister will now indicate what is the effect of giving a determination to be the sole organising body to a particular union?

The only thing which the granting of a determination does is, during the period which is set out in Section 28—three years in some cases and five years in other cases—to reserve the right to the union which has secured the determination to accept new members. It does not extinguish existing unions. They can carry on, but they will not be allowed during the currency of the determination to extend their organisation by recruiting the particular class of persons to whom the determination applies.

My difficulty is this. The tribunal in 1942, let us say, considers the position of two unions. It finds union A has a membership of 10,000 and union B 800 and it gives the sole organising determination to union A. That lasts for three years. During those three years under the law union B cannot become any stronger.

It cannot become any stronger.

Therefore by 1945 I do not see how union B could possibly reverse the position and get a licence to organise the same as union A.

Not in those circumstances.

Nor do I see how a new union of any kind could be formed in the interval unless in circumstances and with conditions which apparently no body of seceders could fulfil.

Except in the teaching profession?

Yes, because they are so well off. I am not pleading for secessions from unions or for mushroom unions—I am against that.

If Senator Hayes reads Section 28 (2), line 45, he will observe that it sets out "until at least after five years".

Is it conceivable at the end of five years that any union could be in a position to alter facts as they find them then?

May I answer that? Senator Hayes says he cannot conceive of any way of altering the thing except by the accretion or the accession of new members. Did he ever hear of influence, of change of views, of men being got at to change their allegiance?

Mind you, I did.

I make every allowance that with a history such as ours the Senator has heard of those things. There might be a silent penetration among the members of a union throughout the period of five years, and there might be a complete landslide at the end of the five years. This operates only for five years and a new determination can be sought from the tribunal.

Senator Hayes has apparently chosen his examples carefully. He has asked us to consider a union with 10,000 members and a union with 800 members and against which a determination has been secured. It seems to me, provided the tribunal is assured that it is in the public interest, having considered all the circumstances of the case, that it has secured all the safeguards which are set out in sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 26, to wit, that the rights and claims of the workers in union B, to which the Senator refers, the union with 800 members, and the rights of the officials of the same union under Section 4 have been fully safeguarded —that a determination should be granted as against the smaller union, surely the smaller union will amalgamate with the larger union, and that one element of inter-union rivalry will be removed from our industrial life.

It is not without some aptness to recall the debate on Section 28, where we were dealing with precisely that case, the case of a large foreign union with 10,000 or 12,000 or perhaps many more members, and a small union under Irish control with only 800 members. If the Seanad had rejected the principle of Section 26 (2) the position would have been that the small Irish union would have had to go out of business; it would be extinguished, and the sole right to organise would be entrusted to a union with headquarters not in this country. It is different when we are dealing, not with organisations which have their headquarters outside, but which have their headquarters here and are fully under our control.

In the examples the Senator has given, we have the perfect justification for the Bill. Bearing in mind that the rights of the members of the smaller union are fully safeguarded and the rights of the officials are safeguarded and that the tribunal has come to the conclusion that it is in the public interest that the sole right to recruit should be given to the larger union, then we have the case for the tribunal fully established, because inevitably the smaller union will seek amalgamation and we shall have that element of inter-union rivahy removed from our industrial life.

But that is not the only sort of case that may arise. We may have two equally powerful unions competing and the tribunal may decide, because of the strength of the unions, that the only way in which a source of disturbance in our industrial system can be dealt with is to reserve the right to one of these unions to organise the workers in a particular class and leave the other union to organise the workers in another class. At the end of five years, if this arrangement is found to be satisfactory to the two unions, no harm is done, and they will perhaps each apply to the tribunal for a renewal of the particular determination given in their favour and the position will continue. If the arrangement is found not to be satisfactory, if elements in one or other of the unions are dissatisfied with the policy that union has pursued in relation to a particular class, if they think it has not been active enough or vigilant enough in safeguarding their interests, it is quite open to them to approach the representatives of the other union and to ask the other union to come forward at the end of five years and seek a review of the determination at the hands of the tribunal. Again, I presume the tribunal will consider all these matters and this time will, perhaps, be fortified by evidence from the members of one or other of the unions to the effect that this determination has been beneficial, or, on the contrary, has been disadvantageous to the workers concerned. With this new evidence and taking all the circumstances of the case into account, the tribunal can then decide either not to renew the determination, or to renew it, if it thinks it is in the public interest to do so.

It has been suggested elsewhere that by reason of the fact that we are establishing this tribunal, it will not be possible to organise workers hitherto unorganised. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent any existing trade union —and surely we have enough of them in the country, if I may say so— going out to organise workers who hitherto have been unorganised. It has been suggested that agricultural labourers, perhaps, would never be organised, because in the past it has been found difficult to organise them, or that domestic servants will never be organised, because in the past it has not been found possible to organise them. I assume that if the difficulties which hitherto have prevented the organisation of these classes of workers, are patently removed, or removed to the satisfaction of existing organisations, the existing organisations will make an attempt to organise the workers of these classes, so that I cannot see that the tribunal is going to prevent the organisation of classes hitherto unorganised. It may be done either through existing unions or it may be done if some genius, some person with unique organising ability who is able to overcome the difficulties which have baffled everyone in the past, comes along.

It has also been suggested that if such a person does come along, he will not be able to put down £1,000 or £2,000, but if the members of the existing trade union movement are satisfied that the unorganised workers can be organised, and that there is a person with unique qualities which will enable him to do it, I am perfectly certain that the existing trade union movement will not be slow in providing the necessary funds to enable this new union to make a deposit and to do what has been previously attempted and has not been achieved.

May I go back for a moment to the other amendment? I wanted to get that information from the Minister, because it appeared to me, and the Minister has now confirmed it, that where there is a big union and a small union, and where the big union gets a determination that it alone can organise workers, that position is copper-fastened and permanent. The small union amalgamates, or goes out of existence. If that is the case, it appears to me to be the best argument against Senator O'Connell's amendment, and the best argument for leaving the sub-section about which we had all the nationalistic talk in the section. If the position is that an Irish union could never be formed in that industry, then I think that is the best argument there could possibly be for what the Minister is doing.

The difficulties in the way of the formation of an Irish union would certainly be very much increased.

They would be enormously increased. The position, therefore, is that while the big unions may survive by dividing up the workers between them, where there is a big union and a small union and the big union gets a determination, the small union goes.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 35.
Question proposed: "That Section 35 stand part of the Bill".

With regard to the two amendments to this section, in the name of Senator Douglas, the Senator made his arrangements on the basis of a late meeting and then had to change his arrangements at the last moment. Perhaps these amendments could be left over for Report Stage.

Agreed.

I think the Minister is rather too drastic in paragraph (b) (i) because it leaves no room at all for reparation and forgiveness. A person may be expelled—and I have experience of it—for a breach of the rules and may afterwards repent, express regret and ask to come back, but if this paragraph stands, the union could not take him back. I think that is a weakness in the section.

There certainly seems to be an error in drafting. That was not the intention.

Does the Minister agree that that is the position?

I am afraid it would be.

Perhaps the Minister will look into it before the next stage?

I shall. The question is, who would take action under it?

If a union is satisfied that a man has made his peace with it, and is prepared to take him back, it should not be prevented from doing so.

I shall look into the point.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 36 and 37 agreed to.
SECTION 38.
Question proposed: "That Section 38 stand part of the Bill."

What is the prescribed fee referred to in the first paragraph?

It is a fee which will be prescribed by the Minister under the regulations to be made by him, and which must accompany the application.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 39.
(3) Where the tribunal or an appeal board awards any costs under this section, the tribunal or such appeal board (as the case may be) may themselves tax the amount of the costs or may direct in what manner they are to be fixed.

I move amendment No. 21.

In sub-section (3), page 16, to delete in line 58 the word "fixed" and substitute the word "taxed."

This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 39, as amended, agreed to.
Section 40 agreed to.
Schedule and Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 20th August.
The Seanad adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 20th August.
Top
Share